Ecosystem and Species Ranking
Summary
- There are 7 posts — by 5 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Dan Randow at 2009 Dec 01 18:06 NZDT
One of the projects mooted at the Wellington workshop was the integration of ecosystem and species ranking into biodata systems. A summary of the rationale and plan for the project is below. One of the stimuli for this was the presentation given at the workshop http://dataversity.org.nz/r/file/2710-2009-03-26T233620Z (PDF, 2022KB) by Yanbin Deng http://dataversity.org.nz/p/2KEEfX3We3WQwaukyNmf2J and Ryan Clark http://dataversity.org.nz/p/1L7j8Y3lbIdCBubOra0mBh of the Environment Waikato Biodiversity project team. As per the actions below, Yanbin, Jim Fretwell, James Lambie, Shirley and Jerry, it would be great to get a brief report on your progress with the integration of prioritisation into data management systems. Dan . . . Integrate Ecosystem and Species Ranking into Biodata Systems Habitat and species ranking systems are useful for prioritisation of biodiversity management efforts, particularly when they are integrated into assessment and monitoring data systems. Environment Waikato, Environment Bay of Plenty, Horizons, the Department of Conservation and Landcare Research have all made progress in this area. An agreed approach, incorporating the work that has been done on prioritisation, could make it easy for local government organisations to improve their own prioritisation practices. This could also facilitate the integration of prioritisation into biodata management systems. 3.2.1 Actions For each of the following organisations, contribute a description of current progress with ranking and prioritisation, and the integration of these into data management systems, and seek feedback. - Environment Waikato — Yanbin Deng - Environment Bay of Plenty — Jim Fretwell - Horizons Regional Council — James Lambie - Department of Conservation — Shirley Vollweiler - Landcare Research — Jerry Cooper Review ranking and prioritisation processes and technologies nationally, and make a plan for progress towards adoption of a shared approach, and integration into biodata systems.
Hi All, Attached are two documents that describe the wetlands prioritisation process used by Horizons. The document by Jansen et al. describes the math behind the scoring system for wetlands rankings. There is actually a fault in the weightings making the thing add to > 100% - but you'll get the gist anyway, The document by Lambie re-describes the indicators more correctly and describes a shift to a categorisation system (away from ranking system) and why that shift is necessary. I avoided the math (which is a corrected version of what is in Jansen et al.) for public palatability. I am in the process of finishing a more technical document but it is still "in press" (i.e. it has been shoved to the bottom of my pile while I get on with more important stuff). The "biodiversity" score is subjective but is informed byin-situ and desk-top characterisation of habitat structural complexity and community complexity. There is also an element of devaluing this score on the basis of impacts. Restoration ecologists will spot a flaw in this, particularly for weed threats - once the threats have bee nremoved the biodiveristy score goes up, but the threats wont be removed because the site is lower in priority to a pristine site. For us, the whole purpose of the exercise is to find the best sites and keep them that way. There is insufficient cash to work on the impacted sites. Biodiversity is but one element and there are some very important but highly impacted wetlands that we are working on - e.g. Horowhenua and margins. The other aspects of priority come from size - the bigger the better philosphy, the contribution to current wetland extent, and representation of past wetland extent on a per LENZ basis. This tends to pull the score up for large and/or rare wetland types that a highly charateristic of their environmental domain - irrespective of quality and diversity. In my opinion it is best to avoid systems that rank species by threat status, rarity, endemism etc because I believe when conserving diversity, even the common species count. In Horizons region where we have kiwi but not weka, a scoring system (based on national rarity) that gives kiwi (say) - 10 points and weka (say) 8 points) is tripe. However, obviously, if you're trying to maintain total diversity, you need to make sure you're not loosing your rare or threatened species. This is the final element of the scoring system where the presence of species listed in the threat classification system pulls the wetland score up. By the way, not seeing a rare species at a site on any given day is not proof of absence, so I always express caution over using rare or threatened species as part of a scoring system. I run these scores and weightings in an excel spreadsheet and add new sites as they come to our notice. The new categorisation process is not prone to changes in rank as new wetlands are added. I don't keep the scores in EcoBase alongside the habitat and threat assessments - mainly because it is not necessary. It does mean I have to manually retain the correct wetland ID in both EcoBase and the spreadsheet. Not hard.
Regards, Jim. -----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of Dan Randow Sent: Thursday, 13 August 2009 8:01 p.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: [dataversity public discussion] Ecosystem and Species Ranking One of the projects mooted at the Wellington workshop was the integration of ecosystem and species ranking into biodata systems. A summary of the rationale and plan for the project is below. One of the stimuli for this was the presentation given at the workshop http://dataversity.org.nz/r/file/2710-2009-03-26T233620Z (PDF, 2022KB) by Yanbin Deng http://dataversity.org.nz/p/2KEEfX3We3WQwaukyNmf2J and Ryan Clark http://dataversity.org.nz/p/1L7j8Y3lbIdCBubOra0mBh of the Environment Waikato Biodiversity project team. As per the actions below, Yanbin, Jim Fretwell, James Lambie, Shirley and Jerry, it would be great to get a brief report on your progress with the integration of prioritisation into data management systems. Dan . . . Integrate Ecosystem and Species Ranking into Biodata Systems Habitat and species ranking systems are useful for prioritisation of biodiversity management efforts, particularly when they are integrated into assessment and monitoring data systems. Environment Waikato, Environment Bay of Plenty, Horizons, the Department of Conservation and Landcare Research have all made progress in this area. An agreed approach, incorporating the work that has been done on prioritisation, could make it easy for local government organisations to improve their own prioritisation practices. This could also facilitate the integration of prioritisation into biodata management systems. 3.2.1 Actions For each of the following organisations, contribute a description of current progress with ranking and prioritisation, and the integration of these into data management systems, and seek feedback. - Environment Waikato - Yanbin Deng - Environment Bay of Plenty - Jim Fretwell - Horizons Regional Council - James Lambie - Department of Conservation - Shirley Vollweiler - Landcare Research - Jerry Cooper Review ranking and prioritisation processes and technologies nationally, and make a plan for progress towards adoption of a shared approach, and integration into biodata systems. ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/375dVdrY67ASqzj5ztIJaG To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org
The following files were added to this topic:
Re terrestrial habitats and plant feeding invertebrates. A few years ago while testing method that lay people could use to assess biodiversity of terrestrial herbivores I developed an index that took into account the number of species found on selected plants compared to the total possible recognise on the target plants and the ability of those invertebrates to disperse. herbivores such as large moths scored 1, while flightless insects and mites scored 4. If anyone is interested I can supply more details. Regards Nicholas Martin >>> "James Lambie" <email obscured>> 14-Aug-09 3:29 p.m. >>> Hi All, Attached are two documents that describe the wetlands prioritisation process used by Horizons. The document by Jansen et al. describes the math behind the scoring system for wetlands rankings. There is actually a fault in the weightings making the thing add to > 100% - but you'll get the gist anyway, The document by Lambie re-describes the indicators more correctly and describes a shift to a categorisation system (away from ranking system) and why that shift is necessary. I avoided the math (which is a corrected version of what is in Jansen et al.) for public palatability. I am in the process of finishing a more technical document but it is still "in press" (i.e. it has been shoved to the bottom of my pile while I get on with more important stuff). The "biodiversity" score is subjective but is informed byin-situ and desk-top characterisation of habitat structural complexity and community complexity. There is also an element of devaluing this score on the basis of impacts. Restoration ecologists will spot a flaw in this, particularly for weed threats - once the threats have bee nremoved the biodiveristy score goes up, but the threats wont be removed because the site is lower in priority to a pristine site. For us, the whole purpose of the exercise is to find the best sites and keep them that way. There is insufficient cash to work on the impacted sites. Biodiversity is but one element and there are some very important but highly impacted wetlands that we are working on - e.g. Horowhenua and margins. The other aspects of priority come from size - the bigger the better philosphy, the contribution to current wetland extent, and representation of past wetland extent on a per LENZ basis. This tends to pull the score up for large and/or rare wetland types that a highly charateristic of their environmental domain - irrespective of quality and diversity. In my opinion it is best to avoid systems that rank species by threat status, rarity, endemism etc because I believe when conserving diversity, even the common species count. In Horizons region where we have kiwi but not weka, a scoring system (based on national rarity) that gives kiwi (say) - 10 points and weka (say) 8 points) is tripe. However, obviously, if you're trying to maintain total diversity, you need to make sure you're not loosing your rare or threatened species. This is the final element of the scoring system where the presence of species listed in the threat classification system pulls the wetland score up. By the way, not seeing a rare species at a site on any given day is not proof of absence, so I always express caution over using rare or threatened species as part of a scoring system. I run these scores and weightings in an excel spreadsheet and add new sites as they come to our notice. The new categorisation process is not prone to changes in rank as new wetlands are added. I don't keep the scores in EcoBase alongside the habitat and threat assessments - mainly because it is not necessary. It does mean I have to manually retain the correct wetland ID in both EcoBase and the spreadsheet. Not hard.
Regards, Jim. -----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of Dan Randow Sent: Thursday, 13 August 2009 8:01 p.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: [dataversity public discussion] Ecosystem and Species Ranking One of the projects mooted at the Wellington workshop was the integration of ecosystem and species ranking into biodata systems. A summary of the rationale and plan for the project is below. One of the stimuli for this was the presentation given at the workshop http://dataversity.org.nz/r/file/2710-2009-03-26T233620Z (PDF, 2022KB) by Yanbin Deng http://dataversity.org.nz/p/2KEEfX3We3WQwaukyNmf2J and Ryan Clark http://dataversity.org.nz/p/1L7j8Y3lbIdCBubOra0mBh of the Environment Waikato Biodiversity project team. As per the actions below, Yanbin, Jim Fretwell, James Lambie, Shirley and Jerry, it would be great to get a brief report on your progress with the integration of prioritisation into data management systems. Dan . . . Integrate Ecosystem and Species Ranking into Biodata Systems Habitat and species ranking systems are useful for prioritisation of biodiversity management efforts, particularly when they are integrated into assessment and monitoring data systems. Environment Waikato, Environment Bay of Plenty, Horizons, the Department of Conservation and Landcare Research have all made progress in this area. An agreed approach, incorporating the work that has been done on prioritisation, could make it easy for local government organisations to improve their own prioritisation practices. This could also facilitate the integration of prioritisation into biodata management systems. 3.2.1 Actions For each of the following organisations, contribute a description of current progress with ranking and prioritisation, and the integration of these into data management systems, and seek feedback. - Environment Waikato - Yanbin Deng - Environment Bay of Plenty - Jim Fretwell - Horizons Regional Council - James Lambie - Department of Conservation - Shirley Vollweiler - Landcare Research - Jerry Cooper Review ranking and prioritisation processes and technologies nationally, and make a plan for progress towards adoption of a shared approach, and integration into biodata systems. ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/375dVdrY67ASqzj5ztIJaG To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org Dataversity Public Discussion now contains the following files http://dataversity.org.nz/r/file/902285-2009-08-14T035630Z Name: Revised Horizons Region Wetland Inventory and Prioritisation.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 3789KB http://dataversity.org.nz/r/file/902286-2009-08-14T035637Z Name: Wetland Inventory and Prioritisation - Feb 05.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 321KB ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/4jAeB1sHaVbhqxl1rdRmP0 To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org On 1 December 2008 HortResearch merged with Crop & Food Research to create The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited. "The contents of this email are confidential and may be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disseminate, distribute or reproduce all or any part of this email or attachments. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete all material pertaining to this e-mail. Any opinion or views expressed in this email are those of the individual sender and may not represent those of The New Zealand Institute for Plant and Food Research Limited."
At the last national Dataversity workshop, participants agreed to work towards some kind of agreed approach, to ecosystem and species ranking, and the integration of prioritisation into biodata management systems. http://dataversity.org.nz/r/post/375dVdrY67ASqzj5ztIJaG The following raised their hands for participation in this. - Environment Waikato — Yanbin Deng - Environment Bay of Plenty — Jim Fretwell - Horizons Regional Council — James Lambie - Department of Conservation — Shirley Vollweiler - Landcare Research — Jerry Cooper The plan was for each of the above to contribute a description of current progress with ranking and prioritisation, and the integration of these into data management systems, and seek feedback. James Lambie provided a detailed report on the wetlands prioritisation process used by Horizons, http://dataversity.org.nz/r/post/4jAeB1sHaVbhqxl1rdRmP0 and Nicholas Martin mentioned an index for assessing biodiversity of terrestrial herbivores. http://dataversity.org.nz/r/post/7ecPFhOCoGhr5WCkEOj7FN As Charlotte and I talk with people about SNA systems, we are hearing more and more about prioritisation. Peter Anderson, for example, is reviewing ranking criteria for North Shore City Council. http://dataversity.org.nz/r/post/3uvNZNY6KWda5lpqN2q2e1 I have opened a page for Integrating Prioritisation into Data Systems in the system guide. http://dataversity.org.nz/guide/practices/prioritisation/ Yanbin, Jim Fretwell, Shirley, Jerry and anyone else who is working in this area, it would be great to get a brief report from you about this. Also, if you are interested in an audio-conference on this, please let me know.
Dan
In some ways ranking and prioritisation based on conventional criteria sends the wrong signal about the urgency of biodiversity protection in a country whose cultural landscape is more biodiversity-depleted than almost every other nation in the world. Ranking based on significance becomes a very costly and constantly litigated exercise - often only establishing the order in which sites are eliminated. It also is biased towards high quality 'sexy' habitats (like forests - I was going to say wetlands but we are still destroying them regardless of the pre-tinkered RMA era) when generally the greatest urgency from a representativeness perspective is habitats on the edge that are generally degraded and comprising plant communities dominated by grasses, shrubs, scattered trees or short marsh spp. A more reliable approach to conservation needs (and priorities) is a land area proportionality threshold based on empirical guestimates of minimum requirements for biodiversity. Below 10-20% of land area in some semi-natural habitat, biodiversity (especially sensitive spp) is known to decline exponentially (papers by Susan Walker). So a more rational and effective approach to deciding if land with natural values should be protected or allowed to be 'developed' would be, in the first instance, to determine if the total remaining natural area (broadly defined) in the district/region falls below say a 10% bottom line. If it does then no further losses should be permitted - simple as that. This would in effect mean that for most of our cultural landscapes further habitat loss would be stopped - period. Because we keep wrangling over the finer points of significance, for which there is no absolute, rome continues to burn! I have a model which describes this method graphically. It is very simple. If there is more than 10% remaining in a region then some loss may be considered based on conventional significance criteria; if there is less than that, then the 10% level provides a target for restoration and reconnection of the landscape. The only debate about this is the actual threshold. Some ecologists would argue it should be 20%! ... but 10 is perhaps more realistic and attainable in the medium term. This could simplify our lives immensely, but sadly for much of the country it is too late to apply the model because areas like the canterbury plains plummeted way below this (10%) level in the past couple of decades due to dairy conversion - that is, there is almost nothing left to which the concept might be applied. Cheers :-~ Colin meurk
-----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of <email obscured> Sent: Tuesday, 17 November 2009 4:54 p.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: [dataversity public discussion] Ecosystem and Species Ranking At the last national Dataversity workshop, participants agreed to work towards some kind of agreed approach, to ecosystem and species ranking, and the integration of prioritisation into biodata management systems. http://dataversity.org.nz/r/post/375dVdrY67ASqzj5ztIJaG The following raised their hands for participation in this. - Environment Waikato — Yanbin Deng - Environment Bay of Plenty — Jim Fretwell - Horizons Regional Council — James Lambie - Department of Conservation — Shirley Vollweiler - Landcare Research — Jerry Cooper The plan was for each of the above to contribute a description of current progress with ranking and prioritisation, and the integration of these into data management systems, and seek feedback. James Lambie provided a detailed report on the wetlands prioritisation process used by Horizons, http://dataversity.org.nz/r/post/4jAeB1sHaVbhqxl1rdRmP0 and Nicholas Martin mentioned an index for assessing biodiversity of terrestrial herbivores. http://dataversity.org.nz/r/post/7ecPFhOCoGhr5WCkEOj7FN As Charlotte and I talk with people about SNA systems, we are hearing more and more about prioritisation. Peter Anderson, for example, is reviewing ranking criteria for North Shore City Council. http://dataversity.org.nz/r/post/3uvNZNY6KWda5lpqN2q2e1 I have opened a page for Integrating Prioritisation into Data Systems in the system guide. http://dataversity.org.nz/guide/practices/prioritisation/ Yanbin, Jim Fretwell, Shirley, Jerry and anyone else who is working in this area, it would be great to get a brief report from you about this. Also, if you are interested in an audio-conference on this, please let me know. Dan ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/v5vN5xNRluxXMnYMgSzVz To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz
Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Ecosystem and Species Ranking I hesitate to contribute here; but consider the issue of biodata management has some distinction from biodiversity management decision-making. Ecological significance assessment that might include ranking of sites or areas and setting priorities for management of different biodiversity values within a variety of strategic contexts, has its own world of ecosystem resource management and planning discourse. It is an application of biodata management but is not in the same technical space. It requires framework-building and testing, and strategy development. It is resource management not data management. It is where data wonks meet policy wonks, often with mutual misunderstanding. So I caution those who believe they have the answer to a complex set of questions concerning evaluation of biodiversity resources, that might lead onwards to management decision-making, to tread carefully and respectfully into it. It is certainly competent to examine frameworks for biodata evaluation within dataversity as an interstitial inquiry, but with the knowledge that other arenas of knowledge are needed in doing so. For example, the discourse on SNAs has been live for 20 years or more by ecologists and resource managers and planners working together. My colleagues in Tasman will contribute our recent efforts to the forum in this management arena. A plural approach rather than a definitive approach may be prudent within dataversity. >Steve Markham >Manager Policy >Tasman District Council >Private Bag 4 >Richmond 7050 >New Zealand > >Phone (direct) 0 64 03 543 8427 >Fax 0 64 03 543 9524 Mobile 0 64 027 6009780
>E-mail <email obscured> > -----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of Colin Meurk Sent: Tuesday, 17 November 2009 5:35 p.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: Re: [dataversity public discussion] Ecosystem and Species Ranking In some ways ranking and prioritisation based on conventional criteria sends the wrong signal about the urgency of biodiversity protection in a country whose cultural landscape is more biodiversity-depleted than almost every other nation in the world. Ranking based on significance becomes a very costly and constantly litigated exercise - often only establishing the order in which sites are eliminated. It also is biased towards high quality 'sexy' habitats (like forests - I was going to say wetlands but we are still destroying them regardless of the pre-tinkered RMA era) when generally the greatest urgency from a representativeness perspective is habitats on the edge that are generally degraded and comprising plant communities dominated by grasses, shrubs, scattered trees or short marsh spp. A more reliable approach to conservation needs (and priorities) is a land area proportionality threshold based on empirical guestimates of minimum requirements for biodiversity. Below 10-20% of land area in some semi-natural habitat, biodiversity (especially sensitive spp) is known to decline exponentially (papers by Susan Walker). So a more rational and effective approach to deciding if land with natural values should be protected or allowed to be 'developed' would be, in the first instance, to determine if the total remaining natural area (broadly defined) in the district/region falls below say a 10% bottom line. If it does then no further losses should be permitted - simple as that. This would in effect mean that for most of our cultural landscapes further habitat loss would be stopped - period. Because we keep wrangling over the finer points of significance, for which there is no absolute, rome continues to burn! I have a model which describes this method graphically. It is very simple. If there is more than 10% remaining in a region then some loss may be considered based on conventional significance criteria; if there is less than that, then the 10% level provides a target for restoration and reconnection of the landscape. The only debate about this is the actual threshold. Some ecologists would argue it should be 20%! ... but 10 is perhaps more realistic and attainable in the medium term. This could simplify our lives immensely, but sadly for much of the country it is too late to apply the model because areas like the canterbury plains plummeted way below this (10%) level in the past couple of decades due to dairy conversion - that is, there is almost nothing left to which the concept might be applied. Cheers :-~ Colin meurk -----Original Message----- From: <email obscured> <email obscured>] On Behalf Of <email obscured> Sent: Tuesday, 17 November 2009 4:54 p.m. To: <email obscured> Subject: [dataversity public discussion] Ecosystem and Species Ranking At the last national Dataversity workshop, participants agreed to work towards some kind of agreed approach, to ecosystem and species ranking, and the integration of prioritisation into biodata management systems. http://dataversity.org.nz/r/post/375dVdrY67ASqzj5ztIJaG The following raised their hands for participation in this. - Environment Waikato - Yanbin Deng - Environment Bay of Plenty - Jim Fretwell - Horizons Regional Council - James Lambie - Department of Conservation - Shirley Vollweiler - Landcare Research - Jerry Cooper The plan was for each of the above to contribute a description of current progress with ranking and prioritisation, and the integration of these into data management systems, and seek feedback. James Lambie provided a detailed report on the wetlands prioritisation process used by Horizons, http://dataversity.org.nz/r/post/4jAeB1sHaVbhqxl1rdRmP0 and Nicholas Martin mentioned an index for assessing biodiversity of terrestrial herbivores. http://dataversity.org.nz/r/post/7ecPFhOCoGhr5WCkEOj7FN As Charlotte and I talk with people about SNA systems, we are hearing more and more about prioritisation. Peter Anderson, for example, is reviewing ranking criteria for North Shore City Council. http://dataversity.org.nz/r/post/3uvNZNY6KWda5lpqN2q2e1 I have opened a page for Integrating Prioritisation into Data Systems in the system guide. http://dataversity.org.nz/guide/practices/prioritisation/ Yanbin, Jim Fretwell, Shirley, Jerry and anyone else who is working in this area, it would be great to get a brief report from you about this. Also, if you are interested in an audio-conference on this, please let me know. Dan ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/v5vN5xNRluxXMnYMgSzVz To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org Please consider the environment before printing this email Warning: This electronic message together with any attachments is confidential. If you receive it in error: (i) you must not read, use, disclose, copy or retain it; (ii) please contact the sender immediately by reply email and then delete the emails. The views expressed in this email may not be those of Landcare Research New Zealand Limited. http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz ----------------------------------------- Full text of this topic in Dataversity Public Discussion: http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/5q1i5bspkmgMvJl1Wz2Vhy To leave Dataversity Public Discussion, email <email obscured>?Subject=unsubscribe Start your own free groups and site with OnlineGroups.Net http://onlinegroups.net Host your own online groups site with GroupServer http://groupserver.org This e-mail message and any attached files may contain confidential information, and may be subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete. Any views expressed in this message are not necessarily the official view of Tasman District Council. For more information about Tasman District Council, please visit our website at http://www.tasman.govt.nz
I agree with Steve http://dataversity.org.nz/r/post/6zOyWQUl4mnKQYS3EfVWOk that an understanding of the issues around significance assessment and management frameworks are relevant to biodata management. Both of those topics are, however complex and controversial. I believe the discussion in Dataversity http://dataversity.org.nz/r/topic/6zOyWQUl4mnKQYS3EfVWOk should be restricted to the _implications_ of significance assessment and management frameworks to data management. I suggest that good places for discussion about significance assessment in general include the New Zealand Ecological Society, http://dataversity.org.nz/guide/organisations/nzes/ and the Local Government Ecologists Network (LGEN). http://dataversity.org.nz/guide/organisations/lgen/ The latter is also a good place for discussing management frameworks and RMA issues, as is the Biodiversity Forum. http://dataversity.org.nz/guide/organisations/biodiversityforum/
cheers, Dan -- Dan Randow Dataversity Facilitator and Chief Wrangler OnlineGroups.Net +64-3-377-5377 +64-27-431-4928 409 Kenton Chmbrs, 190 Hereford St, Christchurch PO Box 739, Christchurch, 8140 Aotearoa (New Zealand) http://onlinegroups.net http://groupserver.org http://twitter.com/danrandow Skype: vonrandow
Loading…
Privacy | Acceptable Use | Terms of Service | About OnlineGroups.Net | Contact OnlineGroups.Net
Start an OnlineGroups.Net site for easier email collaboration in your organization.
Powered by GroupServer, the open source web-based mailing list manager.