The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Assessing the quality of native vegetation: The ‘habitat hectares’ approach
Abstract
Summary Assessments of the ‘quality’, condition or status of stands of native vegetation or habitat are now commonplace and are often an essential component of ecological studies and planning processes. Even when soundly based upon ecological principles, these assessments are usually highly subjective and involve implicit value judgements. The present paper describes a novel approach to vegetation or habitat quality assessment (habitat hectares approach) that can be used in almost all types of terrestrial vegetation. It is based on explicit comparisons between existing vegetation features and those of ‘benchmarks’ representing the average characteristics of mature stands of native vegetation of the same community type in a ‘natural’ or ‘undisturbed’ condition. Components of the index incorporate vegetation physiognomy and critical aspects of viability (e.g. degree of regeneration, impact of weeds) and spatial considerations (e.g. area, distribution and connectivity of remnant vegetation in the broader landscape). The approach has been developed to assist in making more objective and explicit decisions about where scarce conservation resources are allocated. Although the approach does not require an intimate botanical knowledge, it is believed to be ecologically valid and useful in many contexts. Importantly, the index does not provide a definitive statement on conservation status nor habitat suitability for individual species. It purposefully takes a ‘broad‐brush’ approach and is primarily intended for use by people involved with making environmentally sensitive planning and management decisions, but may be useful within environmental research programmes. The ‘habitat hectares’ approach is subject to further research and ongoing refinement and constructive feedback is sought from practitioners.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A checklist for ecological management of landscapes for conservation
Lindenmayer, D., Hobbs, R. J., Montague‐Drake, R., Alexandra, J., Bennett, A., Burgman, M., Cale, P., Calhoun, A., Cramer, V., Cullen, P., et al. (2008) · Ecology Letters · doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01114.x · Cited by 746
Auctions for conservation contracts: an empirical examination of Victoria's BushTender trial
Stoneham, G., Chaudhri, V., Ha, A., & Strappazzon, L. (2003) · Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8489.2003.t01-1-00224.x · Cited by 486
Assessing ecological equivalence in biodiversity offset schemes: Key issues and solutions
Quétier, F., & Lavorel, S. (2011) · Biological Conservation · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.09.002 · Cited by 337
Metadata
- Authors
- Parkes, D., Newell, G., & Cheal, D.
- Venue
- Ecological Management & Restoration
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-02
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- s1
- ISSN
- 1442-7001 (ISSN-L)
- 1442-8903
- OpenAlex
- W2147430252
- Cited by
- 421
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 14.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessing the quality of native vegetation: The ‘habitat hectares’ approach. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1442-8903.4.s.4.x
- The paper
- Parkes, D., Newell, G., & Cheal, D. (2003). Assessing the quality of native vegetation: The ‘habitat hectares’ approach. Ecological Management & Restoration. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-8903.4.s.4.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.