representativeness

Benefits of invasive species management for terrestrial biodiversity are widely expected and promoted in New Zealand. Evidence for this is presented in policy and scientific reviews of the literature, but the robustness and repeatability of the underpinning evidence-base remains poorly understood. We evaluated the design of field-based studies assessing biodiversity responses to invasive species management in 155 peer-reviewed articles published in 46 journals from 2010–2019.

The assessment of ecological significance is a key part of a territorial local authority’s (TLA) responsibility to provide for the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna as required under Section 6(c) of the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991. While a number of methods have been used to achieve this, these have been largely unpublished and there is considerable variability in the approach taken by different TLAs.

In New Zealand, assessment of ‘significance’ is undertaken to give effect to a legal requirement for local authorities to provide for protection of significant sites under the Resource Management Act (1991). The ambiguity of the statute enables different interests to define significance according to their goals: vested interests (developers), local authorities, and non-vested interests in pursuit of protection of environmental public goods may advance different definitions. We examine two sets of criteria used for assessment of significance for biological diversity under the Act.