Aotearoa BiodiverCity / Design Guide / Design Strategies /

Natural micro-habitats

SCALES /
SYNERGIES / ,

CASE STUDIES //

Natural micro-habitat features such as logs, rocks, and dense vegetation providing shelter and foraging opportunities for lizards, invertebrates, and other native fauna in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Definition

Natural micro-habitats are small-scale landscape features that provide shelter, thermoregulation, refuge, and foraging opportunities for native fauna within urban and modified environments.

What this strategy does

Introduces or retains logs, rocks, hollows, and dense vegetation, as well as basking areas for lizards, to support the everyday habitat needs of native species while avoiding large-scale earthworks or intensive ecological reconstruction.

Context

In Aotearoa New Zealand’s urban and peri-urban landscapes, habitat fragmentation and predator pressure limit fauna persistence. Carefully designed natural micro-habitats can improve survival where larger habitat restoration is constrained, if predation and ecological trap risks are actively managed.1, 2, 3 Ecological traps occur when animals are attracted to habitats that appear suitable but are actually poor quality or harmful, reducing their chances of survival or reproduction.

Technical considerations

Design considerations

Location

Locate micro-habitats in sunny, sheltered positions; prioritise north-facing orientation to support thermoregulation for reptiles.1

Materials

Use natural, untreated materials (local rock, logs, driftwood). Avoid treated timber or materials that may leach toxins.2

Rock piles

Rock piles for lizards are deliberately arranged clusters of stones designed to mimic the kinds of habitats many native lizards naturally use. In Aotearoa, a lot of skinks and geckos depend on rocky crevices and sun-warmed surfaces, which are often missing in urban or modified landscapes. Construct rock piles with varied void sizes, including narrow refuges (<40 mm) that exclude rodents while retaining thermal mass.3

Vegetation

Maintain adjacent low, dense native vegetation to provide cover and foraging while preserving open basking surfaces for reptiles.4, 5

Implementation considerations

Design priority

Link micro-habitats to nearby cover or corridors to enable safe retreat from predators and extreme weather.6

Key constraint

Poorly sited or overly exposed features can increase predation risk or function as ecological traps.7, 8 An ecological trap happens when an organism is attracted to a habitat that looks suitable based on its evolved cues, but is actually poor quality or dangerous.

Relevant tools or standards

Use Department of Conservation and Predator Free New Zealand guidance when designing lizard-supporting habitats.9, 10

Issues & barriers

Risk or limitation

Micro-habitats may concentrate predators, particularly cats and invasive mammals, without coordinated predator control.8

Risk or limitation

Perceived “messiness” can reduce public acceptance unless visual cues to care (edges, signage) are incorporated.11, 12

Risk or limitation

Biodiversity gains may be slow or variable, particularly in highly modified urban settings.13

Synergies & opportunities

Human wellbeing – Increased daily contact with visible urban nature supports mental wellbeing and stewardship.14

Empowerment – Community-led installation and maintenance builds ecological literacy and long-term care.15, 16, 17

Financial case

Ecosystem services &/or performance value

Value type

Supports pollination, pest regulation, and soil processes through invertebrate and reptile persistence.18

Cost-effectiveness

Investment logic

Relies on low-cost, locally sourced materials and volunteer labour, delivering ecological benefit with minimal capital input.19, 20

Monitoring & evaluation metrics

Core metric

Occupancy and repeat use by target species using visual surveys, camera traps, and community science platforms.21

Advanced or long-term metric

Changes in species richness, predator activity, and functional connectivity across sites.6, 22

Additional resources or tools

New Zealand

iNaturalistNZ – Citizen science biodiversity recording platform

Forest & Bird – Creating lizard-friendly habitats

NZ Herpetological Society – Native reptile conservation guidance

Predator Free New Zealand Trust – Lizard-friendly garden guidance

References
  1. Department of Conservation. (2023). Guidance on impacts of vegetation clearance on lizards in New Zealand.
  2. Department of Conservation. (2016). Best practice guide to keeping New Zealand lizards in captivity.
  3. Lennon, O., Wittmer, H. U., & Nelson, N. J. (2021). Modelling three-dimensional space to design prey refuges using video game software. Ecosphere, 12(1), e03321.
  4. van Heezik, Y., & Ludwig, K. (2012). Proximity to source populations and untidy gardens predict occurrence of a small lizard in an urban area. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104(2), 253–259.
  5. Herbert, S. M., et al. (2025). Short-term responses of terrestrial skinks to habitat enhancement in a pest-invaded landscape on mainland New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 1–20.
  6. Correa Ayram, C. A., et al. (2016). Habitat connectivity in biodiversity conservation: A review. Progress in Physical Geography, 40(1), 7–37.
  7. Watchorn, D. J., et al. (2022). Artificial habitat structures for animal conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 20(5), 301–309.
  8. Reardon, J. T., et al. (2012). Predator control allows critically endangered lizards to recover on mainland New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 36(2), 141–150.
  9. Department of Conservation. (n.d.). Attract lizards to your garden.
  10. Predator Free New Zealand Trust. (2023). Create a lizard-friendly garden.
  11. Li, J., & Nassauer, J. I. (2020). Cues to care: A systematic analytical review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 201, 103821.
  12. Hostetler, M. (2021). Cues to care: Future directions for ecological landscapes. Urban Ecosystems, 24(1), 11–19.
  13. Gaston, K. J., et al. (2005). Urban domestic gardens: Experimental tests of methods for increasing biodiversity. Biodiversity & Conservation, 14(2), 395–413.
  14. Kowarik, I., et al. (2013). Biodiversity functions of urban cemeteries. Urban Ecosystems, 16, 27–42.
  15. Diduck, A., et al. (2020). Pathways of learning about biodiversity and sustainability in private urban gardens. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 63, 1056–1076.
  16. van Heezik, Y., Dickinson, K., & Freeman, C. (2012). Communicating to change gardening practices. Ecology and Society, 17(1).
  17. Egerer, M., et al. (2024). In defence of urban community gardens. People and Nature.
  18. Costanza, R., et al. (2014). Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26, 152–158.
  19. Sijtsma, F. J., et al. (2020). Evaluating projects using the ecosystem services framework. Environmental Science & Policy, 111, 49–56.
  20. Department of Conservation. (n.d.). Attract lizards to your garden.
  21. Costa-Pereira, R., et al. (2022). Animal tracking moves community ecology. Journal of Animal Ecology, 91(7), 1334–1344.
  22. Burton, N. H. K., et al. (2015). Impacts of sudden habitat loss on survival and condition. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43(3), 464–473.