Ranking NZ river values – application of the
River Values Assessment System (RiVAS)
Ken Hughey and Mary-Anne Baker
2010
1
Acknowledgements
A big thanks to:
• FRST, for funding the Envirolink Project
that led to development of this system;
• The multiple participants who have worked
together, and ‘separately’ on system
development.
2
The challenge
• Need a ‘prioritisation’ tool now, for multiple
statutory and non statutory purposes.
• A tool that works regionally but also has national
level application potential.
• A tool that will work with the best available
information.
• A tool that is user friendly.
• A tool that, when applied, provides defensible
(e.g., Environment Court) results.
3
The approach
• In late 2008 we established a project steering group.
• Initiated literature review. Some work, e.g., kayaking (but
20+ yrs ago); the Waters of National Importance project,
but of limited value.
• No one had developed a system to look objectively/
quantitatively or in a standardised, user friendly way across
a range of values.
• We developed a methodology, the River Values
Assessment System (RiVAS).
• RiVAS applied to range of values at selected councils …
4
The values tested
• Salmonids – Tasman: done; subsequently, Marlborough;
Hawkes Bay: in press
• Irrigation – Canterbury; Tasman: done
• Native Birdlife – Canterbury; Tasman: done
• Native fish – Wellington and Tasman: in progress
• Iwi – Southland: done
• Natural character – Marlborough; Tasman: done
• Swimming – Manawatu-Whanganui; Tasman: done
• Kayaking – West Coast; Tasman: done; subsequently, Hawkes
Bay: in press
• Hydro – Bay of Plenty; Tasman: in progress
5
The method – multi-criteria driven, standardised
numeric scale, and expert panel based approach
• Very few ‘values’ have full or up-to-date, comparable or
quantitative, data, either nationally or regionally – notable
exception is F&G NZ’s salmonid angling surveys.
• No contemporary data for some values, e.g., swimming or natural
character, while others are mixed, e.g., native birdlife.
• Used the best available information - filled the gaps with expert
judgement: there is no other way!
• Method built around key attributes of river values, populating
where possible with real data, and then converting this information
to numeric scales for ranking values = this is known as multi
criteria analysis.
• Ultimately this led to us using expert panels and best available
information as the cornerstones of the project.
6
Using the Best Available Information
• Mandated in Fisheries Act 1996 under the
Information Principles (S10)
• Supported by numerous Environment Court
decisions
• Bottom line: cannot wait forever for the
collection of perfect data so we use the Best
Available Information, in a precautionary way
• We are absolutely explicit about the data we
use – nothing is hidden
Why we use Expert panels
• The most appropriate people to find, populate and
interpret the Best Available Information are experts
in the various values
• Experts are also best placed for identifying the
attributes, indicators and importance thresholds of
the values
• The choice and credibility of experts is vital – a
credible panel tends to act cautiously because its
members, by definition, have to remain credible
• An independent facilitator can keep experts ‘honest’
• Independent peer reviewers are also an important
moderating influence
The method – operationalising
Assessment criteria
•
•
•
•
Step 1: define river value categories and river segments
Step 2: identify all of the value’s attributes – economic, social, environmental, cultural
Step 3: select and describe primary attributes – reduce to a list of <10
Step 4: identify indicators – choose objective over subjective wherever possible
Determining significance
•
•
•
•
•
Step 5: determine indicator thresholds – quantify these where possible and think nationally
Step 6: apply indicators and their thresholds – convert all to 1=low; 2=medium; 3= high
Step 7: weight the primary attributes – preferably equal weighting, but otherwise as needed
Step 8: determine river significance – sum total and determine overall importance, e.g., in
relation to water conservation order criteria
Step 9: outline other factors relevant to the assessment of significance
Method review
•
Step 10: review assessment process and identify future information needs, e.g., survey needs
9
So, what does the output look like at
the end of the day?
The following two applications – for native birdlife
and irrigation in Canterbury are examples
showing:
• the sorts of input data,
• the integrating system, and
• the final ranked outputs.
Demonstration 1: Birdlife - Canterbury
River
3
7412
4408
a,b,c,d,
e,f,g,h
3
14342
3896
a,b,c,d,
e,f,g,h
Waitaki Lower
3
Waitaki Upper
3
Avon
2
c.30
1500
Kaituna
1
c.10
200
a,b,d,f,
g,h
a,b,d,f,
g,h
Rakaia
3
4842
a,b,c,d,
e,f,g,h
6636
b,c,d,e,
f,g,h
8407
a,b,c,d,
e,f,g,h
32102
8104
30000
6. Range: 0-12, e.g., blue duck (BD), black stilt
(BS), wrybill (WB)
B-FT, B-BG,
BDo, WB,
BlSh
WB, B-FT,
BDo, B-BG,
CT, BlSh
B-FT(>5%);
B-BG; BDo
B-FT (>5%); BBG; WB (10%);
BDo
BlSh, B-BG,
R-BG
SCG, BlSh
WB, B-FT,
BDo, B-BG,
W-FT, CT,
BlSh
B-FT; B-BG; WB
(30%); Bdo, W-FT
B-FT, B-BG,
BDo, BlSh
BS, WB, BFT, BDo,
CT, BlSh
B-FT (8%); B-BG;
BDo
BS (100%); B-FT
(15%); B-BG; WB
(20%); BDo
Standard
1 or more > 5%, or 3 or more 1-4.9% = high = 3; 2
at 1-4.9% = medium = 2; 1 at 1-4.9% = low; None
>1% = 0
1=1; 2-3= 2; 4 or more = 3
1-4 = low = 1; 5-6= medium = 2; 7-8= high = 3
INDICATORS
1= <999 individuals; 2= 1000-4999 individuals; 3=
>5000 individuals
1=<4999ha and/or 5-10km; 2=5000-9999ha and/or
11-30km; 3= >10000ha and/or >30km
1= low; 2= medium; 3= high
5. Range: 0-12, e.g. blue duck (BD), black stilt
(BS), wrybill (WB)
2b. km for mainly single channel bird rivers
2a. ha for braided river birds
4. Ranges from 0-8, e.g., a= open-water divers; b=
deep water waders
Waimakariri
3. Number of native wetland birds
Waiau
1= Habitat or species widely represented in NZ; 2=
Habitat or species rarely represented in NZ; 3=
Habitat or species not represented in other regions
in NZ
Rank1
Sum Weights 1
6. Species
strongholds
5. Number of
'threatened or at
risk' species
4. Breeding
guilds
3. Numbers
2. Amount of
Habitat
1. Relative
distinctiveness
of habitat
6. Proportion of
'threatened or at
risk' populations
(Obj/Subj)
5. Number of
'threatened or at
risk' species
present (Obj)
4. Breeding
guilds (Obj)
3. Numbers
(Obj)
2. Amount of
Habitat (Obj)
1. Relative
distinctiveness
(Subj)
PRIMARY ATTRIBUTES
SCORING OF PRIMARY ATTRIBUTES
Overall evaluation of
importance
INDICATOR THRESHOLDS
DSS: If column 6,
population thresholds
(threatened spp >5%)
= 3; or total score is
15 or more = national
importance; if all
columns 1-5 are 2 or
less and column 6 is
0; or the total score
<10 = local;
otherwise regional
3
2
2
3
3
2
15
7
National
3
3
3
3
3
3
18
1
National
2
2
2
1
0
7
13
Local
1
1
2
1
1
6
17
Local
3
3
3
3
3
3
18
1
National
3
3
3
3
3
2
17
5
National
3
3
3
3
3
3
18
1
National
Demonstration 2: Irrigation – Canterbury
9. Alternative supply
10. Socio economic
benefit
1. Technical feasibility of
abstraction
2. Technical feasibility of
storage
3. Reliability (ROR)
4. Reliability (Storage)
5. Size of resource
6. Soil moisture deficit
7. Irrigable area
8. Receiving environment
9. Alternative supply
10. Socio economic
benefit
Aggregate
Bypass solution ranking from % (maps
from CSWS)
Ranking from 1 (low, Mackenzie)- 3
(Waipara) (high, Expert assessment)
3=3
3=3
>40% = 3, >20%=2,<20%=1
>3000=3, <100 = 1
>70 = 3,>5 = 2,
>1700 = 1,>1200 = 2
> 100,000 ha = 3, > 5000 ha = 2
Rank 5 = 1, 3 and 4 = 2, 1 and 2 = 3
> 60% = 1, > 30% = 2
Direct transfer (3 = 3)
Sum
3
3
3
3
2
29
81.5
National
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
28
80.5
National
Rangitata
2
2
42
3154
100
700
270000
2
30%
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
27
79.5
National
Waimakariri
2
2
32
3784
120
700
141000
3
20%
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
25
77
National
Waiau
3
3
39
347
11
700
270000
2
30%
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
26
60
Regional
Sth Ashburton
3
1
26
3059
97
900
54206
1
0
2
3
1
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
25
59
Regional
Hurunui
3
3
30
2302
73
600
63716
3
0
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
25
59
Regional
Orari
3
3
24
189
6
600
105012
4
10%
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
25
59
Regional
Nth Ashburton
3
3
27
315
10
600
105012
4
10%
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
25
59
Regional
Opihi
3
3
18
378
12
700
141000
3
10%
2
3
3
1
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
25
58.5
Regional
Opuha
3
2
28
347
11
600
105012
4
10%
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
2
24
58
Regional
Ashley
2
2
32
284
9
700
270000
2
10%
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
24
58
Regional
Clarence
3
1
26
2271
72
900
1653
1
0
3
3
1
2
2
3
3
1
3
3
3
24
52
Local
Hope
3
1
33
1419
45
1200
54206
1
0
1
3
1
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
1
22
38
Regional
Hakataramea
2
3
38
757
24
500
24000
4
0%
1
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
1
22
38
Regional
Ahuriri
3
1
18
189
6
500
8077
2
0%
1
3
1
1
2
2
3
2
3
3
1
21
36.5
Regional
Maerewhenua
3
2
13
126
4
600
41000
2
0%
2
3
2
1
2
1
3
2
3
3
2
22
31.5
Local
Pareora
3
3
23
95
3
700
5000
5
20%
2
3
3
2
1
1
3
2
1
3
2
21
31
Local
Waipara
3
2
4
95
3
600
60000
3
10%
3
3
2
1
1
1
3
2
2
3
3
21
30.5
Local
Selwyn
3
2
14
126
4
600
41000
3
0%
2
3
2
1
2
1
3
2
2
3
2
21
30.5
Local
Tengawai
3
1
22
95
3
500
74000
2
0%
1
3
1
2
1
1
3
2
3
3
1
20
30
Local
Waihao
3
1
9
126
4
600
41000
4
10%
2
3
1
1
2
1
3
2
2
3
2
20
29.5
Local
Avon
3
1
24
32
1
700
1000
3
20%
2
3
1
2
1
1
3
1
2
3
2
19
23
Local
Cust
3
1
14
158
5
700
1000
3
0
2
3
1
1
2
1
3
1
2
3
2
19
22.5
Local
Okuku
3
1
67
32
1
700
1000
5
100%
2
3
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
2
17
20.5
Local
Halswell
3
1
5
32
1
700
1000
5
80%
3
3
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
3
16
18.5
Local
Kaituna
3
1
72
63
2
700
0
5
0%
2
2
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
15
18.5
Local
11668
370
500
212596
National - irrigated area 3, size of
resource 3, soil moisture deficit 2 or
greater. Local - resource size = 1,
irrigated area = 1 or no soil moisture
deficit. Remainder regional
Irrigated area and size of resource
cubed, reliability soil moisture and
alternative supply +50%, remainder
aggregated. Weighting for irrigable
area and size of resource only applies
if Soil Moisture deficit is >1, otherwise
they receive a 50% weighting.
4. Reliability (Storage)
53
Expert ranking
8. Receiving environment
3
30%
Rank 1 - 5 with 1 being low risk and 5
being high risk (expert assessment)
3
2
7. Irrigable area
3
270000
Irrigable area
3
700
6. Soil moisture deficit
3
203
Rainfall average over irrigable area
2
6402
5. Size of resource
0%
43
Strategic Water study
2
3
Currently annual volume
3
2
3. Reliability (ROR)
3
Rakaia
MALF/ Mean 4% - 72%
Waitaki
1. Technical feasibility of
abstraction
2. Technical feasibility of
storage
Rivers
Expert ranking
Primary Attributes and indicators
Conversion to threshold values
Ranking ROR
weighted
Some of the lessons/questions to date
• Expert panel selection sometimes challenging –
ultimately, credibility extremely important and
willingness and ability to work within a
collaborative.
• People sometimes sceptical/hesitant until they have
worked through the process – ‘working through’
removes this concern, mostly.
• Need a preliminary scan to reduce the size of the
task, i.e., based on the best available information
remove rivers of no importance for this value.
15
Resource requirements
• A ‘champion’ needed within council, and probably an
external consultant to run the project(s);
• A credible multi stakeholder group must be established;
• For some values, e.g., tangata whenua, considerable time is
needed for consultation and resource gathering;
• Cost varies greatly – for first time national level
development of attributes etc then cost is greater than
subsequent regional level applications (for latter: estimate
of $3-6,000 per value application).
• Guidelines & reports available in the Hughey and Baker
(2011) LEAP report 24 published by Lincoln University.
16