• Share this page to Facebook
  • Share this page to Twitter
  • Share this page to Google+
Revisions to Environment Aotearoa 2015 and Environmental indicators Te taiao Aotearoa

 

Following the release of Environment Aotearoa 2015 and Environmental indicators Te taiao Aotearoa in October 2015, we have made some revisions to correct or clarify information in the report and indicators.

Please see the tables below for a list of Revisions to Environment Aotearoa 2015 and Revisions to Environmental indicators Te taiao Aotearoa.

Revisions to Environment Aotearoa 2015

Air chapter 

Page number

Issue

Revision

Reason for change

Page 26, figure 2 – The relative size of particulate matter

Figure labels were incorrect: ‘PM25 particles <2.5µm each’ and ‘Human hair .50µm’.

Labels changed to ‘PM2.5 particulates <2.5µm each’ and ‘Human hair 50µm’.

Decimal places were incorrect.

Page 33, figure 6 – PM10 concentrations at monitoring sites, 2013

Incorrect names of Masterton sites.

Masterton, Wairarapa College changed to Masterton West.

Masterton, Channel College changed to Masterton East.

Data provider changed naming convention to reflect town or city level. The revisions reflect the updated convention.

Page 34, figure 7 – PM10 exceedances in airsheds, 2013

Wairarapa airshed assigned to incorrect exceedance class.

Wairarapa airshed exceedance in 2013 changed to ‘11–20 days’.

Incorrect data selected for mapping.

Page 32, last paragraph

"In contrast, more than half (20) of the 37 monitored airsheds…"

"In contrast, more than half (21) of the 37 monitored airsheds…"

Change in number of airsheds reflects inclusion of data used to revise figure 7 as outlined above.


Atmosphere and climate chapter 

Page number

 Issue

 Revision

 Reason for change

Page 45, first line

"New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions increased…"

"New Zealand's net greenhouse gas emissions increased…"

The word ‘net’ added to highlight these were net emissions.

 

Fresh water chapter  

Page number

 Issue

 Revision

 Reason for change

Page 67, last sentence

“The 2 percent of sites that exceed acceptable levels for wading and boating (>1,000 E.coli per millilitre)…”

“The 2 percent of sites that exceed acceptable levels for wading and boating (>1,000 E.coli per 100 millilitres)…”

Incorrect number of millilitres.

Page 72, second paragraph of ‘Trends for ground water are unclear’, section

“From 1998 to 2013, there were no overall trends for groundwater quality. Over the 15-year period, 63 groundwater sites were analysed for nitrate trends. Nitrate concentrations increased at 16 of the sites (25 percent), but decreased at 10 sites, resulting in no overall trend.”

“From 2004 to 2013, there were no overall trends for groundwater quality. Over the 10-year period 86 groundwater sites were analysed for nitrate trends. Nitrate concentrations increased at 22 of the sites (26 percent), but decreased at 13 sites, resulting in no overall trend.”

Date range and number of years were incorrect. Number of sites updated to include additional data shown on the indicator page.

 

Land chapter

Page number

 Issue

 Revision

 Reason for change

Page 84

Percentages of dairy and dry-stock sites that met the targets for physical status (soil compaction) were incorrect.

22 percent of dairy sites and 44 percent of dry-stock sites met the target for physical status (meaning they had high levels of compaction). Changed to 23 percent of dairy sites and 39 percent of dry-stock sites met the target for physical status (meaning they had high levels of compaction).

Incorrect percentages were calculated during data processing.

Page 84, figure 33

Percentages incorrect as above. Incorrect subtitle.

The percentages of dairy and dry-stock sites that met the targets for physical status (soil compaction) were corrected as above. The subtitle was changed from By land use, 2011 to By land use 2009-2013.

Incorrect percentages were calculated during data processing. The subtitle was incorrect due to a labelling error.

 

Marine chapter

Page number

 Issue

 Revision

 Reason for change

Page 97, fourth paragraph

"The sea lion population is small (estimated at fewer than 3,000 individuals and estimated to have decreased about 70 percent over three generations (about 12 years).”

"The sea lion population is small (estimated at fewer than 3,000 mature individuals and estimated to have decreased about 70 percent over three generations (about 32 years).”

Added the word ‘mature’ to highlight these are mature individuals.  Revised the number of years covered by three generations.

Page 97, sixth paragraph

"Hector’s dolphins have an estimated population of between 7,000 and 9,000, while the population of Maui’s dolphins aged over one year is estimated to be 55 (Hamner et al, 2012)."

"Hector’s dolphins have an estimated population of between 7,000 and 9,000, while the population of Māui’s dolphins aged over one year is estimated to be 55 (Baker et al, 2010; Hamner et al, 2012)."

Added Baker et al source to support statement. Macron added to ‘Māui’s dolphins’.

Page 101, fifth paragraph

“The proportion of assessed New Zealand stocks subject to overfishing is half that of the estimated percentage worldwide – 14 percent for New Zealand, compared with 28.8 percent worldwide (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2014). However, bycatch and trawling remain a pressure on our fisheries and other marine life.”

“Bycatch and trawling remain a pressure on our fisheries and other marine life.”

Deleted the first sentence. It has come to our attention that New Zealand and the FAO do not measure overfishing in the same way, so it is not appropriate to compare their reported statistics.

Page 101, figure 40 – Landed catch

Confusion with the terms ‘overfishing’ and ‘overfished’.

Graph subtitle ‘By overfished and not overfished stocks, 2009–14’ changed to just ‘2009–14’.

Legend ‘Landings from overfished stocks / Landings from stocks not overfished’ changed to “Landings from stocks subject to overfishing  / Landings from stocks not subject to overfishing’.

‘Overfished’ and ‘overfishing’ are not the same. Overfished describes a stock that is below a given biomass limit. Overfishing relates to the rate of fish extraction being above a given rate.

The revisions address these differences.

 

Biodiversity chapter 

Page number

 Issue

 Revision

 Reason for change

Page 108, last sentence of ‘New Zealand is a biodiversity hotspot but many species face extinction’ section

“For example, all our endemic frog, bat, and most marine mammal species are now threatened or at risk of extinction."

"For example, all our endemic marine mammal, frog, and most endemic bat species are now threatened or at risk of extinction (Baker et al 2010; Newman et al 2013; O’Donnell et al 2013)."

Changed to ‘all our endemic marine mammal species’ but ‘most endemic bat species’. Added sources to support this statement.

Page 116, Glossary

At-risk species defined as "Species assessed according to the New Zealand Threat Conservation System…".

"Species assessed according to the New Zealand Threat Classification System…"

Incorrect classification name.

Page 124, Glossary

Threatened species defined as "Species assessed according to the New Zealand Threat Conservation System…".

"Species assessed according to the New Zealand Threat Classification System…"

Incorrect classification name.

 

 

Revisions to Environmental indicators Te taiao Aotearoa

Air indicators 

 Indicator

 Issue

 Revision

 Reason for change

Browse by topic web page

Topic ‘Emissions of key pollutants from home heating’

‘Emissions of key pollutants from residences’

Updated topic approved by Environment Minister not reflected on indicator pages.

Home-heating emissions

Under Data quality, “This national indicator is a direct measure of the ‘Emissions of key pollutants from home heating’ topic.”

“This national indicator is a direct measure of the ‘Emissions of key pollutants from residences’ topic.”

Updated topic approved by Environment Minister not reflected on indicator pages. 

Relative contribution of key human-made emission sources

Under Data quality, “This case study is a partial measure of four topics: ‘Emissions of key pollutants from home heating’, ‘Emissions of air pollutants from industrial activities’, ‘Emissions of air pollutants from primary industries’, and ‘Emissions of air pollutants from transport’.”

“This case study is a partial measure of four topics: ‘Emissions of key pollutants from residences’, ‘Emissions of air pollutants from industrial activities’, ‘Emissions of air pollutants from primary industries’, and ‘Emissions of air pollutants from transport’.”

Updated topic approved by Environment Minister not reflected on indicator pages. 

Relative contribution of other human-made emissions

Under Data quality, “This supporting information is a partial measure of four topics: ‘Emissions of key pollutants from home heating’, ‘Emissions of air pollutants from industrial activities’, ‘Emissions of air pollutants from primary industries’, and ‘Emissions of air pollutants from transport’.”

“This supporting information is a partial measure of three topics: ‘Emissions of air pollutants from industrial activities’, ‘Emissions of air pollutants from primary industries’, and ‘Emissions of air pollutants from transport’.”

‘Emissions of key pollutants from residences’ topic not related to this indicator.

Annual average PM10 concentrations in towns and cities

Figure 1 and figure 2 – incorrect names of Masterton sites.

Masterton, Wairarapa College changed to Masterton West.

Masterton, Channel College changed to Masterton East.

Data provider changed naming convention to reflect town or city level. The revisions reflect the updated convention.

PM10 daily concentrations

Figure 1 – shows five airsheds in the 11–20 exceedance group for 2013.

Revised to six airsheds in the 11–20 exceedance group for 2013.

Change in number of airsheds reflects inclusion of data used to revise figures 2 and 3 as outlined below.

PM10 daily concentrations

Figure 2

and figure 3 – Wairarapa airshed assigned to incorrect exceedance class.

Wairarapa airshed exceedance in 2013 changed to ‘11–20 days’.

Added this note to figure 3: In 2013, an additional site started monitoring in the Wairarapa airshed. The additional site experiences higher concentrations than the existing site and is the reason for the higher number of exceedances in this airshed in 2013.

Incorrect data selected for mapping.

PM10 daily concentrations

Key finding – "The number of airsheds with PM10 concentrations exceeding the national short-term (daily) standard on two or more days peaked in 2009 (26 airsheds) and dropped to 20 in 2013."

"The number of airsheds with PM10 concentrations exceeding the national short-term (daily) standard on two or more days peaked in 2009 (26 airsheds) and dropped to 21 in 2013."

Change in number of airsheds reflects inclusion of data used to revise figures 2 and 3 as outlined above.

PM10 daily concentrations

Key finding – “Of 37 airsheds monitored in 2013, 20 (54 percent) exceeded the national daily standard…”

“Of 37 airsheds monitored in 2013, 21 (57 percent) exceeded the national daily standard…”

Change in number of airsheds reflects inclusion of data used to revise figures 2 and 3 as outlined above.

PM10 daily concentrations

Key finding – “5 exceeding it on 11–20 days”

“6 exceeding it on 11–20 days”

Change in number of airsheds reflects inclusion of data used to revise figures 2 and 3 as outlined above.

PM10 daily concentrations

Key finding – “Of these 20 airsheds, 14 are in the South Island and 6 are in the North Island.”

“Of these 21 airsheds, 14 are in the South Island and 7 are in the North Island.”

Change in number of airsheds reflects inclusion of data used to revise figures 2 and 3 as outlined above.

 

Land indicators 

 Indicator

 Issue

 Revision

 Reason for change

Land pests

 

Incorrect time period on interactive map ‘Distribution of animal and plant pests, 2002–14’ 

Time period revised to: ‘Distribution of animal and plant pests, 2014’.

Incorrect time period in title.

Soil health and land use Incorrect terminology and percentages in key findings.

Changes were made to key findings, shown by strikethrough text replaced by bold text below.

In surveys that were conducted from 2009–13, more than 80 percent of soil health indicators tests were within the target range for their respective land use.

  • All forestry and cropping/horticulture soils tests were within their target range for acidity.
  • Cropping/horticulture had the highest percentage (90 percent) of soils tests within targets for organic reserves.

  • Only 44 39 percent of dry stock soils sites and 22 23 percent of dairy soils sites were within their target range for physical status.

  • Between the first (1995–2008) and second (2009–13) survey periods, the proportion of soils sites within their target range for physical status decreased from 58 59 percent to 44 41 percent.

Incorrect percentages were calculated during data processing. Terminology errors a result of miscommunication with data supplier.
Soil health and land use Incorrect Figure1 title, and y-axis title.

Graph title: 'Soil health indicators tests within target range', Y-axis title: 'Percent of soil sites tests'

Incorrect terminology used in the graph title and y-axis title. Note: We added a new figure (figure 2), to show the percentage of soil sites within target range for all indicators. The remaining figures in the webpage have been renumbered.

Soil health and land use

 

Missing footnote on figure 3 (previously figure 2) Footnote added: ‘Some sites did not have a recorded value for all tests. Soil sites with missing tests were excluded from the analysis’ This footnote was added to improve interpretation.
 Soil health and land use The terminology was not well explained in the Definition and methodology section. There were some numerical errors in the number of sites measured.

These changes were made to the Definition and methodology section, shown by strikethrough text replaced by bold text below.


Soil health indicators are classified into four types is informed by seven tests: These tests are classified into four indicators:

  • acidity (measured by soil pH)
  • organic reserves (measured by total carbon, total nitrogen, and mineralisable nitrogen)
  • fertility (measured by Olsen phosphorus)
  • physical status (measured by bulk density and macroporosity).

The data comes from nine regional councils, surveyed at 419 419 soil sites down to 300mm 100mm deep. Of these soil sites, 324 323 were re-surveyed between the first (1995–2008) and second (2009–13) survey periods. These survey sites represent around 90 percent of the area in each agricultural activity. The regions surveyed include Northland, Auckland, Waikato, Taranaki, Hawke’s Bay, Wellington, Tasman, Marlborough, and Canterbury (Mackay et al, 2013).

Terminology and numerical errors were as a result of miscommunication with the data supplier.

 

Updated 21 April 2017

  • Share this page to Facebook
  • Share this page to Twitter
  • Share this page to Google+
Top
  • Share this page to Facebook
  • Share this page to Twitter
  • Share this page to Google+