New PPGIS Research Identifies Landscape Values and Development

Mapping Community Landscape Values and Development Preferences in and around Darwin Harbour

Tom D. Brewera,b, Michael M. Douglasc a Northern Institute, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, 0909, Australia ([email protected]). b Australian Institute of Marine Science, Arafura Timor Research Facility, 23 Ellengowan Dr., Brinkin, Northern Territory, 0810, Australia. a Research Institute of Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, Northern Territory, 0909, Australia.

Background Results

 Darwin Harbour is a highly val- Development Preferences ued and contested place; the  A total of 647 development ‘Jewel in the Crown’ of the preference sticker dots were Northern Territory. placed on the supplied maps by 80 respondents.  The catchment is currently ex- periencing significant develop-  ‘No development’ was, by far, ment and further industrial and the highest scoring develop- tourism development is ex- ment preference (Figure 7). pected, as outlined in the cur-

rent draft Regional Land Use Plan1 (Figure 1) tabled by the Northern Territory Planning Figure 1. Darwin Harbour sec- Figure 7. Average scores (of a possi- tion of the development plan ble 100) for each of the development Commission. overview map1 Results preferences.

Landscape Values  Despite its obvious iconic value and significant use by locals  Preference for industrial and visitors alike, there is no representative baseline data on  To date 136 surveys have been returned from the mail-out question- development is clustered what the residents living within the catchment most value in naire to 2000 homes. Preliminary data entry and analysis for spatial around Palmerston and and around Darwin Harbour. landscape values and development preferences has been conduct- East Arm (Figure 8). ed on 80 of these 136 returned

2 surveys. A total of 2519 land-  High quality spatial data on landscape values (e.g. economic, scape value sticker dots were  Preference for residential biodiversity, wilderness), and development preferences (e.g. placed on the 80 supplied and tourism development industrial, residential) will aid future development planning maps. appears spatially correlate that considers the diversity of values and preferences held by d around Palmerston, Dar the community. win City and Mandorah  Recreation, Aesthetic, Biodiver- (Figure B). sity, and Wilderness values Aim were the highest scoring land- scape values (Figure 4). Figure 4. Average scores (of a possible Figure 8. Distribution of development preferences from 80 respondents.  To identify what Darwin Harbour catchment residents most 100) for each of the landscape values. value in and around Darwin Harbour and to identify where  Aggregated landscape values show high- the residents would like to see particular types of develop- est density around the most populated ment occurring, or not. parts of the harbour (Figure 5). Future Directions

 Individually, landscape values show Data collection Methods marked differences in their spatial distribu-  Preliminary results suggest that respondents do not reflect tion throughout the harbour and along the the general population. The majority are older professionals  A mail survey was sent to 2000 randomly selected house- foreshore (Figure 6). Some values are rel- that have lived in the region for at least 20 years. holds from within the Darwin Harbour Catchment. The survey atively clustered (e.g. economic value),  Further purposive sampling will occur with sectors of the included questions on the households’ links to Darwin Har- whilst others are more dispersed (e.g. community that have not been well represented in the data, bour, a mapping exercise to identify the households’ land- wilderness value). Figure 5. Distribution of all (summed) landscape values. including younger people and Larrakia people. A total sample scape values and development preferences, and questions size of ~ 300 people from within the Darwin Harbour catch- on respondent background (socio-demographics). ment is the current goal.

 The mapping exercise required respondents to place stickers Analysis relating to landscape values and development preferences  Landscape values and development preference data will be (Figure 2) on a map of the harbour and foreshore (Figure 3). analysed for spatial correlation and spatial clustering to deter-

50 20 10 10 5 5 mine potential synergies and conflicts. Points Points Points Points Points Points Darwin Harbour and foreshore mapping exercise

(a) Aesthetic/scenic value – I value these places for their 50a 20a 10a 10a 5a 5a  attractive scenery, sights, smells, or sounds. Landscape Data collected in the survey, on respondent sociodemo-

50e 20e 10e 10e 5e 5e (e) Economic value – I value these places for economic benefits values such as tourism, industry, services, or other commercial activity. graphics and respondent links to Darwin Harbour, will be 50r 20r 10r 10r 5r 5r (r) Recreation value – I value these places because they provide outdoor recreation activities. used to explain respondent landscape values and develop- 50L 20L 10L 10L 5L 5L (L) Life sustaining value – I value these places because they help produce, preserve, and renew air, soil, and water. (k) Learning value (knowledge) – I value these places because we can use them to learn about 50k 20k 10k 10k 5k 5k ment preferences. This will answer the question of what the environment.

50b 20b 10b 10b 5b 5b (b) Biological diversity value – I value these places because they provide for a variety of plants, wildlife, marine life, or other living organisms. types of people value what, where, and what types of people

50s 20s 10s 10s 5s 5s (s) Spiritual value – I value these places because they are spiritually special to me. have certain development preferences. 50i 20i 10i 10i 5i 5i (i) Intrinsic value – I value these places for their own sake, no matter what I or others think about them or whether they are actually used.

50h 20h 10h 10h 5h 5h (h) Heritage value – I value these places because they have natural and human history. (f) Future value – I value these places because they allow future generations to know and 50f 20f 10f 10f 5f 5f experience them as they are now. Further Research

50t 20t 10t 10t 5t 5t (t) Therapeutic value – I value these places because they make people feel better, physically and/or mentally. I value these places because they are wild. 50w 20w 10w 10w 5w 5w (w) Wilderness value –  Parts of the harbour and foreshore that are identified as high-

(nd) No development – Use these dots to identify areas where you nd nd nd nd nd nd Development ly valued (hotspots) will become the focus of future research think any future development should be permanently prohibited. preferences rd rd rd rd rd rd (rd) Remove development – Use these dots to identify areas where you think existing development should be removed permanently. into predicting threats to landscape values. The aim of this fu- Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd Rd (Rd) Residential development – Use these dots to identify where you think residential development could conditionally occur with a good plan. ture research is to improve future harbour management. Td Td Td Td Td Td (Td) Tourism development – Use these dots to identify where you think tourism development (e.g. accommodation and tourist attractions) could conditionally occur with a good plan.

Id Id Id Id Id Id (Id) Industrial development – Use these dots to identify where you think industrial development (e.g. port facilities, agriculture, energy infrastructure) could occur with a good plan. Figure 2. Sticker sheet used in survey to allow households to identify landscape values and development preferences. Stickers are yellow dots.

 Surveys were returned, maps were scanned and georeferenced, and Acknowledgements spatial landscape values and devel-  This project is primarily funded by the Northern Futures Col- opment preferences entered into laborative Research Network (CRN). QGIS.  Thank you to Charlotte Klempin for your help preparing the Figure 3. Map of Darwin Harbour and foreshore survey and entering survey data. showing landscape value and development pref- erence stickers placed by a survey respondent.  Thank you to Arafura Timor Research Facility (AIMS) staff for assisting with the survey mail-out.

 Thank you to the people living in the catchment who took the time to com- References plete the survey. 1 Anonymous. 2014. Draft Darwin Regional Land Use Plan. Northern Territory Planning Com- mission.  Thank you to City of Darwin for 2 Brown, G. 2006. Mapping Landscape Values and Development Preferences: a method for project support. Tourism and Residential Development Planning. Int. Journal of Tourism Research, 8: 101-113 Figure 6. Individual landscape value spatial distributions.