DOC has organised its biodiversity research into eight priority programmes

1. Developing knowledge for climate change response
2. Developing knowledge for managing species
3. Developing knowledge for data deficient species
4. Developing knowledge for managing ecosystems
5. Developing knowledge for data deficient ecosystems
6. Developing knowledge for managing threats
7. Developing knowledge of social drivers
8. Developing knowledge to defend and scale predator-free sites

Te Mana o te Taiao Aotearoa New Zealand’s Biodiversity Strategy

These programmes are most aligned with Te Mana o te Taiao: Outcome

1. Ecosystems, from mountain tops to ocean depths, are thriving and Outcome
2. Indigenous species and their habitats across Aotearoa New Zealand and beyond are thriving.

Research is essential to the Te Mana o te Taiao Pou Tiaki me te whakahaumanu - Protecting and restoring and Tūāpapa - Getting the system right. Key objectives include:

Objective 4. Improved systems for knowledge, science, data and innovation inform our work and
Objective 13. Biodiversity provides nature-based solutions to climate change and is resilient to its effects.

Mātauranga Māori

The weaving together of the best available information from multiple knowledge systems and ways of seeing / understanding the world, including mātauranga Māori and scientific disciplines, is essential in the delivery of these research programmes. This includes, where appropriate, co-developing approaches that centre mātauranga Māori and principles of Whanaungatanga and Tāwhiowhio through equitable partnerships to create new knowledge to respond to research challenges.

Project prioritisation

Prioritising projects for funding will include consideration of:

(a) Urgency (noting the threat classifications from the NZTCS, with Nationally Critical being the most urgent, or classifications for Naturally Uncommon ecosystems with Critically Endangered being the most urgent)

(b) the Scale of knowledge gains (benefits), with priority given to projects that will benefit a larger number of taxa, ecosystems or pressures or provide a higher level of knowledge;

(c) a weighting for previous research, where the gain from starting new research is assessed (projects where there is substantial previous relevant research will have a lower gain than one that has had little or no research); and

(d) feasibility, including cost effectiveness, project readiness, and scientific robustness.

Priority programme descriptions

1. Developing knowledge for climate change response

This programme aims to develop and improve knowledge and tools to effectively limit the impact of pressures on biodiversity attributed to climate change and to protect and enhance indigenous carbon stores, thus building a system under which climate change adaptation is implemented to increase biodiversity resilience.

In scope is research and tool development for climate change adaptation that includes:

• research, assessments, systems, data, tool development, and guidance to adapt conservation of species and ecosystems to climate change
• research actions in the current DOC Climate Change Adaptation Action Plan (CCAAP) 2020-2025 aligned to terrestrial, freshwater and marine domains
• research and tool development for carbon storage in native ecosystems including research, assessments, systems, data, tool development, and guidance to help us better understand carbon stocks in native ecosystems
• projects to build on current workstreams in Maximising Carbon in Native Systems research programme.

Further information:

Climate Change Adaptation Action Plan (CCAAP)

2. Developing knowledge for managing species

This programme focuses on research related to population management of species classified as Threatened and At-Risk in the NZ Threat Classification System (NZTCS), taonga, and iconic species in terrestrial, freshwater and marine domains including mobile or migratory species (eg Australasian bittern, migratory freshwater fish).

In scope is research that targets the development and improvement of conservation knowledge and tools for managing populations of indigenous species or indigenous species groups including:

• understanding causes of decline
• understanding the population impact of pressures, pressure levels or pressure reduction
• understanding behaviour and ecology such as movement, habitat use, inter-specific interactions etc
• in-situ and ex-situ breeding, cultivation or storage methods including genetic management needs
• translocation methods
• individual or population level detection, tracking and monitoring tools and methods (including genetic methods)
• species-specific data analysis tools
• species-specific social science questions (eg, relating to iconic species)
• adaptive management experiments where they contribute significantly to improving management tools and methods
• research to resolve Data Poor assessment qualifiers and taxonomic criteria where it will improve conservation prioritisation and management
• the programme may include work on surrogate species that would be otherwise out of scope (e.g., work on disease transmission in non-native species).

Further information:

• Threatened species research gaps and priorities for the Department of Conservation Te Papa Atawhai (PDF, 7,224K)
• Supplementary material (XLSX,319K)

3. Developing knowledge for data deficient species

This programme focuses on developing tools and knowledge to enable threat classification of indigenous species assessed as classed as Data Deficient in the NZ Threat Classification System. The requirement for DOC to manage, protect, and enhance Aotearoa New Zealand’s indigenous biodiversity requires it to actively undertake research to determine the full range of threatened biodiversity that requires conservation management. There are currently >5,300 taxa classified as Data Deficient (as of 14 August 2024). This programme focuses on developing tools for the survey and population assessment of Data Deficient species, determining the best places to survey for these species, and undertaking the surveys and assessments of distribution and population characteristics required so their conservation status can be assessed.

In scope is research that:

• develops tools for detection and survey methodologies for terrestrial, freshwater and marine taxa that are Data Deficient or likely to be Data Deficient
• surveys and population assessments of Data Deficient taxa that provide sufficient information to enable threat classification in the NZTCS
• taxa, or groups of taxa, requiring taxonomic resolution if they are (a) classed as Data Deficient and (b) taxonomic resolution is likely to assist in threat classification (fescribing a taxon for purely academic reasons is out of scope).

Further information:

NZ Threat Classification System 

 4. Developing knowledge for managing ecosystems

The requirement for DOC to manage, protect, and enhance Aotearoa New Zealand’s indigenous biodiversity requires it to actively undertake research to develop and improve conservation management knowledge and tools for ecosystems across terrestrial, freshwater and marine domains. Most ecosystems face some form of threat or pressure, and the Department does not currently have the complete suite of tools required to manage all ecosystems that require attention. This programme focuses on ecosystem management research for ecosystems for which knowledge or effective management gaps may still exist. It acknowledges that ecosystems are complex entities that require specific solutions for understanding processes, function, integrity, causes of decline, and restoration techniques.

In scope is research that:

• clearly targets the development and improvement of conservation knowledge and tools for managing ecosystems or groups of ecosystems (eg, research gaps, drivers of condition and causes of reduced function and decline, integrity, and ecosystem restoration and adaptive management experiments)
• develops ecosystem management tools for naturally uncommon, rare and threatened ecosystems
• includes investigations of ecosystem-specific social science questions
• includes developing ecosystem-specific electronic, remote sensing, and data analysis tools among others
• contributes to improving prioritisation of ecosystems work except where these are considered to be systems in their own right.

Further information:

• Naturally Uncommon Ecosystems - Landcare Research
• Holdaway RJ, Wiser SK, Williams PA 2012. Status assessment of New Zealand's naturally uncommon ecosystems. Conservation Biology 26: 619–629.

5. Developing knowledge for data deficient ecosystems

This programme aims to develop and improve conservation management knowledge for ecosystem types where we have little knowledge of their conservation status or where to manage them. The programme focuses on locating and mapping Data Deficient Ecosystems. It acknowledges that Data Deficient Ecosystems require specific survey and inventory to determine their threatened or rare status and to classify their conservation status. Once there is enough information to assess conservation status, ecosystem types may move into other programmes where they may be actively managed or where new management tools are developed.

In scope is research that:

Clearly targets the development and improvement of conservation knowledge for understanding and tools and techniques for managing Data Deficient Ecosystems across terrestrial, freshwater, estuarine and marine ecosystems, including:

• understanding their conservation status
• understanding their current and historical geographical extent and trends in ecological integrity
• the filling of knowledge gaps required for effective management (eg, assessing vulnerability to climate change effects, acquisition of spatial data that informs ecosystem occurrence and distribution).
• includes developing electronic, remote sensing, and data analysis tools that are specific to one or more Data Deficient Ecosystems
• is focused on a group of species (eg, functional group) that is a key constituent of the Data Deficient Ecosystem type (eg, grasses and rushes of estuarine ecosystems, forbs and herbs of lake margins).

Further information:

Wiser SK, Buxton RP, Clarkson BR, Hoare RJB, Holdaway RJ, Richardson SJ, Smale MC, West C, Williams PA 2013. New Zealand’s naturally uncommon ecosystems. In Dymond JR ed. Ecosystem services in New Zealand – conditions and trends. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, New Zealand. Pp. 49–61.

6. Developing knowledge for managing threats

This programme focuses on developing and improving conservation knowledge and tools for managing national threats on indigenous species, habitats and ecosystems. Most if not all forms of indigenous biodiversity, ranging from species to ecosystems across both the land- and seascape, face one or more pressures or threats (e.g., habitat fragmentation and loss, introduced predators and weeds, pathogens, climate change-induced sea-level rise). The Department does not currently have the knowledge necessary, the complete suite of tools required, or the resources to manage all threats and pressures at the scale required. Many current tools are only marginally effective at delivering sustained positive outcomes, and new and/or novel pressures for which no tool exists continue to surface. This programme focuses on research that will enable more effective management by filling knowledge gaps and identifying and testing tools for understanding and managing pressures and threats that do, or will, negatively impact indigenous biodiversity.

In scope is research that:

• targets the development or improvement of conservation knowledge and tools for managing threats or pressures on native species or ecosystems across terrestrial, freshwater and marine domains
• supports conservation advocacy to address threats to freshwater, marine and terrestrial environments (e.g., RMA advocacy related to nutrient and river flow limits)
• develops threat-specific electronic, remote sensing, and data analysis tools
• includes investigations of pressure specific social science questions (eg, managing domestic cats)
• develops or improves detection and survey tools or methods essential to assessing the need for control andmeasuring outcomes of threat or pressure management activities
• prevents incursions of new biotic threats that have not arrived or established in New Zealand land or waters (biosecurity research).

7. Developing knowledge of social drivers

The aim of this programme is to develop and improve knowledge of the social drivers that effect the conservation of indigenous biodiversity. It delivers research that spans all natural heritage work under the ecosystems, species, threats and obligations portfolios, and all programmes within them. It acknowledges that many social science questions and issues relate to multiple objectives and outcomes. The programme focus also includes building a broad base of engagement with external stakeholders to increase support for, and more effectively deliver, social science outcomes.

In scope is research that:

• clearly targets the development and improvement of conservation knowledge and tools for social science. This includes tools focussed on evaluating human impacts on biodiversity
• includes research that includes information from multiple knowledge systems, including mātauranga Māori and the principles of Whanaungatanga and Tāwhiowhio.

8. Developing knowledge to defend and scale predator-free sites

The national Predator Free 2050 programme is in a critical phase to prove that a predator free (focused on rats, mustelids, possums) Aotearoa New Zealand is possible, or where it is not possible at national scales, where predator-free outcomes can be realistically achieved (e.g., islands, peninsulas, etc). This programme will focus on developing knowledge (tools and techniques) to defend and scale predator-free sites; a component of the Predator Free 2050 mission, which includes other objectives such as building a base of community support and action across Aotearoa New Zealand.

In scope is research that:

• targets the development or improvement of conservation knowledge and tools for eradication of rats, mustelids, and possums
• targets more cost-effective solutions for defending boundaries (ability to prevent invasion of pest animal species and rapidly detect and intercept re-invaders)
• identifies the best scalable tactical solutions for achieving predator elimination
• improves scalable solutions for detecting and removing survivors and re-invaders and reducing re-invasion rates
• improves our understanding of how target predator species use the landscape to optimise the distribution of management tools.
• identifies the priority locations in Aotearoa New Zealand where predator-free status should be targeted.

Further information:

Predator Free 2050 Interim Implementation Plan 2024-2030 (PDF, 936K)

Heritage and visitors research priorities

1. Improving knowledge about heritage values and understanding the impacts of climate change

This research topic aims to develop and improve knowledge about cultural heritage values on public conservation lands and waters. Additionally, the topic aims to improve understanding of the impacts of climate change on cultural heritage values and the development of tools and guidance to improve heritage outcomes. Research can be either place-based or at broader regional or national scales. Research should incorporate mātauranga Māori where appropriate.

In scope is research that:

• documents previously unidentified cultural heritage values or where cultural heritage values are poorly understood
• adopts a mātauranga Māori approach to identifying and recording cultural heritage values
• models the impacts of climate change on cultural heritage, such as coastal archaeological sites or inland heritage places
• improves knowledge about the places of highest priority for mitigation or adaptation
• develops knowledge and tools for mitigation and adaptation options across a range of cultural heritage types
• demonstrates case-studies of approaches to responding to climate change impacts on heritage values including the benefits of partnering with iwi, hapū and whānau
• mātauranga Māori-led approaches to climate change adaptation for cultural heritage.

2. Benefits of cultural heritage

This research topic aims to provide robust data about the social and economic benefits of cultural heritage including wellbeing and social cohesion.

In scope is research that:

• improves knowledge about the benefits of connecting with cultural heritage on the wellbeing of individuals and communities
• improves knowledge about the economic benefits for cultural heritage values on public conservation land and waters.

3. Visitor values or expectations of ‘user pays’

This research topic aims to investigate how visitor values or expectations of the ‘user pays’ principle has and is evolving over time in relation to attitudes for paying for provision of infrastructure (carparks, roads, wharves, toilets, huts, campsites, tracks and bridges) in both the front country and backcountry of public conservation land and waters. Research should include comparison with what is provided in likeminded countries internationally (eg Australia, US, Canada) and provide an understanding of what differences may exist for visitors in expectation and willingness to pay.

In scope is research that:

• investigates what methods of collecting revenue are most appropriate in different settings
• determines what service standards are important to user groups in different settings
• seeks to understand the initial resistance to charging when first introduced and how attitudes have changed over time
• looks at the history of provision of experiences internationally where the original rationale for government investment was not for recreation, that is, assets were repurposed for recreation to understand who now owns and maintains those assets
• looks at international examples of where public provision of oversupplied experiences were transferred to recreational groups.

4. Carrying capacity and visitor management

This research topic aims to investigate existing frameworks for determining carrying capacity and other appropriate visitor management tools in locations on public conservation land under pressure around New Zealand. This should take into account local communities and Treaty Partner context, legislative constraints (may change), the need to balance between the values of protecting natural and cultural heritage and the desire for improved economic outcomes to be derived from public conservation land and waters. Research should incorporate context from DOC’s Heritage and Visitor team and mātauranga Māori where appropriate.

In scope is research that:

• builds on 2024 work (eg Tongariro Alpine Crossing Carrying capacity of the Tongariro Alpine Crossing: Our work) to understand how to further improve carrying capacity and visitor management going forward
• improves knowledge about places of highest priority for management of visitor pressure
• develops knowledge and tools for influencing behaviour during and post-visit
• provides case-studies that demonstrate well balanced outcomes and best practice for partnering with iwi, hapū and whānau
• includes mātauranga Māori-led approaches to managing visitor pressure.

5. Storytelling as a tool for influencing behaviour change

This research aims to develop and improve understanding of whether behaviour change messaging delivered through storytelling has any impact on visitors, positive or negative, and to what degree.

In scope for this research:

• focus the research on the recently opened Great Walk the Hump Ridge Track near Tuatapere in Southland
• identify and describe the visitor research methodology that delivers to the research aims
• develop and run the visitor research study
• it is expected that the visitor research will include delivering qualitative as well as quantitative assessment. Determine whether pre and post visit assessments are required
• deliver an insights report based on the visitor research that describes whether behaviour change messaging delivered through storytelling at site has an impact on visitors. Identify what messages or interpretative devices worked and to what extent
• as part of the insights report develop recommendations for improving how DOC delivers behavioural change messages through storytelling. It is expected that this will need to include recommendations for stories/ messaging as well as the type of interpretation used to deliver the message.