title: Intensive development of New Zealand’s indigenous grasslands: Rates of change, assessments of vulnerability and priorities for protection

authors: Weeks, Emily Sherra

subjects: conservation planning

abstract: Research was undertaken in the indigenous tussock grasslands of South Island of New Zealand in order to quantify past rates of conversion to agricultural land use and to develop vulnerability models to predict future conversion spatially and temporally. The study area was delineated using the median spectral reflectance of indigenous grasslands and included the largest extent of unprotected contiguous grasslands concentrated in the central South Island. Conversion from indigenous grasslands to a non-indigenous cover was quantified by comparative mapping over three intervals (1840-1990, 1990-2001, and 2001-2008). The basic premise in using satellite imagery to detect changes in land-use/cover is that these are revealed by changes in spectral signature. However, New Zealand’s indigenous and non-indigenous grasslands have overlapping spectral trajectories and high inter-annual variability, therefore contextual information was needed in order accurately map conversion from indigenous grassland cover to exotic pasture.

Within the study area around the time of European settlement (1840) there were approximately 3.3 million hectares of indigenous grasslands. Between 1840 and 1990 around 1 million hectares of indigenous grasslands were converted to a non-indigenous cover. The extent of conversion during the preceding time period (1990-2008) was approximately 71,261 ha, of which 72% was converted to pasture and cropland and the remaining 28% to mining, urban settlements and exotic forestry. Although the overall rate of grassland conversion decreased relative to the period of European settlement and 1990, the proportion of remaining indigenous grasslands converted each year increased. Almost two-thirds of post-1990 conversion has occurred in environments with less than 30% indigenous cover remaining, and much is in land classified as non-arable with moderate to extreme limitations to crop, pasture and forestry growth. 

To assess the relative vulnerability of remaining areas of indigenous grassland to intensive land use (mainly intensive pasture production but also exotic conifer plantations, urban use and mining), spatial predictions using Generalized Additive Models (GAMs) were used to establish relationships between two different types of dependent (response) variables (presence or absence of conversion) and potential environmental and proxy socio-economic explanatory variables. The chosen predictors for the final model were used to map conversion probabilities in geographic space. The selected GAMs showed the mean probability of conversion in remaining indigenous grasslands was 0.15 and the mean area of conversion was 116 ha. Habitat that was most vulnerable to conversion was at moderate elevations and on medium slopes, and had previously been classified as being of low suitability for production. 

To interpret the regression models, plots of the partial response curves resulting from the model, and overall contributions of variables to the model, were used. The most important explanatory variables for predicting the probability of conversion in order of ‘alone contribution (the potential for each variable alone to explain conversion) was slope, rainfall, land tenure, distance to roads, proximity to existing agricultural, regional council, and mean annual temperature. Interpretation of the GAMs showed that conversion was negatively related to: slope, rainfall and distance roads; positively related to mean annual temperature; higher in the Otago and Canterbury regions and on privately owned or recently privatized lands, and peaked at intermediate proximity to roads. 

The prediction of the probability of conversion model was cross-validated both spatially and temporally. Temporal cross-validation compared predicted probabilities of conversion against reference maps of observed ‘current’ conversion. Spatial cross-validation evaluated model discrimination between ‘converted’ and ‘not converted’. Temporal and spatial performance was measured using the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC), a graphical plot of the true positive rate (sensitivity) as a function of the false positive (1-specificity) for different probability thresholds. For temporal cross-validation there was high correlation between ‘predicted’ and ‘observed’ (ROC = 0.913), and for spatial validation the relationship between the fitted and observed was also high (ROC= 0.921), indicating there was good discrimination between ‘converted’ and ‘not converted’. 

Integrating validated estimates of the probability of conversion (vulnerability) into conservation planning tools is an important component of conservation planning. Comparison of conservation prioritisation outputs with validated estimates of vulnerability of New Zealand’s indigenous grasslands showed variable effectiveness of vulnerability surrogates; one surrogate performed most poorly where vulnerability of grasslands to conversion was greatest and realized probability of protection was lowest. Furthermore, estimates of vulnerability using surrogates underestimated vulnerability on flat land that was closer to roads and overestimated areas on steeper land that was topographically invulnerable to conversion.  

There is an increased disparity between patterns of protection and patterns of conversion indicating that existing conservation planning tools are not effectively targeting the most vulnerable areas of remaining indigenous grasslands. An up-to-date validated vulnerability assessment offered a practical and a responsive technical bridge for the gap between science and implementation. This approach can be applied more widely to provide national models of vulnerability from representative samples of conversion.

text: Intensive development of New Zealand’s indigenous grasslands: Rates of change, assessments of vulnerability and priorities for protection Research was undertaken in the indigenous tussock grasslands of South Island of New Zealand in order to quantify past rates of conversion to agricultural land use and to develop vulnerability models to predict future conversion spatially and temporally. The study area was delineated using the median spectral reflectance of indigenous grasslands and included the largest extent of unprotected contiguous grasslands concentrated in the central South Island. Conversion from indigenous grasslands to a non-indigenous cover was quantified by comparative mapping over three intervals (1840-1990, 1990-2001, and 2001-2008). The basic premise in using satellite imagery to detect changes in land-use/cover is that these are revealed by changes in spectral signature. However, New Zealand’s indigenous and non-indigenous grasslands have overlapping spectral trajectories and high inter-annual variability, therefore contextual information was needed in order accurately map conversion from indigenous grassland cover to exotic pasture.

Within the study area around the time of European settlement (1840) there were approximately 3.3 million hectares of indigenous grasslands. Between 1840 and 1990 around 1 million hectares of indigenous grasslands were converted to a non-indigenous cover. The extent of conversion during the preceding time period (1990-2008) was approximately 71,261 ha, of which 72% was converted to pasture and cropland and the remaining 28% to mining, urban settlements and exotic forestry. Although the overall rate of grassland conversion decreased relative to the period of European settlement and 1990, the proportion of remaining indigenous grasslands converted each year increased. Almost two-thirds of post-1990 conversion has occurred in environments with less than 30% indigenous cover remaining, and much is in land classified as non-arable with moderate to extreme limitations to crop, pasture and forestry growth. 

To assess the relative vulnerability of remaining areas of indigenous grassland to intensive land use (mainly intensive pasture production but also exotic conifer plantations, urban use and mining), spatial predictions using Generalized Additive Models (GAMs) were used to establish relationships between two different types of dependent (response) variables (presence or absence of conversion) and potential environmental and proxy socio-economic explanatory variables. The chosen predictors for the final model were used to map conversion probabilities in geographic space. The selected GAMs showed the mean probability of conversion in remaining indigenous grasslands was 0.15 and the mean area of conversion was 116 ha. Habitat that was most vulnerable to conversion was at moderate elevations and on medium slopes, and had previously been classified as being of low suitability for production. 

To interpret the regression models, plots of the partial response curves resulting from the model, and overall contributions of variables to the model, were used. The most important explanatory variables for predicting the probability of conversion in order of ‘alone contribution (the potential for each variable alone to explain conversion) was slope, rainfall, land tenure, distance to roads, proximity to existing agricultural, regional council, and mean annual temperature. Interpretation of the GAMs showed that conversion was negatively related to: slope, rainfall and distance roads; positively related to mean annual temperature; higher in the Otago and Canterbury regions and on privately owned or recently privatized lands, and peaked at intermediate proximity to roads. 

The prediction of the probability of conversion model was cross-validated both spatially and temporally. Temporal cross-validation compared predicted probabilities of conversion against reference maps of observed ‘current’ conversion. Spatial cross-validation evaluated model discrimination between ‘converted’ and ‘not converted’. Temporal and spatial performance was measured using the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC), a graphical plot of the true positive rate (sensitivity) as a function of the false positive (1-specificity) for different probability thresholds. For temporal cross-validation there was high correlation between ‘predicted’ and ‘observed’ (ROC = 0.913), and for spatial validation the relationship between the fitted and observed was also high (ROC= 0.921), indicating there was good discrimination between ‘converted’ and ‘not converted’. 

Integrating validated estimates of the probability of conversion (vulnerability) into conservation planning tools is an important component of conservation planning. Comparison of conservation prioritisation outputs with validated estimates of vulnerability of New Zealand’s indigenous grasslands showed variable effectiveness of vulnerability surrogates; one surrogate performed most poorly where vulnerability of grasslands to conversion was greatest and realized probability of protection was lowest. Furthermore, estimates of vulnerability using surrogates underestimated vulnerability on flat land that was closer to roads and overestimated areas on steeper land that was topographically invulnerable to conversion.  

There is an increased disparity between patterns of protection and patterns of conversion indicating that existing conservation planning tools are not effectively targeting the most vulnerable areas of remaining indigenous grasslands. An up-to-date validated vulnerability assessment offered a practical and a responsive technical bridge for the gap between science and implementation. This approach can be applied more widely to provide national models of vulnerability from representative samples of conversion.

year: 2012

title: Recording and Tracking Design Decisions in Interactive System Development

authors: Yang, Wanying

subjects: Interactive system design

abstract: Experience economy is prompting the innovation of traditional product design. The design concept - "user-centered design" has received wide recognition. In the face of many professional or non-professional users, the priority of interaction design is to ensure the usability of the interactive product, and then a good user experience of the product. The user interface is an intermediary between human and computer. Users exchange information with the computer via the user interface. The user interface is an important part of a computer system. It is a big part of the software development. The quality of the user interface directly affects the performance of the software. For most users, the user interface is all they know from a product. So for these users, a program with a good interior design but a bad user interface design is a bad program. 
	In this project we investigate different ways of recording design decisions in interactive system development which may allow us to think of the different variants and alternatives that are possible (within a design space) in some formal notation, which then allows us to either reason about their suitability or record the decisions made to understand the impact of decisions and how well they support the given criteria. The goal of this project will involve finding out what the influences are which help drive the design process; considering the effects of individual vs. team design; deciding how and when decisions occur; thinking about useful ways to record decisions and their influences; and investigating the usefulness of the approach through the working examples identified as case studies

text: Recording and Tracking Design Decisions in Interactive System Development Experience economy is prompting the innovation of traditional product design. The design concept - "user-centered design" has received wide recognition. In the face of many professional or non-professional users, the priority of interaction design is to ensure the usability of the interactive product, and then a good user experience of the product. The user interface is an intermediary between human and computer. Users exchange information with the computer via the user interface. The user interface is an important part of a computer system. It is a big part of the software development. The quality of the user interface directly affects the performance of the software. For most users, the user interface is all they know from a product. So for these users, a program with a good interior design but a bad user interface design is a bad program. 
	In this project we investigate different ways of recording design decisions in interactive system development which may allow us to think of the different variants and alternatives that are possible (within a design space) in some formal notation, which then allows us to either reason about their suitability or record the decisions made to understand the impact of decisions and how well they support the given criteria. The goal of this project will involve finding out what the influences are which help drive the design process; considering the effects of individual vs. team design; deciding how and when decisions occur; thinking about useful ways to record decisions and their influences; and investigating the usefulness of the approach through the working examples identified as case studies

year: 2016

title: Te Kōpura

authors: Maxwell, Te Kahautu

abstract: He Hōnore, he korōria, he maungārongo ki runga ki te whenua, he whakaaro pai ki ngā tānagata katoa.


Ko te tāhu o tēnei tuhituhinga he titiro ki Te Hāhi Ringatū i runga o Whitianga marae. E rua noa iho ngā Rā Ringatū ka tū ki runga i tēnei marae, arā, ko Te Huamata, hei te tahi o Hune tēnā me Te Pure, hei te tahi o Nōema tēnā. I roto i te tuhituhingaroa nei ka titiro he aha I tae atu ai wēnei tikanga ki tēnei o ngā marae. Ka whakatakoto haere, i pēhea hoki ngā whakahaeretanga i te wā o ngā pakeke. Kātahi ka titiro ki ngā whakarerekētanga ki ngā tikanga i roto i te wā, ā, he aha i pērā ai. 
Kua tata ki te toru tekau tau mai i te whakakoretanga o Te Māratapu a Te Ringatū i roto i wāna whakahaerenga i Te Huamata me Te Pure. Ko tērā tūāhuatanga o Te Ringatū e kore nei e kitea e tēnei reanga tangata.
Tokoiti noa nei, me kī, ngā mōrehu o tērā whakatipuranga pakeke i kitea wērā tūāhuatanga e ora tonu ana. Nō reira i toko ake te whakaaro ki te rangahau, ki te kohikohi hoki i ngā kōrero i te hunga i rongo, i kite, i tipu ake hoki i roto i tērā Ao. He pekanga nui o te tuhinga nei kua titiro ki Te Huamata me Te Pure me wōna tapu, me wōna whakahaerenga ki runga o te marae o Whitianga.
Ki te whakawhāriki i ngā kōrero nei mō Te Ringatū ki runga o Whitianga kua tātaritia kia waru ngā pekanga o te tuhinga kia mārama ai ki te karu pānui i ngā kōrero; i pēhea tae atu ai Te Ringatū ki runga o Whitianga, i pēhea tāna kawe i ngā tikanga, ā, he aha i whakarerekēngia ai tāna kawe i Te Huamata me Te Pure i roto I te wā.

Tuatahi: Ki te kōrero mō Te Ringatū me hoki ki te tīmata maitanga o Te Ringatū. Ka tirohia, nā wai i tīmata, ā, he aha i tīmataria ai, me te whakaatu i wētahi āhuatanga i pā ki tōna Poropiti me wāna pononga i te tīmatatanga rā anō o Te Ringatū.

Tuarua: Ko te whai haere tēnei i ngā takahanga waewae o ngā tīpuna o Te Whānau-a-Apanui, ki te whai i Te Ringatū. Ka titiro he aha te take i huri ai a Te Whānau-a-Apanui ki ngā tikanga o Te Ringatū. Ka titiro anō hoki ki te taenga atu o Te Kooti me tana iwi Ringatū ki roto o Te Whānau-a-Apanui me wāna mahi ki a rātou i reira.

Tuatoru: Ka whakaatu i konei, he aha te take ko wātahi marae tokoiti noa iho o Te Whānau-a-Apanui ka noho hei marae Ringatū, mai i te taenga atu o Te Ringatū, aā, tae noa ki tēnei rā.
Tuawhā: I konei ka tae ki te pūtake o te tuhinga. Ka titiro i konei ki te taenga o ngā whakahaere Ringatū, arā, Te Huamata me Te Pure ki runga i te marae o Whitianga. Ka whakaatu i konei, he aha i tae atu ai wēnei tikanga ki tērā marae. Ka kite anē hoki he aha i karangatia ko Whitianga te marae pou mō Te Ringatū ki roto o Te Whānau-a-Apanui.
Tuarima: Ka tiro haeretia i konei ngā tikanga e pā ana ki Te Huamata me wōna whakahaere I ngā. tapu katoa e pā ana ki Te Huamata. Ka whakarārangitia ko ngā karakia me wōna kaupapa katoa kia kite ai te kaipānui i te hōhonutanga o tēnei tikanga a Te Ringatū. I konei ka kite anō hoki te kaipānui i ngā kōrero a ngā pakeke, nāna nei i kite, i tipu ake i roto i tērā tikanga.
Tuaono: Ka titiro i konei ko ngā whakahaere a Te Ringatū i tēnei tikanga, arā, Te Pure. Pērā anō ki te tipuranga tuarima, ka whakarārangitia ai ko ngā karakia me wōna kaupapa katoa kia kite ai te kaipānui i te tikanga o Te Pure, ā, he aha i pērā rawa ai te kaha whakapono o ngā pakeke ki tēnei tūāhuatanga, ko Te Pure.
Tuawhitu: I konei ka titiro ki a Paora Delamere me te take i whakarerekēngia ai e ia ngā tikanga tapu o Te Huamata me Te Pure. Ka titiro anō hoki ki wētahi āhuatanga hou i tīmataria ai e ia i waenganui i Te Ringatū whanui huri i Aotearoa.
Tuawaru: Ka tuituia ngā pekanga katoa ki te whakamārama i ngā kōrero kia eke katoa ki runga i te tāhūhū o te kōrero. Ka kitea te take i tīmataria ai Te Ringatu, arā ngā kairiri a Māori ki a tauiwi. Ā, pērā anō te take i huri ai a Te Whānau-a-Apanui ki ngā tikanga a Te Ringatū. Koira i hanake hoki ai ngā pakeke ki Ōtewa ki te pōhiri i a Te Kooti ki te rohe o Te Whānau-a-Apanui, nā te rauwhaitanga o te patu i ngā papatipu. Ko te hokitanga ki te haumoana o Te Whānau-a-Apanui, ko te hokinga anō hoki o Te Māratapu o Te Huamata, o Te Pure ki reira toka atu ai. Ka haere te wā, ā, nāwai rā ka poua wēnei tikanga a Te Ringatū ki Te Māratapu ki runga o Whitianga, ana, i tipu ake he tipu hou, he oranga hou, ā, he tikanga hou i te huringa o te wā.
Katoa wēnei kōrero hei whakaatu i te āhua o te taenga o Te Huamata me Te Pure ki runga o Whitianga marae, mai i te kunenga ake o te whakaaro ki te whai I wēnei tikanga, ā, tae noa ki te whakatinanatanga e haere ake nei, e haere ake. He rautau kua taha, he raurau tau e haere mai nei.

text: Te Kōpura He Hōnore, he korōria, he maungārongo ki runga ki te whenua, he whakaaro pai ki ngā tānagata katoa.


Ko te tāhu o tēnei tuhituhinga he titiro ki Te Hāhi Ringatū i runga o Whitianga marae. E rua noa iho ngā Rā Ringatū ka tū ki runga i tēnei marae, arā, ko Te Huamata, hei te tahi o Hune tēnā me Te Pure, hei te tahi o Nōema tēnā. I roto i te tuhituhingaroa nei ka titiro he aha I tae atu ai wēnei tikanga ki tēnei o ngā marae. Ka whakatakoto haere, i pēhea hoki ngā whakahaeretanga i te wā o ngā pakeke. Kātahi ka titiro ki ngā whakarerekētanga ki ngā tikanga i roto i te wā, ā, he aha i pērā ai. 
Kua tata ki te toru tekau tau mai i te whakakoretanga o Te Māratapu a Te Ringatū i roto i wāna whakahaerenga i Te Huamata me Te Pure. Ko tērā tūāhuatanga o Te Ringatū e kore nei e kitea e tēnei reanga tangata.
Tokoiti noa nei, me kī, ngā mōrehu o tērā whakatipuranga pakeke i kitea wērā tūāhuatanga e ora tonu ana. Nō reira i toko ake te whakaaro ki te rangahau, ki te kohikohi hoki i ngā kōrero i te hunga i rongo, i kite, i tipu ake hoki i roto i tērā Ao. He pekanga nui o te tuhinga nei kua titiro ki Te Huamata me Te Pure me wōna tapu, me wōna whakahaerenga ki runga o te marae o Whitianga.
Ki te whakawhāriki i ngā kōrero nei mō Te Ringatū ki runga o Whitianga kua tātaritia kia waru ngā pekanga o te tuhinga kia mārama ai ki te karu pānui i ngā kōrero; i pēhea tae atu ai Te Ringatū ki runga o Whitianga, i pēhea tāna kawe i ngā tikanga, ā, he aha i whakarerekēngia ai tāna kawe i Te Huamata me Te Pure i roto I te wā.

Tuatahi: Ki te kōrero mō Te Ringatū me hoki ki te tīmata maitanga o Te Ringatū. Ka tirohia, nā wai i tīmata, ā, he aha i tīmataria ai, me te whakaatu i wētahi āhuatanga i pā ki tōna Poropiti me wāna pononga i te tīmatatanga rā anō o Te Ringatū.

Tuarua: Ko te whai haere tēnei i ngā takahanga waewae o ngā tīpuna o Te Whānau-a-Apanui, ki te whai i Te Ringatū. Ka titiro he aha te take i huri ai a Te Whānau-a-Apanui ki ngā tikanga o Te Ringatū. Ka titiro anō hoki ki te taenga atu o Te Kooti me tana iwi Ringatū ki roto o Te Whānau-a-Apanui me wāna mahi ki a rātou i reira.

Tuatoru: Ka whakaatu i konei, he aha te take ko wātahi marae tokoiti noa iho o Te Whānau-a-Apanui ka noho hei marae Ringatū, mai i te taenga atu o Te Ringatū, aā, tae noa ki tēnei rā.
Tuawhā: I konei ka tae ki te pūtake o te tuhinga. Ka titiro i konei ki te taenga o ngā whakahaere Ringatū, arā, Te Huamata me Te Pure ki runga i te marae o Whitianga. Ka whakaatu i konei, he aha i tae atu ai wēnei tikanga ki tērā marae. Ka kite anē hoki he aha i karangatia ko Whitianga te marae pou mō Te Ringatū ki roto o Te Whānau-a-Apanui.
Tuarima: Ka tiro haeretia i konei ngā tikanga e pā ana ki Te Huamata me wōna whakahaere I ngā. tapu katoa e pā ana ki Te Huamata. Ka whakarārangitia ko ngā karakia me wōna kaupapa katoa kia kite ai te kaipānui i te hōhonutanga o tēnei tikanga a Te Ringatū. I konei ka kite anō hoki te kaipānui i ngā kōrero a ngā pakeke, nāna nei i kite, i tipu ake i roto i tērā tikanga.
Tuaono: Ka titiro i konei ko ngā whakahaere a Te Ringatū i tēnei tikanga, arā, Te Pure. Pērā anō ki te tipuranga tuarima, ka whakarārangitia ai ko ngā karakia me wōna kaupapa katoa kia kite ai te kaipānui i te tikanga o Te Pure, ā, he aha i pērā rawa ai te kaha whakapono o ngā pakeke ki tēnei tūāhuatanga, ko Te Pure.
Tuawhitu: I konei ka titiro ki a Paora Delamere me te take i whakarerekēngia ai e ia ngā tikanga tapu o Te Huamata me Te Pure. Ka titiro anō hoki ki wētahi āhuatanga hou i tīmataria ai e ia i waenganui i Te Ringatū whanui huri i Aotearoa.
Tuawaru: Ka tuituia ngā pekanga katoa ki te whakamārama i ngā kōrero kia eke katoa ki runga i te tāhūhū o te kōrero. Ka kitea te take i tīmataria ai Te Ringatu, arā ngā kairiri a Māori ki a tauiwi. Ā, pērā anō te take i huri ai a Te Whānau-a-Apanui ki ngā tikanga a Te Ringatū. Koira i hanake hoki ai ngā pakeke ki Ōtewa ki te pōhiri i a Te Kooti ki te rohe o Te Whānau-a-Apanui, nā te rauwhaitanga o te patu i ngā papatipu. Ko te hokitanga ki te haumoana o Te Whānau-a-Apanui, ko te hokinga anō hoki o Te Māratapu o Te Huamata, o Te Pure ki reira toka atu ai. Ka haere te wā, ā, nāwai rā ka poua wēnei tikanga a Te Ringatū ki Te Māratapu ki runga o Whitianga, ana, i tipu ake he tipu hou, he oranga hou, ā, he tikanga hou i te huringa o te wā.
Katoa wēnei kōrero hei whakaatu i te āhua o te taenga o Te Huamata me Te Pure ki runga o Whitianga marae, mai i te kunenga ake o te whakaaro ki te whai I wēnei tikanga, ā, tae noa ki te whakatinanatanga e haere ake nei, e haere ake. He rautau kua taha, he raurau tau e haere mai nei.

year: 1998