Abstract:Summary The concept of using a single index to encapsulate the 'ecological condition' or 'quality' of native vegetation is reviewed and critiqued, along with the history of the adoption of such indices by governments at the State and Federal levels in Australia. Despite the value judgements inherent in such a concept, these indices provide a currency that is useful for comparing sites for purposes such as to provide a nexus between vegetation proposed to be removed under permit and other vegetation that will be protected or improved as an 'offset'. The oldest of the reviewed indices – Habitat Hectares, from the Victorian Government – has been the subject of more scrutiny than others but there has been negligible change to it in response to recommendations made. A recommendation of particular significance is for values of the index to respond smoothly to changes in continuously variable observables like foliage cover, rather than discretising the data into broad class intervals. The step‐wise jumps in index values that result from discretisation can have the effects of creating false indications of difference between sites or over time and masking actual differences. The index's value for monitoring change is thereby impaired. The Biodiversity Assessment Method of New South Wales is the only index reviewed here that avoids discretisation. However, many of the other recommendations that have been made for changes to Habitat Hectares were adopted in 2003 for a simplified variant of that method – the 'Land manager self‐assessment method'. Therefore, this variant has been used as the basis for a new index – HH2.0 – that retains the simplifications but does not discretise continuous variables or allocate scores in a step‐wise manner. The process of translating field observations into scores is automated by a Microsoft Excel workbook, saving time and reducing human error. HH2.0 will suit landowners, land managers, local government and regional authorities, for non‐regulatory purposes such as determining what planning protection to apply to an area or prioritising vegetation management among different areas. It requires significantly less gathering of field data than Habitat Hectares, but like that method, it places weight on vegetation's similarity to a long‐undisturbed state. No restriction is made on whether it is applied to plots of specified size or shape. A pre‐existing set of observational data has been used to retrospectively determine scores under HH2.0 and compare them with Habitat Hectares scores. The data came from 37 sites spanning a range of vegetation types and ecological condition. The root‐mean‐square difference between the two methods' scores is 5.1 points (out of a theoretical maximum of 100). For reference, Tolsma and Newell (2003) concluded that a difference of 20 points between two Habitat Hectares assessments cannot be relied upon to indicate a genuine difference in ecological condition. A larger data set would be desirable but even if there were no comparison at all between indices (as normal for a new index), that would not invalidate the use of HH2.0 for its intended non‐regulatory purposes. HH2.0 is designed for use in Victoria but the changes that have been made compared with Habitat Hectares could be applied to create faster, simpler variants of indices used in other jurisdictions.

An improved habitat suitability index for the great crested newt Triturus cristatus

Changes in the Habitat Preference of Crested Ibis (Nipponia nippon) during a Period of Rapid Population Increase

Quantitative Validation of a Habitat Suitability Index for Oyster Restoration

Validation of a habitat suitability index for oyster restoration

Habitat Evaluation for Crested Ibis: A GIS-based Approach

Indices for ecological condition of native vegetation: A review, and introducing the HH2.0 method

Facilitating permeability of landscapes impacted by roads for protected amphibians: patterns of movement for the great crested newt

Why new scientific information is important for native fish conservation: A case study from the humpback chub (Gila cypha) in the Grand Canyon, U.S.A.

Where Land and Water Meet: Making Amphibian Breeding Sites Attractive for Amphibians

Comparing trap and bait efficiency to record the great crested newts (Triturus cristatus)

Good new(t)s: Rapid recolonization of a restored fish‐invaded habitat by two newt species in southern Italy

Nest Site Use by Crested Ibis: Dependence of a Multifactor Model on Spatial Scale

Extending sampling approaches for great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) eDNA monitoring

Identifying the possibilities and pitfalls of conducting IUCN Red List assessments from remotely sensed habitat information based on insights from poorly known Cuban mammals

Local densities and habitat preference of the critically endangered spotted handfish (Brachionichthys hirsutus): Large scale field trial of GPS parameterised underwater visual census and diver attached camera

Assessing the use of RIVPACS-derived invertebrate taxonomic predictions for river management

Trait-based indices to assess benthic vulnerability to trawling and model potential loss of ecosystem functions

Monitoring subtropical aquatic ecosystems: evaluating the use of Trophic State Indices (TSI) and Aquatic Life Protection (API) as baseline indices by monitoring an urban reservoir in southeastern Brazil

Population monitoring and conservation implications of intra- and interspecific nest occupation rates in swallows

Habitat selection and behaviour of a reintroduced passerine: linking experimental restoration, behaviour and habitat ecology

Assessing the Effects of Habitat Loss and Deterioration on a Red Squirrel Translocation Site: Insights for Future Conservation Management