The University of Western Australia
Department of Environmental Engineering
Potential of ecotourism to protect natural remnant
areas within the urban environment
Fiona Prince
Honours Thesis 2002 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to my supervisor, David Hamilton, for continued support, advice and valuable input.
I greatly appreciate Margaret Owen’s assistance, valuable information and stunning photographs
Thank you to Daniel Boase-Jelenik, for providing me with valuable information about the Underwood
Avenue site
Thanks to Greg Hertzler, for his guidance and time
Thanks to Don Bradshaw for providing valuable information
Thank you to Dr. Paddy Berry for providing me with the results of his research
i Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
ABSTRACT
The concept of ecotourism is applied to the urban context, in an attempt to determine whether ecotourism has the potential to provide an economic incentive for the retention of urban bushland areas.
In exploring this concept, the effects of this vegetation clearance on biodiversity and the community as a whole are assessed, in order to develop an understanding of the effects of urban bushland clearance.
Using the concept of ‘triple bottom line’ (environmental, social and economic) reporting, and applying it to a model based on this concept, the issues surrounding any development concept can be assessed. The model is then applied to the case of the Underwood Avenue bushland, Shenton Park, and three development options are assessed. The results showed that urban ecotourism is the best option of the three assessed.
ii Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... i
ABSTRACT...... ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... iii
LIST OF FIGURES ...... vi
LIST OF TABLES ...... vii
LIST OF APPENDICES ...... viii
1. INTRODUCTION...... 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 2
2.1 SIGNIFICANCE OF REMNANT VEGETATION...... 2
2.1.1 Biological Diversity...... 2
2.1.2 The Value of Biodiversity...... 6
2.1.3 Conservation Initiatives...... 8
2.2 URBAN BUSHLAND...... 11
2.2.1 Urban Ecology...... 11
2.2.2 Locally and Regionally Significant Bushland ...... 14
2.2.3 Urban Bushland in Perth...... 15
2.2.4 Flora and Fauna in Perth’s Remnant Bushland...... 16
2.2.5 Government Strategies...... 18
2.2.6 Underwood Avenue Bushland ...... 22
iii Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
2.3 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ...... 32
2.3.1 Brundtland Report...... 32
2.3.2 Ecological Sustainability...... 34
2.4 TOURISM ...... 35
2.4.1 Sustainable Tourism...... 37
2.4.2 Sustainable Tourism Design...... 40
2.5 ECOTOURISM ...... 42
2.5.1 Origins...... 42
2.5.2 Definition...... 42
2.5.3 Principles of Ecotourism...... 45
2.5.4 Ecotourist Market...... 47
2.5.5 Ecotourism in Australia...... 51
2.5.6 Ecotourism Case Study...... 51
2.5.7 Urban Ecotourism...... 54
2.6 ‘TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE’ ECONOMICS...... 59
2.6.1 ‘Triple Bottom Line’ Accounting Principle...... 59
2.6.2 Environmental Objectives...... 60
2.6.3 Social Objectives...... 61
2.6.4 Economic Objectives ...... 62
2.6.5 Methodology...... 62
3. METHODOLOGY ...... 65
3.1 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE EVALUATION OF A DEVELOPMENT ON URBAN REMNANT BUSHLAND
65
3.1.1 Environmental Criteria...... 65
3.1.2 Social criteria...... 66
iv Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
3.1.3 Economic criteria...... 66
3.2 SELECTION OF THE STUDY SITE...... 67
3.3 APPLICATION OF THE FRAMEWORK TO UNDERWOOD AVENUE...... 67
3.3.1 Option 1: Preserve the Bushland – Conservation Only ...... 67
3.3.2 Option 2: Development – Residential...... 68
3.3.3 Option 3: Ecotourism Operation...... 69
3.3.4 Option 3: Development - Commercial...... 71
4. RESULTS: CASE STUDY ON UNDERWOOD AVENUE BUSHLAND ...... 73
5. DISCUSSION ...... 75
5.1 ECOTOURISM OPERATION STRUCTURE...... 76
5.2 ECOTOUR FEATURES...... 77
6. CONCLUSION...... 79
7. REFERENCES ...... 81
8. APPENDICES ...... 89
v Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1: A ERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF UNDERWOOD AVE. BUSHLAND AND SURROUNDING AREA (DOLA 2002) ...... 23
FIGURE 2: UNDERWOOD AVENUE BUSHLAND - 9TH OCTOBER 2002 (TAKEN BY M. OWEN)...... 25
FIGURE 3: GREENWAY - A ERIAL PHOTOGRAPH (FROM DOLA 2002) ...... 27
FIGURE 4: MAP OF THE UNDERWOOD AVENUE AREA, INCLUDING THE PROPOSAL SITE AND PROTECTED AREA (EPA
2001) ...... 30
FIGURE 5: THE TOURISM PRODUCT CYCLE (FROM PROSSER 1994) ...... 37
FIGURE 6: SUSTAINABLE TOURISM (FROM SWARBROOKE 1999)...... 40
FIGURE 7: SUSTAINABLE DESIGN PROCESS (FROM TOURISM QUEENSLAND 1999) ...... 41
FIGURE 8: ECOTOURIST SPECTRUM...... 49
FIGURE 9: CLASSIFICATION OF ECOTOURISM TYPES (FROM BLAMEY 1991) ...... 50
FIGURE 10: DECISION MATRIX (FROM TAYLOR ET AL. 2002)...... 63
FIGURE 11: DECISION MATRIX RESULTS - UNDERWOOD AVENUE BUSHLAND...... 73
vi Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 : VALUE OF BIODIVERSITY (BASED ON WILLIAMS ET AL. 2001) ...... 7
TABLE 2: REGIONALLY AND LOCALLY SIGNIFICANT BUSHLAND (FROM URBAN BUSHLAND STRATEGY 1995)...... 14
TABLE 3: VEGETATION CONDITION RATINGS (FROM GOVERNMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA 2000B) ...... 18
TABLE 4: IMPACTS OF TOURISM ON THE ENVIRONMENT (FROM BUHALIS 1995) ...... 36
vii Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: MAP OF UNDERWOOD AVENUE AND SURROUNDS...... 89
APPENDIX 2: FEATURES OF VEGETATION COMPLEX 49 - KARRAKATTA COMPLEX – CENTRAL AND SOUTH (FROM
HEDDLE ET AL. 1980)...... 90
APPENDIX 3: CRITERIA FOR REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE IN BUSH FOREVER (FROM GOVERNMENT OF WESTERN
AUSTRALIA 2000)...... 91
APPENDIX 4: GROUND VERTEBRATES OF UNDERWOOD AVENUE AND SHENTON BUSHLANDS (FROM BERRY UNPUB.)
...... 93
APPENDIX 5: BIRD SPECIES OF THE UNDERWOOD AVENUE BUSHLAND AND SURROUNDING BUSHLANDS (FROM
BERRY UNPUB.)...... 94
APPENDIX 6: PHOTOGRAPHS OF FIRE AND FIRE DAMAGE AT THE UNDERWOOD AVENUE BUSHLAND (TAKEN BY M.
OWEN)...... 97
APPENDIX 7: REGENERATION OF THE BUSHLAND AFTER THE FIRE (TAKEN BY M. OWEN)...... 99
APPENDIX 8: GREENWAY LINKAGES AROUND PERTH CITY CENTRE (FROM GOVERNMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
2000A)...... 100
APPENDIX 9: MEASURES RECOMMENDED BY THE FRIENDS OF UNDERWOOD AVENUE BUSHLAND TO PROTECT THE
BOLD PARK TO KINGS PARK GREENWAY ...... 101
APPENDIX 10: BUSH FOREVER MAP (FROM GOVERNMENT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA 2000A)...... 103
APPENDIX 11: RESULTS - OPTION 1...... 105
APPENDIX 12: RESULTS - OPTION 2...... 107
APPENDIX 13: RESULTS - OPTION 3...... 109
viii Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
1. INTRODUCTION
Urban bushland areas contribute aesthetic values to communities and perform important life support functions such as soil stabilisation and hydrological mitigation. Development in urban areas, which often requires clearing remnant vegetation, has thus long been a contentious issue. Increasing environmental awareness in the community has heightened interest in the conservation and protection of urban bushland. However, the preservation of remnant vegetation has remained an unattractive option to landowners, as the benefits of doing so are not valued in traditional economies.
The concept of ‘ecotourism’ has been developed as a conservation tool that can provide an economic incentive for the preservation of natural areas. Other benefits of ecotourism include educative and interpretive components that increase awareness of the environment and encourage sustainability.
These operations aim to minimise environmental impacts through careful design, planning and management techniques, and to benefit local communities.
One suggested location for an ecotourism operation in Perth is the Underwood Avenue Bushland,
Shenton Park. This land is currently owned by the University of Western Australia, who plan to develop the land for residential housing. Investigations into this possibility have raised many questions, and research into similar developments within the country suggest that ecotourism development on the scale proposed will not provide substantial profits but instead cover the costs of the tour operations and provide limited funding for restoration efforts. However, although the economic benefits of an ecotourism venture are neither immediate nor substantial, the social and environmental benefits resulting from a carefully developed and well managed ecotour operation make urban ecotourism a promising opportunity for a sustainable future.
1 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Significance of Remnant Vegetation
There is remnant bushland in both urban and rural areas, and both continue to be under threat from development by humans. In the case of rural areas, farming practices have resulted in much loss of native vegetation, and in urban areas, the threats are from encroaching development and human disturbances.
For the purposes of this study, remnant bushland is defined as:
“land on which there is vegetation which is either a remainder of the natural vegetation of the land, or, if altered, is still representative of the structure and floristics of the natural vegetation, and provides the necessary habitat for native fauna” (Government of Western Australia 2000a).
In rural areas, native vegetation loss has been identified as a cause of dryland salinity, weed invasion, soil erosion and loss of native plant and animal species, and thus the conservation of native vegetation is important in combating these problems (Lockwood et al. 2000). In urban areas, there are high rates of species decline due to the introduction of predators and loss of habitat, as well as many other problems associated with the rate and extent of vegetation clearing and degradation.
2.1.1 Biological Diversity
One of the results of the recent increase in ‘environmental consciousness’ of the global population has been an increasing awareness of the importance of the linkage between the wellbeing of humans and the wellbeing of the environment. With this awareness has come an increasing awareness of the importance
2 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering of biodiversity and biodiversity loss. Biodiversity, or the diversity of life, has been defined as “the variety of life in all its forms, levels and combinations” (IUCN 1991). This definition includes such concepts as ecosystem diversity, species diversity, and genetic diversity, all of which are interrelated and interdependent (Williams et al. 2001).
Australia has been recognised as one of only 17 countries worldwide to be ‘megadiverse’ (Williams et al.
2001), supporting a large array of rich and distinctive flora and fauna, many of which are highly endemic
(there is a large number of endemic groups of flora and fauna, and a high proportion of endemic species in particular groups) and have very high species richness compared to other parts of the world. It is estimated that Australia accounts for between 5% and 8% of the world’s total species diversity, with over
80% of all species said to be endemic (Knox et al. 1994). This globally significant ‘biological ark’, is attributed to Australia’s long geographic isolation from other parts of the world. It can also be attributed to the fact that Australia’s large span of latitude, encompassing a great variety of climatic zones, has allowed the development of uniquely evolved flora and fauna on land, in wetlands, and in the surrounding seas (Mummery and Hardy 1994). Similarly, Western Australia’s geographic isolation from the rest of the country has resulted in high levels of diversity and endemism, especially in the southwest region (Knight 1998).
Biodiversity is extremely important, with human survival depending on its conservation in order to maintain ecosystem processes, provide food and resources, and maintain the beauty of the natural environment (Knox et al. 1994), as well as being necessary for continued evolution (Knight 1994).
However, the world is currently undergoing what has been termed as a ‘global biodiversity crisis’, due to a dramatic loss of species caused by human activity (Knox et al.1994). It is difficult to establish the current status of biodiversity and biodiversity loss, as many species have not yet been identified or described, let alone surveyed. The science of the ecological function and processes of native vegetation, and the long-term impacts on ecosystems of the loss of these functions, is also poorly understood (Cary
3 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering and Williams 2000).
Biodiversity loss has been attributed to a number of mostly anthropological impacts:
· Habitat loss, change and fragmentation
· Predation, competition and habitat alteration
The great part of the habitat loss, change and fragmentation is directly related to the clearance of remnant vegetation. This land clearance destroys biodiversity, resulting in the loss and depletion of plant species and the destruction of the habitat for thousands of other species. It has been estimated, for example, that for every 100ha of woodland that is cleared, between 1000 to 2000 birds permanently lose their habitat (Williams et al. 2001).
The clearance of native vegetation remains the single most significant pressure on terrestrial biodiversity in Australia as a whole (Williams et al. 2001) and in Western Australia (Knight 1998). In the Australia
State of the Environment Report 2001, Williams et al. (2001) identified eleven key biodiversity issues in
Australia:
· Effects of human population and consumption
· Condition of ecosystems
· Distribution and abundance of species
· Changes in genetic diversity
· Land clearance and related activities
· Effects of introduced species
· Harvesting native species
· Lack of knowledge of biodiversity
· Effectiveness of conservation measures outside reserves
· Adequacy of protected areas
4 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
· Adoption of integrated ecosystem-based management of natural resources
In 1996, the Commonwealth Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories developed the
National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity, which attempts to address the problem of biodiversity loss in Australia, and provides clear guidelines for biological diversity conservation. The strategy for the conservation of biological diversity in urban areas is shown in Box 1
(below).
Urban conservation
Promote the conservation of biological diversity in urban areas by:
· encouraging retention of habitat;
· improving strategic planning and infrastructure coordination so as to enhance the biological
diversity of urban areas;
· seeking ways of reducing fringe development and focusing future development on existing built-up
areas in Australian cities;
· encouraging action by local governments to retain and improve natural ecosystems and to use
locally indigenous species for plantings in urban areas;
· integrating biological diversity conservation considerations into relevant policies and programs
such as the Building Better Cities program.
(See Section 1.5 ‘Conservation Outside Protected Areas’)
(National Strategy for the Conservation of Biological Diversity 1996)
Box 1: Urban Conservation Initiatives (as introduced in the National Strategy for the Conservation of Biological Diversity, 1996)
More recently, new Commonwealth legislation, Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation
5 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Act 1999 (EPBC Act), came into effect in July 2000. It is said to be the first comprehensive attempt to define the environmental responsibilities of the Commonwealth, and focuses on matters of national environmental significance, puts in place an environmental assessment and approvals process, and establishes an integrated regime for biodiversity conservation and protected area management
(Environment Australia 1999).
In Western Australia, proposed amendments to the Environmental Protection Act include new provisions to make clearing of native vegetation without a permit an offence (WRC 2002). Bennett
(1999) notes that in Western Australia, the environmental impacts of a subdivision proposal have been found by law to be proper town planning considerations, and that subdivision requests can be refused on environmental grounds alone.
2.1.2 The Value of Biodiversity
Although the values of remnant bushland are difficult to quantify in terms of traditional markets, it is becoming increasingly more difficult to disregard our relationship with the environment. Foster (1997) found that the environment and the economy are inseparable. Humans impact adversely on the environment through economic activities, but we also depend on this environment, requiring its resources, assimilative capacities, amenities and life-support systems in order to conduct that activity in the first place. The value of biodiversity not only includes these benefits to humans, but also exists beyond any anthropocentric valuation – “all forms of life have intrinsic value beyond any benefit they may be to us” (SAUFBP 1997).
Wills (1997) suggested three broad categories of environmental benefits and corresponding values:
· Direct-use benefits / values
6 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
· Indirect-use benefits / values
· Non-use benefits / values
Williams et al. (2001) identified six different values people and society place on biodiversity (the environment), expanded from the categories suggested by Wills (1997), which are shown below in Table
1.
Table 1 : Value of biodiversity (based on Williams et al. 2001)
Values Examples Direct utilitarian Food Feed stock Building materials (timber, fibres) Medicines Genetic material Indirect utilitarian Maintaining water quality Sequestering carbon Hydrological functions Soil stability Decomposition and assimilation of wastes Aesthetic and recreational Enjoying landscapes (e.g. Coral Reefs, National Parks) Enjoying specific taxa (e.g. birds, trees, whales) Hiking Bird watching Fishing Scientific and educational Scientific discovery can lead to utilitarian values Education in wide range of areas (biology, zoology, ecology) Intrinsic, spiritual and ethical Cultural and religious systems Ethical: non-human forms have intrinsic value Future or ‘option’ Further research in the future may reveal significance (e.g. medicinal) Existence value: satisfaction in knowing it exists Bequest value: knowing it will exist for future generations
Public benefits of the environment can include the existence, option and bequest values (as explained in the table above) of protected habitat and species and the ecosystem stability and resilience provided by biodiversity. Private benefits can include the enjoyment from recreational activities (e.g. bushwalking).
Public goods are non-rival (i.e. available to all users simultaneously and consumption by one does not diminish supply to another), and are non-excludable (individual consumers, even those who do not pay,
7 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering cannot be excluded). As a result, there is little incentive for the private sector to supply private goods.
In a study of both urban and rural residents across Australia, Cary and Williams (2000) found that aesthetic preferences and values played an important role in attitudes toward remnant vegetation areas.
Preferences were for natural areas over built areas, but bias in the preferred natural landscape type (e.g. neat and open areas were more highly rated). Similarly, Keighery (1999) noted that there appears to be a bias in the community, with a common hierarchy in ranking / values found: tall forest > low forest > tall woodland > heaths > shrublands > herblands > sedgelands > grasslands. This bias often resulted in the location of paths, notice boards and other facilities in ‘lower ranked’ communities, regardless of their actual ranking as described above. Cary and Williams (2000) suggested that human behaviour and response to native vegetation may be innate or deeply held (difficult to influence), or may be learned or socially determined preferences (easier to influence). It was also suggested that the attitudes of urban and rural residents toward remnant vegetation differed in some cases.
2.1.3 Conservation Initiatives
Concern about the continuing loss of biodiversity has led to the development of bushland protection initiatives by government, private sector and community organisations concerned about this trend.
Protection of bushland is defined as “all of the processes of ensuring the continued existence and viability of bushland, and may include preservation, maintenance and restoration” (Government of
Western Australia 2000a). Some Western Australian initiatives include the Western Shield Project, Bush
Heritage Fund and Bush Bank.
One important consideration in the development of conservation initiatives is that although some members of the community may wish to protect every site in its entirety, there is the danger of
8 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering conservation resources being too thinly spread (Swarbrooke 1999, Beardmore 2000).
The Western Shield Project
Over the past 100 years, at least 18 Australian mammal species have become extinct, more than in any other country. The major cause of this ‘catastrophe’ is the introduction of predators and competitors from overseas. Loss of habitat due to land clearance has exacerbated this problem, and habitat modifications due to anthropological influences make some of the remaining native animals even more susceptible to invasion by introduced species (Knox et al. 1994).
The Western Shield Project is an initiative of the Department of Conservation and Land Management
(CALM) Western Australia . Launched in 1996, it is said to be the biggest wildlife conservation program ever undertaken in Australia (CALM 2002a) and the world’s biggest campaign against feral predators
(foxes and feral cats) in order to save native fauna species from the brink of extinctio n and return them to their original habitats (Bailey 1996).
The program consists of three major elements: increasing fox baiting, increasing research into feral cat control, and, as predators are removed from targeted areas, returning native animals to former habitats
(Bailey 1996). Currently, aerial and hand baiting is carried out across almost 3.5 million hectares as part of the program (CALM 2002a), using a naturally occurring poison from a native plant known as ‘poison pea’ and synthetically manufactured under the name ‘1080’. Native species have a natural resistance to this poison (sodium fluoroacetate), but even small doses are lethal to introduced species (Bailey 1996).
According to CALM (2002b), Western Australia is the only area in the world where scientific management action (The Western Shield Project) has resulted in three mammals (the tammar wallaby,
9 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering the quenda and the woylie) being taken off the endangered fauna list. Other successful breeding and / or reintroduction programs from the project include the bilby, chuditch and Western Barred Bandicoots.
Bush Heritage Fund and Bush Bank
Australian Bush Heritage Fund is an Australia -wide, independent, non-profit organisation, which was
“created to preserve Australia's biodiversity by protecting the bush”. The funds are received through donations, to purchase areas of private land with high conservation value. These land areas then become reserves dedicated to protecting species and their habitats. Bush Heritage claims to be Australia's only national organisation of its kind (Australian Bush Heritage Fund 2002).
In Western Australia, an organization with similar aims was created in 2001 in what is described as a
‘consortia arrangement’ between government, conservation organizations and the corporate sector. This project, Bush Bank, was initially funded by the government but hopes to attract enough donations from industry and the public to fund its conservation initiatives. The methodology of the project is to purchase land with high conservation value, with a covenant restricting land use changes before the land is sold to a purchaser who agrees to protect the conservation values of the land (Department of Agriculture
Western Australia 2001).
Other private and government initiatives
Incentives for conservation are critically important. Williams (1999) and Binning and Young (1997,
1999) looked at incentives and other methods to promote conservation on private land (mostly rural areas), including rate and tax incentives, grants and management agreements. It was found that rate and land tax incentives would provide only a relatively modest incentive and symbolic impact in remote
10 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering rural areas. At high opportunity-cost sites, including urban areas, it was found that the incentives would not provide compensation, but would help offset the costs of site management (Binning and Young
1999).
2.2 Urban Bushland
Three basic vegetation classes (in urban areas) have been identified: remnant vegetation, modified vegetation, and scattered trees (Government of Western Australia 2000b). Urban bushland is remnant vegetation (see Section 2.1) within or adjoining urban areas (Government of Western Australia 1998).
Most of the Australian population resides within urban areas, making the urban bushland remnants that are present in major Australian cities important in maintaining our connection with nature. From this point forward, the terms ‘urban bushland’, ‘native vegetation’ and ‘remnant vegetation’ are used interchangeably.
2.2.1 Urban Ecology
The abandonment of the countryside for cities (i.e. urbanisation following the industrial revolution) has resulted in the creation of an ‘urban world’; where 75% or more of people in industrialised nations live in cities and towns. It is also estimated that by the end of the century, half of ‘humanity’ (encompassing all nations) will live in urban areas (Rees and Wackernagel 1996). Thus, studies of the ecology of urban areas have become increasingly relevant, and have led to the concept of ‘urban ecology’.
The term ‘urban ecology’ has been defined in two different ways from two different perspectives
(Pickett et al. 2000):
· The study of the distribution and abundance of organisms in and around urban areas, as well as the
biogeochemical budgets of the areas;
11 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
· The designing of the environmental amenities of cities for people, and of reducing city’s the
environmental impacts.
The first dot point above is a scientific definition and the second is a planning perspective.
Knight (1998) defines the term ‘ecological footprint’ as the “the ecological impact of cities” on local, regional and global scales. One major ‘ecological footprint’ in urban areas is the loss and fragmentation of remnant bushland due to land clearing, development and other anthropological impacts. Land clearing has been described as one of, if not the most serious threat, to urban bushland (Duggie 1999).
Other disturbance factors include: selected removal of particular species, weed invasion, impacts of animals, disease, repetitive burning, mining, removal/dumping of soil, rubbish dumping, hydrological changes, nutrients and pollutants, and tracks and vehicle use (WRC 1996).
Several authors (e.g. Duggie 1999; WRC 1996) stress that although it is possible to regenerate degraded bushland, at least to some degree, the clearing urban bushland is an irreversible process. Once completely cleared, the original vegetation structure cannot be recreated in entirety. Further, Duggie
(1999) argues that because urban bushland is a part of our natural heritage, we have an obligation to preserve it for future generations. However, preservation of urban bushland does not automatically ensure that the maintenance of integrity of the ecosystem. Other factors, such as the remnant bushland size and shape, as well as the presence of any links between vegetated areas, have an important influence on the long-term survival of flora and fauna populations (SAUFBP 1997).
Smaller or rectangular areas of remnant vegetation are less likely it is to be self sustaining, as the le vel of disturbance is often related to the length of bushland edge exposed to outside influences in proportion to the total vegetation area (DeGryse 1996). This relationship between edge length and level of disturbance
12 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering is referred to as ‘edge effect’, whic h includes physical impacts (wind, light, nutrients, anthropological impacts) and biotic changes with the invasion of weeds and feral animals. These effects can be reduced by circular patches of bushland (lower edge to area ratio) and by maintaining larger areas of remnant vegetation (Knox et al. 1994). Isolation (barriers between remnants, loss of species) also poses a threat, due to the fact that populations from different locations cannot interact and breed and they are unable to relocate after a severe disturbance, such as a fire (Glanznig 1995). Mummery and Hardy (1994) noted the ‘co-evolution’ of specialized interactions between organisms in Australia, which were seen as adaptation to the environment designed to maximize their use of resources. Such interactions included seed dispersal, pollination and protection from predators, and were often found to be a mutually beneficial. These interactions are also threatened by the loss of habitat and the isolation of those patches of vegetation that do survive, as the loss of habitat and of one species will have an impact on other species. Therefore fragmented patches are often not large enough to sustain ecological processes to the extent that existed before land-use changes.
However, the effective size of habitat remnants can be increased by retaining linkages between adjacent fragments (corridors of similar vegetation, or greenways) to allow organisms to exchange between them
(Knox et al. 1994). This enables the networks reinforce each other in terms of critical habitat mass, and function as a more effective screen against urban land uses (Lawton and Weaver 2001). Tingay (1998) noted that important components of a greenway include places of refuge being closely spaced and wide
(more refuge and shelter, less edge effects). They were also found to be more useful if in a secluded area not a busy road.
The ecological functions of these networks of linkages are not the only benefits – they can support multiple purposes can which also include recreational, cultural, aesthetic, or other sustainable land use practices (Government of Western Australia 2000a).
13 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
As explained in Section 2.1.2, values of bushland to people and society include a range of direct, indirect and non-use benefits and values. In urban areas, the benefits to the community are heightened because the bushland areas are the only places within the local environment that natural processes still operate with minimal human interference (DeGryse 1996). However, Duggie (1999) highlights the need to change the mindset from ‘vacant land’ to valuable asset, through education to reinforce the idea that bushland conservation is significant land use. Keighery (1999) suggested that the value of an area of bushland can be physically established through the use of signage, low-level fencing and pathways which encourage public use and instil a sense of pride in the local community.
2.2.2 Locally and Regionally Significant Bushland
Within urban areas, significant bushland areas may be described as being either regionally or locally significant. The differences between these are summarised in Table 2.
Table 2: Regionally and Locally Significant Bushland (from Urban Bushland Strategy 1995)
Regionally Significant Locally Significant
*Example of a regional vegetation type which is One of the better examples of a local vegetation threatened or poorly reserved or a site with type special value for flora or fauna conservation *Having considerable bio diversity or supports a Having biodiversity values but unlikely to population of Declared Rare Flora, priority listed include Declared Rare Fauna. May include flora, or threatened fauna geographically significant species at the limit of their range *Vegetation in good condition or better. Vegetation may be in poor condition but if poor, Threatened vegetation types may be regionally capable of regeneration significant even if in poor condition *Usually greater than 20 hectares but may be Ideally greater than 4 hectares but smaller areas smaller in the case of threatened or poorly may be of significance depending on how much reserved vegetation types, or areas with special remains in the locality significance for other purposes Suitable for passive recreation by people from Suitable for passive recreation by the local both within and beyond the locality community
14 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering Region wide use or potential for scientific or Use or potential for use by local schools educational study Having cultural heritage values of a regional or Having local heritage value greater significance Regular shape is desirable unless the area Shape not critical but remnant should be capable functions as a significant corridor linking other of ongoing management remnants * = Essential criteria
2.2.3 Urban Bushland in Perth
The value and importance of Perth’s bushland has been noted by many authors (Duggie 1999, Keighery
1999, Government of Western Australia 1998, 2000a, 2000b), as has its biodiversity, which has been described as one of the highest recorded in any major city (Government of Western Australia 2000a).
Urban bushland in Perth has even been described as the ‘heart and lungs of the city’. Within the Perth
Metropolitan Region (PMR) there are many different classifications of bushland. Some are managed and some are unmanaged, and there is a wide range of sizes, vegetation condition, ownership and zoning, as well as a range of facilities and types and frequency public usage.
According to the Water and Rivers Commission (1996) urban development is the single greatest cause of bushland destruction. Duggie (1999) estimated that Perth’s spatial extent increased by approximately
50% in the 20 years between 1971 and 1991, and that over a two-year period in the mid 1990’s, 6000ha bushland was cleared, with around 25% of that figure (1500ha) regionally significant. Further, it is estimated that due to population increase, up to 55000ha of land will be required by 2026. Continual increase in the size of the PMR has resulted in what the Water and Rivers Commission (1996) terms as
“urban sprawl consuming the landscape”, and according to Duggie (1999), complacency with regard to urban bushland and land clearance will result in a “tragedy that could have been avoided”. DeGryse
(1996) also noted that whereas the Crown and Councils are bound to protect the values of urban bushland areas (either legislatively or politically), there are few controls on the management of remnant
15 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering vegetation on private properties.
2.2.4 Flora and Fauna in Perth’s Remnant Bushland
The ‘amazing’ diversity of Perth’s urban bushland has been well noted (e.g. Keighery 1999); however, detailed knowledge of all bushland areas is still rather patchy, with some areas having been closely studied over a period of time while others have undergone little, if not no, investigation. Knowledge and understanding of plant communities is vital in order to provide a broader picture. It involves identifying areas of high significance, areas to maintain as well as areas requiring restoration in order to restore values (‘informed priorities’) (Keighery 1999).
Heddle (1980) conducted one of the most comprehensive surveys of vegetation across the Darling
System, identifying the area’s broad vegetation features as well as classifying major vegetation complexes in the PMR. These complexes were related to the five major geomorphologic provinces in the region, one of which being the Swan Coastal Plain.
Several features on the Swan Coastal Plain were identified by the study: u Landforms and soils are important determinants of vegetation u Climate is a controlling influence u Unique floristics of this region u Individuality of species distribution, and continuity of distribution of some species with adjacent
regions u The region supports 29 separate vegetation complexes
(Heddle et al. 1980)
16 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Following on from this work, Gibson (as presented in Government of Western Australia 2002b) grouped these vegetation complexes into floristic community types known as ‘super’ groups, four of which were distinguished in the Perth Metropolitan Region (PMR). These super groups are outlined below:
· Supergroup 1: Foothills/Pinjarra Plain;
· Supergroup 2: Seasonal Wetlands
· Supergroup 3: Uplands Centred on Bassendean Dunes
· Supergroup 4: Uplands Centred on Spearwood and Quindalup Dunes.
WRC (1996) noted that land clearing has left little of many of these vegetation types remaining in the
PMR and on the Swan Coastal Plain.
Beardmore (2000) suggested that the community does not have the same “emotional attachment” to woodlands and shrublands common to the Swan Coastal Plain as they do for forests (see Section 2.1.2).
It is therefore suggested by the author that stronger community awareness and responsibility be promoted.
In developing management plans and assigning priorities in relation to the significance of a bushland remnant, it is necessary to obtain a ‘complete picture’ of the bushland area, including its condition.
The ranking of bushland areas (for management purposes) can be carried out according to:
· Disturbance (least disturbed – greatest value)
· Community diversity (most diverse – greatest value)
· Maturity of the community and individual species in the community (mature individuals or
communities – greatest value)
· Vegetation condition (pristine – greatest value)
(Keighery 1999)
17 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
One method of measuring vegetation condition is described in Table 3.
Table 3: Vegetation Condition Ratings (from Government of Western Australia 2000b)
Condition Scale Features
Pristine (1) Pristine or nearly so, no obvious signs of disturbance
Excellent (2) Vegetation structure intact, disturbance affecting individual species and weeds are non-aggressive species
Very good (3) Vegetation altered, obvious signs of disturbance. For example, disturbance to vegetation by repeated fires, the presence of some more aggressive weeds, dieback, logging and grazing
Good (4) Vegetation structure significantly altered by very obvious signs of multiple disturbances. Retains basic vegetation structure or ability to regenerate it. For example, disturbance to vegetation caused by very frequent fires, the presence of some very aggressive weeds at high density, partial clearing, dieback and grazing
Degraded (5) Basic vegetation structure severely impacted by disturbance. Scope for regeneration but not to a state approaching good condition without intensive management. For example, disturbance to vegetation caused by very frequent fires, the presence of some very aggressive weeds at high density, partial clearing, dieback and grazing
Completely degraded (6) The structure of the vegetation is no longer intact and the area is completely or almost completely without native species. These areas are often described as ‘parkland cleared’ with the flora comprising weed or crop species with isolated native trees or shrubs.
2.2.5 Government Strategies
Following the lead of international and Commonwealth conservation strategies, the State and local governments of Western Australia have developed a range of strategies and policies aimed at native vegetation preservation. The different policies and strategies are aimed at a wide range of native vegetation areas, including national parks and other protected areas, private and leasehold rural land and bushland within the urban area. According to Keighery (1999), “the principle aim of urban bushland
18 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering conservation is to keep, in each local area, representations of the communities and species typical of and associated with the local area”. The major urban bushland strategies, including the more recent ‘Bush
Forever’, follow this principle in developing comprehensive guidelines for native vegetation preservation.
Urban Bushland Strategy
The Government of Western Australia developed the Urban Bushland Strategy in 1995 as the first step in towards the protection of both regionally and locally significant (see Section 2.2.2) bushland areas. Key features of the Strategy include: strategic planning; coordination; legislative and policy review; incentives; information; and education and guidelines (Government of Western Australia 1995). It was intended that the strategy would provide a more accountable basis by which proposals involving the clearance of remnant vegetation were assessed, leading to more assured protection of the significant areas. The strategy set a target that no less than 10% of the original extent of bushland complexes (as defined in Heddle 1980), in no less than 5 separate areas, should be preserved. This figure of 10% is assumed because it has been found that if about 10% of each habitat type is retained, a representative sample of biodiversity can be preserved (SAUFBP 1997).
Perth’s Bushplan and Bush Forever
Perth’s Bushplan, an outcome of the Western Australian Government’s Urban Bushland Strategy (1995), was released for public comment in a draft form in 1998 (Beardmore 2000). After public comment, the final document Bush Forever was released in late 2000.
The Government of Western Australia (2002a) describes Bush Forever as “a 10 year strategic plan to
19 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering protect some 51200 hectares of regionally significant bushland in 287 Bush Forever Sites, representing, where achievable, a target of at least 10 percent of the original 26 vegetation complexes of the Swan
Coastal Plain portion of the Perth Metropolitan Region”. It aims to achieve the appropriate protection and management of regionally significant bushland areas as well as a balance between environmental, social and economic objectives, relying on the combined efforts of the state and local governments, private landowners and the community in order to achieve these goals. It provides the basis for biodiversity conservation through the identification of regionally significant bushland areas and implementing planning principles designed to minimize any effects on adjoining natural areas
(Government of Western Australia 2000a). Bush Forever does not include locally significant bushland
(see Section 2.2.2), as this is covered by the Urban Bushland Strategy (1995). Regionally significant bushland is identified on basis of criteria (see Appendix 3) relating to its conservation value.
The Swan Coastal Plain Bioregion is much larger area than the Metropolitan Region, however the PMR is used as an administrative boundary due to time and funding constraints (Beardmore 2000).
Within this boundary, there were already 33400 ha of bushland with some existing protection. Of the additional 17800ha included as part of Bush Forever, 13200ha is government/state owned, 4270ha is zoned rural, and 330ha zoned urban, urban deferred or industrial (zonings under the Metropolitan
Regions Scheme (MRS)) (Government of Western Australia 2000a).
One site implementation option for Bush Forever sites is termed ‘Negotiated Planning Solutions’ (NPS), and applies to lands zoned urban, urban deferred or industrial, or those planned for development. The process involves consultation with landowners to develop planning and design solutions that are consistent with the Bush Forever objectives, while still allowing some development to occur. According to Government of Western Australia (2000a), the aim of the NPS is to maximize bushland retention through the use of both statutory planning and environmental approval processes, while attempting to
“seek a balance between the needs of conservation and development and a reasonable outcome”.
20 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
There have been criticisms by environmental groups relating to the principles behind the Negotiated
Planning Solutions, with concerns that the process allows for the clearance of regionally significant remnant vegetation and the removal of significant areas from the original Perth’s Bushplan list. There have also been criticisms about the stance of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). The EPA endorses the Bush Forever strategy as a “sound approach”, and accepts the loss of bushland as long as the Negotiated Planning Solution results in a “reasonable outcome” (highest conservation value areas and threatened communities are protected) (EPA 2001). The use of the term ‘reasonable’ by both the
Government of Western Australia (2002a) and EPA (2001) is also criticized, with arguments that no loss of bushland can be considered ‘reasonable’. Environmental groups also suggest that significant land areas should be purchased by the government to ensure their preservation. However Beardmore (2000) explains that government land acquisition is impractical due to the fact that prohibitively high land cost would result in all conservation funds being used to preserve only a few areas of bushland, leaving no funds for management, education, research and other important programs.
The vegetation and wetland mapping carried out as part of the original site selection process was principally based on aerial photographs and satellite images, although it is noted that this was confirmed through field surveys where possible (Government of Western Australia 2000a). The fact that priorities were determined, even though in some cases no on-site study had been conducted, could lead to inadequate protection of significant bushland areas, as it is difficult to discern important details, such as the presence of small numbers of rare flora or fauna, through the sole use of aerial photographs.
Community and education programs
21 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Community education and involvement is extremely important for the lasting protection of urban bushland areas. The community must become aware of the value of remnant vegetation, be informed about their impact on the bush and become involved in the protection of bushland areas (DeGryse 1996).
In Perth, there are many programs designed to foster awareness and encourage participation. Such programs include a branch of the national Landcare program; the Natural Heritage Trust funded Perth
Biodiversity Project; and the Wildflower Society's ‘Save Our Bushland Campaign’.
In addition, there are more than 80 different community environmental groups across the metropolitan area (WRC 2002), including volunteer guides, Friends groups, catchment management groups and tree planting organisations. There is also a wealth of material published detailing how to set up and run a friends group, how to organise restoration and planting efforts and other information (for example,
Greening Australia).
2.2.6 Underwood Avenue Bushland
Location
The area of remnant bushland known as the Underwood Avenue Bushland is located approximately 6km to the west of the Perth City Centre, and is close to Perry Lakes, Shenton Bushland, Bold Park and the
Indian Ocean (Figure 1). Herdsman Lake and Lake Monger are also only a short drive away from the site.
The bushland is bounded by Underwood Avenue (north), Selby Street (east), the UWA agricultural field station and research centre (west), the Water Corporation Workshop Depot Training Centre and the
Royal Perth Rehabilitation Hospital (south) (EPA 2001). These facilities can be seen in the aerial photograph of the bushland and surrounding area (Figure 1).
22 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Figure 1: Aerial photograph of Underwood Ave. bushland and surrounding area (DOLA 2002)
Nearby, there are several educational institutions, including Shenton College, Jolimont Primary School, the Shenton Park Campus of the Curtin University, and the proposed ‘Bold Park School’, which will cater for primary school children and is said to be very environmentally aware and promote learning through the environment.
The bushland is close to the Perth to Fremantle Rail Line (approximately 800m, or 10min walk, from the
Shenton Park Station), and is also directly on the university ‘Circleroute 98’ bus route, which also stops at the Shenton Park train station.
Significance
The Underwood Avenue bushland site sits on Spearwood dunes (sands derived from Tamala limestone) landform type, forming part of Supergroup 4: Uplands centred on Spearwood and Quindalup Dunes, with the Karrakatta Complex – Central and South vegetation complex (Section 2.2.4) (Government of
23 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Western Australia 2000b). The general characteristics (determined by Heddle et al. 1980) of the
Karrakatta Complex – Central and South can be found in Appendix 2.
Uplands of the Underwood Avenue Bushland
Woodland dominated by Eucalyptus marginata [Jarrah] or E. gomphocephala [Tuart] over Banksia attenuata, B. menziesii and Allocasurina fraseriana [Sheoak] Low Woodland; Woodland dominated by
Eucalyptus marginata or E. calophylla [Marri] over Banksia prionotes Low Woodland; Banksia attenuata, B. menziesii and Allocasurina fraseriana Low Woodland with generally scattered emergent
Eucalyptus marginata or E. gomphocephala or, rarely, Eucalyptus calophylla.
(Government of Western Australia 2000b)
Box 2: Uplands of the Underwood Avenue Bushland (Government of Western Australia 2000b)
The Underwood Avenue Bushland is comparatively large and diverse (compared with most other remnants of the same vegetation complex)”, containing at least 80 native and 16 weed flora species (EPA
2001). The highest peak in the bushland is approximately 40m AHD (Australian Height Datum), located in the south-west of the bushland (closest to the Subiaco Wastewater Treatment Plant), and the lowest point (15m AHD) occurs along the eastern (Selby Street) edge. The upper slopes contain open jarrah and tuart woodland and lower eastern end is dense jarrah forest. The upper area Banksia thickets dominate the northern end. The upper Jarrah/Tuart Open Woodland has been rated as good to completely degraded condition (Section 2.2.4), however the tuarts are mixed age, thus able to regenerate well (EPA 2001).
Overall, the more than 50% of the vegetation in the bushland is in very good condition, with less than
50% in good to degraded condition, with “areas of severe localized disturbance” (Government of
Western Australia 2000b). This is said to be of comparable condition (and in many cases better condition) other regionally significant areas of the Spearwood Dunes (EPA 2001).
24 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Figure 2: Underwood Avenue Bushland - 9th October 2002 (taken by M. Owen)
The bushland contains significant populations of Jacksonia sericea (Priority 3), and a comparatively abundant population of Banksia prionotes (EPA 2001). There are several different orchid species within the bushland, including several donkey orchids found on the road verge. There is somewhat of a weeds problem, which has been exacerbated by the recent fires across the bushland. Along with the introduced weed species of weed, there also some native grass species that have grown after the fire. The tuart trees, as well as other trees in the bushland, provide habitats for hollow breeders and other species which require a tall tree habitat. Flowering plants in the bushland, such as banksia, attract species of birds all year long (EPA 2001).
Dr P. Berry conducted a structured survey of the fauna of the bushland, recording birds (37 species), reptiles (16 species) and amphibians (3 species). Of these, the significant bird species included one from category 1, three from category 3 and three from category 4 (Appendix 4 and Appendix 5). The Weebil,
Varied Sitella and Yellow-rumped Thornbill, which are habitat specialists, and have a reduced distribution on the Swan Coastal Plain, are present at Underwood Avenue Bushland. Other wide-ranging species with reduced populations on Swan Coastal Plain, such as The Little Eagle and the Goshawk, are present at the Underwood Avenue Bushland (EPA 2001). The bushland is also visited by some rare bird
25 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering species for feeding and breeding purposes. Gould’s goanna (Varanus gouldii), found in only in a few larger remnants, was also recorded in the bushland.
(EPA 2001)
Although no mammal species have been scientifically recorded in the area, the Common Brushtail
Possum is likely to occur, as it is a similar habitat to others known to have Common Brushtail Possum populations. It is also possible that bat species live in the area, as three different species have been recorded in the Shenton Bushland nearby.
The bushland has regional significance, named as Bush Forever site 119, and forming part of a
Greenway linkage (termed Greenway 19) between Kings Park and Bold Park and a potential bushland/wetland linkage (Government of Western Australia 2000b).
The Bush Forever site is 31.5ha, but the boundary circumscribes 8.2ha bushland. The area of bushland included in Bush Forever is smaller than was originally proposed in the draft Perth’s Bushplan. The size of the Bush Forever site was adjusted after negotiation with landowners. The bushland was selected under the selection criteria ‘representation of ecological communities’ (Appendix 3) and was recommended as an Urban Negotiated Planning Solution (Urban NPS) (Section 2.2.5).
The Underwood Avenue bushland site is one of a chain of bushland areas linked together to form what is known as ‘Greenway 19’ (Government of Western Australia 2000b). This linkage connects Kings Park to the Indian Ocean via Hollywood Reserve, Shenton Bushland and Bold Park, as well as bushland remnants along roadways and privately owned land (Appendix 8 and Appendix 9), and birds, frogs, reptiles and other native animals move along these linkages. The aerial photograph below (Error!
Reference source not found.) clearly shows the linkages between the bushland remnants.
26 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Underwood Bold Park Avenue Bushland
Kings Park
Karrakatta Cemetery Shenton Bushland
Figure 3: Greenway - Aerial Photograph (from DOLA 2002)
The bushland is also significant to the local community, with a local group of interested community members forming the ‘Friends of Underwood Avenue’ group. This groups has actively campaigned for the retention of the bushland – at one stage submitting a petition containing 7531 signatures against the development (“destruction”) of the bushland to the Upper House of State Parliament. Although there is limited public access to the site, as the perimeter is fenced by a 2m wire fence, the general community seems genuinely concerned about the future of the bushland. There is also occasional usage of the site by some permitted groups for study and research purposes.
History
According to EPA (2001), the Underwood Avenue bushland site was “vested in the Trustees of
University Endowment by the Governor in 1908”. It was originally part of a much larger bushland area that has gradually been developed and sold by the university over many years. These developments are now home to thousands of residents in nearby suburbs, including Daglish and Floreat (Robson 2002).
27 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
The revenue from these developments has contributed to much of the infrastructure and employment of the University of Western Australia, contributing to “a learning environment and world-class research facilities that serve the nation” (Robson 2002).
The Underwood Avenue Bushland was zoned urban under MRS in 1963; has been classed as development zone in the City of Nedlands Town Planning Scheme No. 2 since 1985 (EPA 2001). Both zonings allow for residential use. In late 1999, the University developed a proposal that approximately
32 hectares of the bushland, which is a portion of the total area of land, be subdivided for residential housing. The subdivision proposes 260 lots for residential use, and sets aside space for bushland protection, public open space, drainage and road purposes. Proposal was first submitted to the Western
Australian Planning Commission, and later referred to EPA for consideration (under Part 1V of the
Environmental Protection Act 1986).
There was a large amount of community interest as a result of the proposal, reflected in the number of related articles and letters to the editor in the local newspaper, the ‘POST’. The main issues raised by the community and interested groups as part of the EPA evaluation included:
· Strategic positioning relative to Kings Park, Bold Park and Shenton Bushland;
· Inadequacy of negotiated planning solution process in recognising whole area proposed to be
developed by the UWA in proposed outline development plan (Perth’s Bushplan);
· Contribution to air quality, function as a buffer to the Subiaco Waste Water Treatment Plant;
· Fauna habitat, particularly as a breeding site for the Australian Little Eagle (uncommon in the
suburbs);
· Representation of three ecological communities of Jarrah, Tuart and Banksia woodland;
· Preservation for future generations;
· Aboriginal heritage site (sacred tree and campsite);
· Protection of groundwater quality;
28 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
· Area not viable for conservation as a smaller site; and
· Use as an education site.
EPA (2001)
Suggestions of finding alternative way to raise revenue, and covenant the bushland for conservation were rejected by the university, due to no viable option being suggested. Criticisms of the University for having even considered the proposal were rebutted by the Vice Chancellor, who said that the proposal was in “complete accordance” with the original intended purpose of the grant of land – to fund the university (Robson 2002). The fact that the university requires the money for further infrastructure development means that it is not in the position of being able to preserve the land for conservations sake.
The suggestion that ecotourism may be used at the site for this purpose was also rejected, describing the idea as ‘marginal at best’. The University has expressed its willingness to participate in a land swap, however the government have been unable to come up with a mutually suitable deal.
The University agreed to maintain 8.5ha of bushland in the south-east corner as Bush Forever bushland.
This can be seen in the diagram below, there the cross hatched section is the proposed development, and the dark mottled section is the bushland earmarked for conservation.
29 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Figure 4: Map of the Underwood Avenue area, including the proposal site and protected area
(EPA 2001)
According to a university spokesman, the “university has been environmentally responsible in agreeing to set aside 8.5ha, worth approximately $20 million, for conservation” (EPA 2001). This 8.5ha makes up approximately 27% of the proposed site, and is said to be the “bushland that is in the best (very good) condition”, although not all bushland in very good condition would be protected. The proposed conservation area also does not include Jacksonia sericea (Priority 3) or small population of Eucalyptus decipiens [Redheart], which is poorly protected (EPA 2001).
In their response to the proposal, EPA (2001) considered that the important environmental issues in the case were the protection of bushland and the odour issue.
In the case of the bushland protection, the main issue was the percentage being protected was
“inadequate to protect the core (highest conservation value) area/s of the site”, as well as being
“arguably below the area that could reasonably be expected to be retained as bushland” (EPA 2001). The report recommended that a larger area (not substantially so) should be set aside for conservation. The
EPA also noted the effects that the reduced area and affected linkage may have on the fauna populations of the area (Section 2.2.1).
30 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
For the other primary consideration, odour from the nearby Wastewater Treatment Plant, the report stated that although the Water Corporation has undertaken to introduce further odour control measures, the University was unable to “demonstrate with reasonable certainty that the air quality within the proposed subdivision area would be appropriate for residential development in terms of odour”.
Research undertaken by consultants for the university was de emed unreliable due to inadequate meteorological data, inadequate emissions data and insufficient time to evaluate the actual result of the odour control measures.
The Water Corporation is also critical of the proposal, arguing for the retention of the ‘buffer’ that the bushland currently provides. Odour sensitive land uses, such as residential housing, are deemed unacceptable, due to nuisance and hazard experienced by residents adjacent to the buffer zone, additional cost experienced to ratepayers for sewerage operations if additional odour removal technologies are required, and additional energy consumption by sewerage system (Water Corporation
2001). Suitable land uses suggested include horticulture using reclaimed effluent, nature reserve, plantation forestry, agriculture, and a scenic buffer.
The Water Corporation commissioned a survey to investigate the community’s attitudes toward the
Underwood Avenue bushland. A total of 404 people were surveyed, with 82% opposed UWA's proposal,
12% supporting UWA 's proposal and 6% undecided. In addition, 72% expressed a preference for the
UWA land to be retained as bushland, an additional 14% supported some kind of environmentally sustainable use of the land, while 7% preferred housing and 4% wanted commercial use for the area.
Over 87% of residents surveyed were interested in the outcome of the issue.
At the end of 1999, UWA started a Supreme Court action against the Water Corporation, claiming the water treatment works have reduced the opportunity for UWA to develop the land. This argument was strengthened when the development proposal was rejected on the basis of odour problems. The battle
31 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering has drawn criticism from different sectors, including the Opposition Leader Colin Barnett, who criticised the fact that two ‘essentially publicly-owned institutions’ resorted to high-cost legal proceedings in the Supreme Court. Concerns have also been raised about the impact on taxpayers if the
University wins the battle, which could potentially force the treatment to close, require costly upgrades or result in settlements in the order of tens of millions of dollars ( POST 2002).
At the beginning of 2002, several fires in the bushland ((Jan 6th, 7th, 9th) burnt a significant proportion of the site. UWA was subsequently lobbied to spray for weeds (successional species), but according to the
Friends of Underwood Avenue Bushland, this did not occur. Regeneration since that time can be viewed pictorially in Appendix 6, which shows photographs taken during and immediately after the fire, and
Appendix 7, which shows a comparison between photographs taken just after the fire and recent photographs (10 months later). Photographs taken at of the same location at these times (labelled Site A) show the extent of regeneration, as well as some of the weed species present.
2.3 Sustainable Development
Over the last several decades, the global community has begun to realise that economic growth must be conducted in an ecologically sound and socia lly acceptable manner. The traditional attitude that we have inherited the Earth from our forbears and thus have the right to do to it as we please is moving toward the attitude that “we have not inherited the earth from our fathers, but are borrowing it from our children”
(Brown 1988).
2.3.1 Brundtland Report
The term ‘sustainable’ has only been used in the last 20 or 30 years (Swarbrooke 1999), with the 1987
32 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Brundtland Report, also known as Our Common Future, catapulting the term to global significance. The report, developed by an international group of politicians, civil servants and experts on the environment and development, coined what is now seen as a key statement on sustainable development, defining it as:
development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (World Commission on Environment and Development 1990)
The fundamental message of the Report was that it is vital to integrate economics and ecology, as the conservation of plants, animals and micro-organisms, and the elements of the environment on which they depend, are crucial for development (World Commission on Environment and Development 1990).
The report has been described as a “catalyst which saw a major worldwide rise in environmental consciousness” (Figgis 1999). It also saw the emergence of experts arguing that the terms ‘sustainable’ and ‘development’ are diametrically opposed and thus ‘sustainable development’ is an oxymoron. The ensuing high profile debate about sustainability soon encompassed the tourism issue (Croall 1995), with members of the tourism industry considering the implications of the concept of ‘sustainable development’ to their industry. The result was the development of the concept of ‘sustainable tourism’.
According to Croall (1995), it suggested that we need to: u Respect and care for the community of life u Improve the quality of human life u Conserve the Earth’s vitality and diversity u Minimise the depletion of non-renewable resources u Keep within the Earth’s carrying capacity u Change personal attitudes and practices to adopt the ethic of sustainable living u Enable communities to care for their own environments u Provide a national framework for integrating development and conservation
33 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
2.3.2 Ecological Sustainability
Associated with the concept of sustainable development is the concept of ecological sustainability and ecologically sustainable development (ESD), and like sustainable development, ESD is a recent concept.
According to the IUCN (1991), a society is ecologically sustainable when it:
- Conserves ecological life-support systems and biodiversity;
- Ensures that uses of renewable resources are sustainable and minimizes the depletion of
non-renewable resources;
- Keeps within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems
(IUCN 1991, p198)
The World Commission on Environment and Development (1990) relates the concepts of economic sustainability and ecological sustainability as follows:
Economic sustainability l Efficiency l Investment l Diversification l External balance
Ecological sustainability l Biological diversity l Ecosystem conservation l Interconnectedness l Aversion to risk l Scale of impact
34 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Ecologically sustainable development is development that uses, conserves and enhances communities’ resources, maintaining the ecological resources on which life depends and increasing the total quality of life (Knox et al. 1994). Important objectives, necessary for the achievement of ESD, include: intergenerational equity; conservation of biological diversity and ecological integrity; constant natural capital; anticipatory and precautionary policies; social equity; limits on natural resource use; pricing environmental values and natural development; global and regional perspectives; efficiency; resilience and community participation (Knox et al. 1994).
The need to conserve of biological diversity as a foundation of ecologically sustainable development is also recognised by the Commonwealth Government of Australia, who have developed the National
Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development (1992) as a consequence of the Brundtland Report.
The National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological Diversity (1996) and the
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) 1999 were later developed (for more information see Section 2.1.1) to expand on this objective.
2.4 Tourism
Tourism is one of the world’s fastest growing industrial sectors (Cater 1994), with world tourism growing by 260% between 1970 and 1990, and having an estimated throughput of more than US$3.5 million per year (Wearing 1999). Cater (1994) discusses the wide-ranging interests of the tourism industry, commenting that “no other form of economic activity transects so many sectors, levels and interests as tourism”. How ever, along with this phenomenal growth and economic gain has come a great number of social and environmental problems in the host regions. Some of these impacts are listed in
Table 4.
35 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering Type Example Effects of Pollution Air Pollution (vehicles, energy production and use) Water pollution (wastewater discharge, motor boats, solid waste) Pollution of sites (littering, household waste) Noise pollution (traffic, crowds, entertainment venues) Visual pollution (high rise hotels, advertising signs, poor maintenance) Loss of natural landscape Infrastructure (housing, tourism facilities and agriculture) Valuable natural sites – public use barred Destruction of flora and fauna Pollution (as above) Loss of natural landscape (as above) Tourist behaviour (trampling, vandalism, souveniring) Degradation of landscape and of Aesthetic degradation (loss of traditional style, disorderly growth) historic sites and monuments Excessive visitors (graffiti, wear, pilfering)
Effects of Congestion Overloading amenities and infrastructure, congestion of sites
Traffic congestion (time loss, higher fuel consumption, air & noise pollution
Effects of Conflict Conflict between tourists and resident population (change of way of life)
Effects of Competition Labour demands (detrimental to traditional activities), exclusive practice of tourism-related occupations
Table 4: Impacts of tourism on the environment (from Buhalis 1995)
Buhalis (1995) attributes the environmental impacts in part to the fact that the environment is a zero-priced public good, which results in excess demand and over-utilisation (free-rider problem) , meaning that limited natural resources in the region cannot satisfy tourist demand. Prosser (1995) terms tourism an ‘exploitative industry’, relating its cycle to that of the extraction of a primary resource. He argues that the evolution of tourism at a particular site follows a basic pattern of discovery (resources are valuable and attractive), popularization (the attributes of the region are promoted, demand grows and the destination experiences a boom period), saturation (resources are ‘maximally exploited’), fading fashion
(the attractive/competitive/valuable edge is gone and the destination loses popularity) and decline
(demand continued to reduce) (see Figure 5).
36 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Figure 5: The tourism product cycle (from Prosser 1994)
This cycle then repeats itself in another ‘new’ destination. However
2.4.1 Sustainable Tourism
The relationship between tourism and the environment can perhaps be described as one of mutual dependence. Just as tourism is an economic activity that impacts upon the environment, especially at the destination level (Buhalis & Fletcher 1995), the environment contributes to desirability and attractiveness of a destination. Thus, sustainable development is required to preserve the environment as an asset, and the tourism industry should attempt to protect it (Buhalis & Fletcher 1995). Based on the concept of sustainable development (as previously defined), Wall (1997) reasons that “if tourism is to contribute to sustainable development, then it must be economically viable, ecologically sensitive and culturally appropriate”.
The concept of sustainable tourism is continually evolving, and has thus proven difficult to define.
Swarbrooke (1999) outlines some of the principles and issues below:
· Sustainable tourism is not just about protecting the environment; it is also concerned with long-term
economic viability and social justice
· Sustainable tourism initiatives bring benefits to some people and costs to others.
37 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
· Sustainable tourism closely related to the wider issue of sustainable development.
· More critical evaluation of existing thinking and techniques is required.
· Progress in terms of more sustainable tourism is highly dependent on the activities of the industry
and the attitudes of the tourists
Clarke (1997) proposes a framework of conceptualisations of sustainable tourism, based on four different approaches.
The first is termed ‘polar opposites’, and takes the position that mass tourism and sustainable tourism are mutually exclusive, with the implication that sustainable tourism is ‘good’ (positive) and mass tourism is ‘bad’ (negative). This was the original notion of the concept.
The second proposition – ‘a continuum’ – is seen as the next step in the conceptualisation, where the notion of the continuum between mass tourism and sustainable tourism was seen as a “flexible adaptation of the earlier ideas” (Clarke 1997). However, this interpretation has been criticised as being too simple and too impractical.
The third proposition – movement – suggests a movement (positive) toward more sustainable forms of tourism from mass tourism.
This framework is said to “culminate” in the fourth proposition of convergence. This concept proposes that sustainable tourism is a goal that all tourism should strive to achieve.
Although the fourth proposition is said to be the most recent conceptualization, most of the current tourism paradigms are based on the concept of ‘polar opposites’.
38 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Swarbrooke (1999) commented that tourists do not appear to be very interested in the concept of sustainable tourism. There has been no action such as boycotts, or demands for higher wages. This finding is rationalised by the suggestion that perhaps tourists may view their vacation as a time when they do not need to be responsible, even though they may take sustainable development seriously in their everyday lives.
According to Swarbrooke (1999), tourism types that are highly compatible with the sustainable tourism concept include: ecotourism; cultural tourism which involves visitors learning about the history and culture of an area; urban attractions which provide new uses for derelict sites; small-scale rural
‘agro-tourism’ which brings income to farmers; and conservation holidays where tourists do conservation work during their vacations. Types of tourism that are largely incompatible with the sustainable development concept are: mass market coastal tourism; activity holidays which have a negative impact on the environment (skiing, off road vehicle driving, mountain biking); sex tourism which leads to the spread of STDs; hunting and fishing holidays (particularly when unregulated); and visiting very fragile environments such as rainforests and the Antarctic.
The concept of sustainable tourism is based on the concept of sustainable development, and has many associated tourism forms, including ecotourism (see Figure 6). Ecotourism is an extremely fast-developing sector around the world , and promises to provide an economic incentive for environmental conservation.
39 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Figure 6: Sustainable tourism (from Swarbrooke 1999)
2.4.2 Sustainable Tourism Design
As well as ensuring that ecotourism operations have a minimum impact on the natural environment when participating in activities such as bushwalking and wildlife viewing, it is also important to design ecotourism facilities in a sustainable manner. Facilities such as interpretation centres, boardwalks, restaurants and other types of permanent infrastructure should be designed to maximise efficiency, minimise impact and be functional yet attractive to visitors.
Tourism Queensland (1999) outlines the three-stage process of sustainable tourism design which involves climate analysis, locality analysis and site analysis. The relationship between these stages, and their associated considerations, are depicted in Figure 7 (below).
40 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Figure 7: Sustainable Design Process (from Tourism Queensland 1999)
Bells (1998) developed a more comprehensive overview of sustainable design principles and important considerations. These include:
· sustaining place (respect the significance of the location)
· more sustainable site selection (reuse disturbed areas)
· site responsive site design (evaluation, minimise impacts, orientation, incorporate nature into the
design)
· building design (efficiency, optimise space, access, connect with nature)
· buildings and health (avoid toxic materials, chemicals, air contamination)
· sustainable materials (natural materials, local materials and durable materials)
· sustainable services (conserving water and energy – easy and cost effective)
· unsustainable wastes (waste as resource, 3 ‘R’ of reduce, reuse, recycle)
The adoption and application of these principles is an extremely important step toward sustainability in the tourism industry.
41 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering 2.5 Ecotourism
Ecotourism is a concept that is generally thought to be associated with sustainable tourism. The terms
‘ecotourism’ and ‘sustainable tourism’ are sometimes even used interchangeably with others such as
‘alternative tourism’ and ‘environmentally friendly tourism’. All are related; however, they are not synonymous.
2.5.1 Origins
Budowski (1978) is credited to be the first to have developed the concept of ecotourism, although he didn’t specifically introduce the term. Like Clarke (1997) (Section 2.4.1), Budowski (1978) proposed three relationships between tourism and nature (the environment) – coexistence, conflict and symbiosis.
The first widely published definition of ecotourism was that of Ceballos-Lascurain, whose 1987 definition was quoted in Boo (1990): “tourism that consists in travelling to relatively undisturbed or uncontaminated natural areas with the specific objective of studying, admiring, and enjoying the scenery and its wild plants and animals, as well as any existing cultural manifestations (both past and present) found in those areas”.
2.5.2 Definition
Weaver (2001) defines ecotourism as “a form of tourism that is increasingly understood to be: (i) based primarily on nature-based attractions; (ii) learning-centred; and (iii) conducted in a way that makes every reasonable attempt to be environmentally, socio -culturally and economically sustainable”. The educational, cultural and interpretive components separate ecotourism from ‘nature-based tourism’, a
42 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering term which encompasses not only ecotourism, but any tourist activity that takes place in the natural environment, such as adventure tourism (e.g. white-water rafting and four-wheel driving).
Some potential advantages of ecotourism include: providing higher economic returns than other activities, benefiting local communities (and thus providing an incentive to protect), encouraging the establishment of protected areas, and contributing to conservation through contributions (fees, donations) from ecotourists (Hvenegaard 1998).
The World Ecotourism Summit also found that a ‘fundamental point’ was that ecotourism products should be developed and operated in such a way that they embrace all aspects of sustainability, and that
“ecotourism should lead towards more sustainable tourism generally”. The cost of low impact and environmentally sensitive design, often associated with prohibitively high expenses, was not necessarily higher than more traditional designs. It was also noted that these designs in fact has the potential to result in significant savings in operational costs (World Ecotourism Summit Final Report 2002 p45).
As with the concept of sustainable development, there is considerable debate as to whether ecotourism can ever become more than just a concept, as well as what in fact the concept entails. It is very common for literature on ecotourism to devote a whole introductory chapter or more to attempting to define the concept (for example, Cater 1994, Wearing 1999). Due to this ongoing debate, it has been concluded that there was little chance of any widespread agreement on the meaning usage of the terms would be achieved in the near future (Weaver 1998). The World Ecotourism Summit (2002) emphasised that it is the principles and goals of ecotourism, and not the terminology, that is important, noting that the conceptual and practical aspects of ecotourism have been isolated for too long, and recommending ecotourism development be primarily focussed on action plans.
Wall (1997) contends “regardless of definition, ecotourism is an instigator of change”. The desired
43 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering change is, of course, an improvement in the existing situation; with the funds from the operations ideally funding continued conservation efforts. Tourists seek change from their everyday lives and hope to experience new scenes and cultures, operators wish to gain a livelihood, and governments want to maximise benefits from the tourism operations.
The World Ecotourism Summit also found that challenges for ecotourism product development and marketing include the failure of too many products, difficulties faced in reaching markets cost-effectively (especially small enterprises and community based products), inconsistencies in quality of the ecotourism product (visitor experiences and environmental management), the need and opportunity to gain more benefit for the local communities (by reducing leakages of revenue, stimulating more spending), and the lack of public awareness of ecotourism issues, resulting in few people seeking out ‘true’ and sustainable ecotourism products (‘shonky’ dealers able to operate) (World
Ecotourism Summit Final Report 2002).
The problems of inconsistencies in products and of ‘shonky’ dealers are in part related to what Lew
(1996) terms ‘eco-pirates’, who copy existing responsible ecotourism products, but operate them in a non-responsible manner. Such operations typically offer lower prices; however as the ecotourists receive inferior experiences, they may in the future be reluctant to participate in more reputable ecotours.
They also tend to result in detrimental environmental and social impacts. In addition, although the travel industry did not originate the concept of ecotourism, it quickly adopted it, popularised it, mainstreamed it – and watered it down in the process, turning it into more of a marketing tool and catchphrase than an environmental philosophy. Terms such as ‘green’, ‘eco-‘, ‘quiet’, and pristine’ are beginning to feature more and more in tourism promotions as the travel industry attempts to cash in on what Wheeller (1994) terms ‘ego-tourism’ (“ecotourism that allows the thinking tourists to behave much as before with a clear conscience”) and what Berle (1990) terms “loving nature to death”.
44 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
One of the reasons for this is the lack of one single definition, which has resulted in the widespread use of the term, whether or not the product adheres to the basic ecotourism principles. This misuse of the term has been termed greenwashing.
Despite these deficiencies in the current ecotourism market, ‘true’ ecotourism operations hold significant promise with respect to reducing visitor impacts , increasing revenue used to fund conservation measures, and increasing the environmental awareness of its participants.
2.5.3 Principles of Ecotourism
An important finding of the World Ecotourism Summit Final Report (2002) is that the most important aim of any ecotourism operation should be to adhere to the basic principles of ecotourism. Wall and Ross
(1999) identified five fundamental functions of ecotourism – protection of natural areas, generation of money, education, quality tourism and local participation – all of which are interrelated and must be achieved in order to achieve ‘true ecotourism’. It is hoped that in the future, these principles will not just apply to ecotourism but to the tourist industry as a whole, and have the potential to “transform tourism into an environmentally and culturally sensitive activity that contributes to sustainable growth” (Honey
1999).
Nature-based
Many authors have noted the high potential for environmental benefits through the use of carefully planned and managed ecotourism operations that follow all the basic ecotourism principles. It is
‘compatible’ with the conservation of biodiversity and may in fact be one of the least damaging forms of land use (Tisdell 1995); it has the potential to make a huge contribution to conservation though funds
45 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering generation and exposing visitors to conservation ethics (Dwyer and Edwards 2000); and it has the potential to provide an incentive to preserve valuable bushland areas instead of conducting destructive activities such as mining in those areas (Charters 1996)
Interpretation
The main purpose of interpretation is to influence behaviour in a positive manner through an
‘appropriate’ experience (Pastorelli 1998), applying the philosophy of “a photograph may be worth a thousand words but experience through participation is everlasting” (Kerr 1992). In the context of ecotourism, it is defined as “the process whereby the significance and meanings of natural and associated cultural phenomena are revealed to visitors, usually with the intent of providing a satisfying learning experience while at the same time inducing and encouraging more sustainable behaviour among those experiencing ecotourism” (Weaver 2002).
The four main principles of environmental education - awareness, attitudes, abilities and action - can be achieved through the use of ecotourism guides who knowledgeable, aware of ecological significance of their ecosystem and the species within it, and aim to bring positive benefits to that system (Shepard and
Royston-Airey 2000), carefully designed interpretations centres, publications and signage, and the use of interpretation techniques that are tailored to the intended audience (Field 2001).
In a survey of both urban and rural respondents attitudes toward native vegetation, Cary and Williams
(2000) found that in general, “humans are attracted to environments that offer information and way-finding cues, and avoid environments which appear to be confusing or difficult to understand”.
However, it was also found that through the use of simple interpretation techniques, people become more comfortable with visually complex and biologically diverse environments. This is only one of
46 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering many potential applications of interpretation techniques that can be incorporated into an ecotourism venture.
Cultural components
The cultural components associated with ecotourism are one of the main differences that separates nature-based and ecotourism. Ecotourism operations, through the aid of interpretation, can educate the visitors about the cultural heritage of the site, and impart to the visitors the importance of respect for culture, as well as genuine interest in the local culture. In Australia, cultural components of an ecotourism experience may include Aboriginal history and culture, or the country’s colonial history.
According to Allcock et al. (1994), a 1993 Australia Council study revealed that international visitors to
Australia were very interested in experiencing Aboriginal arts and culture at their source. Similarly,
Zeppel (2001) noted a worldwide increase in indigenous involvement in tourism, and identified key areas of demand as digeridoos and Aboriginal cultural centres. The author cautions, however, that
Aboriginal cultural operations should ideally be owned and operated by the Aboriginal people themselves. There is also an increase in the number of Aboriginal cultural operations in urban areas, as these areas are the principal destination for most visitors in Australia, and are thus accessible to key tourist markets.
Ecotourism also has a ‘less negative’ impact on the local culture than would result from a traditional tourism venture, due to the direct involvement with the local peoples, small group numbers and revenue gained.
2.5.4 Ecotourist Market
When planning an ecotourism operation, it is extremely important to understand the potential market,
47 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering and their demands and expectations, in order for the operation for effective planning and management
(Field 2001). These factors influence the choice of location, design of ecotourism facilities, operational style and interpretation content.
Eagles and Higgins (1998) identified three major motivations for ecotourism: l Widespread changing environmental attitude esp. in the Western world (based on the recognition of
the inter-relationships of species and their environment, the finite character of the earth, and the
innate value of all life). l Development of environmental education (to varying degrees) in primary and secondary schools in
the last four decades l The development of the environmental mass media (in response to society’s emerging ecological
attitude) resulted in ecological attitudes being reinforced and spread across society.
(Eagles and Higgins 1998)
These motivations have led to a demand for environmentally based tourism products such as ecotourism.
Continuing changes in the above factors, as well as international differences, means that the ecotourism market is not easily defined, but consists of a spectrum of participants with differing interests, motivations and expectations. Many authors, such as Parfitt (1999), Boyd and Butler (1996) and Juric
(1996), have recognised this ‘spectrum’ of ecotourists – from the specialist ecotourist to participants who are just interested in broadening their range of experiences (Figure 8).
48 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Figure 8: Ecotourist Spectrum
The first spectrum (Figure 8) was developed by Juric (1996), who defined two types of ecotourist – the dedicated ecotourist and the casual ecotourist. The former is defined as a scientist or professional specialist with a specific interest in nature, and the latter as a tourist who is not solely interested by nature, and who combine their trip with visits to non nature-related attractions.
Boyd and Butler (1996) introduced the second spectrum as part of their ‘Ecotourism Opportunity
Spectrum’. Within this spectrum, they evaluated eight factors relating to the ecotourism experience in terms of the three components of the spectrum: eco-specialists, intermediate and eco-generalists. The eco-generalist category were found to usually be involved in larger tour groups (often packages), require a certain amount of tourism infrastructure, expect minimal physical effort, enjoy cultural attractions along with natural attractions, be willing to accept more extensive development in the area, and be the most diverse of the three ecotourist markets.
The third spectrum was developed by Tourism Queensland (1999) as a result of a comprehensive survey of ecotourists in Queensland. Three broad categories were determined from the results: definite, probable and possible ecotourists. The definite ecotourists were found to be the most committed group, the probable ecotourists were found to have an underlying disposition toward nature and learning, and the possible ecotourists were found to be disposed toward nature based tourism and activities.
49 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
There is also a spectrum of ecotourism operations identified by Tourism Queensland (1999), who identified three broad styles of ecotourism operation:
· Self-reliant ecotourism (less than 10 people, non-motorised travel eg. Bushwalking, bird watching)
· Small-group ecotourism (less than 30 people, non-motorised or low capacity motorised travel eg.
Guided tours)
· Popular ecotourism (no set size limit, motorised high capacity transport (bus, catamaran) eg.
Interpreted cruises)
Similarly, Blamey (2001) classified two different types of ecotourism – classical ecotourism and popular ecotourism (Figure 9)
Figure 9: Classification of Ecotourism Types (from Blamey 1991)
According to Weir (1996), a study of the ACT ecotourist market found that a major segment of the market wants:
· Easy and affordable opportunities to experience scenic and/or interesting natural areas
· Gentle to moderately demanding physical activities in those areas
· A range of recreational, cultural, educational and other opportunities also available
Detailed information about the ecotourism market, including market segmentation, demographics,
50 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering expectations and interests , can be found in Blamey and Hatch (1996), Blamey (1995), Juric (199x) and
Eagles (1992). This information, taken from surveys of ecotour participations in various countries, can then be applied to the intended ecotourism site.
2.5.5 Ecotourism in Australia
Australia’s wide range of climatic conditions supports a diverse array of different habitats across the country, and has a network of protected areas accounting for approximately 5.3% of the nation’s surface area. ‘Australia the clean, green environment’ has long attracted large numbers of international tourists who are keen to explore this vast array of environments. In 1996, it was estimated that Australia ’s ecotourism industry has about “600 operators employing some 6500 full time, part time and casual employees, or around 4500 full time equivalent employees (1% of total tourism employment)”. A conservative estimate is that the collective payroll of the sector is at least $115 million, with a turnover of at least $250 million (around 1% of the total tourism industry). This represents up to 3% of tourism export earnings (Cotterill 1996).
Significant ecotourism programs include the National Ecotourism Strategy, the Nature-Based
Ecotourism Strategy for Western Australia (both government strategies) and the Ecotourism Association of Australia (a non-government organisation that coordinates the National Ecotourism Accreditation
Program).
2.5.6 Ecotourism Case Study
The Australian Wildlife Conservancy (AWC), a Western Australian based organisation, owns and manages 10 properties across Australia, covering more than 1.3 million acres. These sanctuaries are
51 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering purchased using funds donated by industry and the community, and managed to protect a range of ecosystems, in environments of from the Kimberley, north Queensland, western NSW, the Flinders
Ranges and the forests of south-western Australia.
The primary strategy of the AWC, as stated in Australian Wildlife Conservancy (2002a) is:
· Acquisition of Land
· Management for Conservation
· Restoration
· Science and Research
· Public Education
· Enriching the Human Spirit (inspiration)
It is a charitable company, “limited by guarantee whose members have no rights to participate in the profits or any distribution of the assets of the company”. The company is entered on the Register of
Environmental Organisations and is exempt from liability for income tax, donations are deductible, and within Western Australia, it is a charitable company for the purposes of shire rates, stamp duty and land tax exemption (Australian Wildlife Conservancy 2002a). The organisation receives government assistance through the Federal Minister for the Environment; Perth Zoo; CALM; CSIRO; and
Environment Australia (Australian Wildlife Conservancy 2002b)
The original concept for the AWC was based on an organisation called Earth Sanctuaries Ltd, which bases its operations in South Australia, and owns and manages properties across Eastern Australia.
However, in terms of area managed for conservation, “Australian Wildlife Conservancy is probably the largest non-government environmental organisation in Australia” (Australian Wildlife Conservancy
2002).
The principle motivation of the organisation is the conservation of habitats and species, and all funds
52 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering earned and raised are used to directly fund the organisation’s operations. It has been estimated that for the entire AWC, 79% of expenditure was on conservation programs, as on development (fundraising), and 6% was on administration (Australian Wildlife Conservancy 2002).
The first project was Karakamia, which is 250 ha. of fenced bushland located in the Perth hills, approximately 1 hours drive from the centre of the city.. It supports a variety of habitat types – its rich flora includes upland jarrah forest, marri woodland, wandoo woodland, granitic heaths and shrublands, and beautiful blackbutt creeklines, and supports around 240 plant species (Australian Wildlife
Conservancy 2002b). This variety of habitats was chosen in order to ensure the native species have the best possible chance for long term survival (Schmitz and Copely 1996). The bushland now supports a number of rare and threatened mammals including Numbat, Western Ringtail Possum, Quokka, Woylie,
Tammar Wallaby, Brush Wallaby and Quenda. Ninety-seven birds, including 2 nationally threatened
Black Cockatoo species, have been recorded in the area, along with more than 30 species of reptiles and frogs.
One of the major successes of the program has been the Quenda (Isoodon obesulus), which is commonly called southern brown bandicoot. It now occurs in fairly low numbers in the wild, and is a nocturnal mammal. Like most Australian mammals, its main predators are the introduced European fox, feral cat. One of the principle aims of the AWC is to re-establish wildlife communities and their ecosystems to pre-European settlement conditions. It is important to note, however, that only species known to have previously existed in the area are reintroduced. It was necessary to permanently eradicate
(using 1080 baiting and approximately 6.5km of electrified vermin-proof fencing) all predators before any introductions of mammal species commenced (Schmitz and Copely 1996). The Quenda responded well in a predator free environment, and bred rapidly. Similarly, populations of other small mammals that were originally in such small number that they had not previously been recorded in the area began to be spotted (Schmitz and Copely 1996).
53 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
There is a management agreement between the sanctuary and CALM, and an endorsed management plan for day-to-day running. Partnership benefits to the state include having a private organization involved in research and conservation programmes, and Karakamia benefits from CALM expertise.
The major conclusion drawn from the experience of the AWC is that “private conservation initiatives are viable and have a significant role to play in the State” (Schmitz and Copely 1997). However, the
Experience of the original ‘brainchild’, Earth Sanctuaries, demonstrates that the objectives behind the initiatives are crucial to their success or failure. The Earth Sanctuaries is a publicly listed company on the stock exchange, and as such requires a profit in order to be viable. This approach appears flawed, as the company recently has to declare bankruptcy and sell a number of its properties (to AWC). From these case studies it appears that ecotourism initiatives aimed primarily at conservation will be successful.
2.5.7 Urban Ecotourism
The concept of ecotourism is generally associated with ‘pristine’ environments in remote areas, particularly in National Parks and other protected areas. It has only been relatively recently that ecotourism experts have begun to consider the potential of urban areas as a valuable component of the ecotourism industry.
Perhaps the first to do so was Lawton and Weaver (2001), who commented that “while the notion of
‘urban ecotourism’ may be considered an oxymoron by some, there is no inherent reason for precluding urbanised areas as legit imate ecotourism venues, as long as the basic criteria for this activity are met”.
Possibilities for urban ecotourism suggested by Lawton and Weaver (2001) include urban parks and golf
54 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering courses with pockets of vegetation. However, few attempts have been made to realise the ‘”formidable’ potential of urban areas as ecotourist destinations.
One of the few urban ecotourism operations is located in Toronto, Canada, where an organization called the Urban Green Tourism developed a whole -of-city approach to ecotourism. One result of the approach was the development of ‘The OTHER Map of Toronto’ - not just a single sanctuary, but focussing on tourism and the environment, highlighting green activities (Urban Green Tourism Association 2002).
Many of the ecotourism opportunities do not involve direct income from the tourists, but are either self-guided or volunteers.
The Association defines urban green tourism as: “travel and exploration within and around an urban area tat offers visitors enjoyment and appreciation of the city’s natural areas and cultural resources, while inspiring physically active, intellectually stimulating and socially active experiences; promotes the city’s long-term ecological health by promoting walking, cycling, public transportation; promotes sustainable local economic and community development and vitality; celebrates local heritage and arts; is accessible and equitable to all” (Dodds et al. 2001). This definition encompasses all the principles of ecotourism, as well as other aspects generally not considered by ecotourism, such as bicycle riding and public transportation, which are opportunities that are generally not available in traditional ecotourist destinations.
The benefits of promoting ecotourism outside fragile protected areas were noted by Ceballos-Lascurain
(1993) emphasised that ecotourism should not be restricted to such areas, as pressures from such operations on these areas may ultimately result in degradation. Instead, promotion of ecotourism in areas without official protection may prove beneficial in providing the local community to work to maintain the area. Later, Wearing (1999) commented that ecotourism could be used as an incentive for the restoration of modified landscapes to a state capable of attracting ecotourists”. Such restoration efforts
55 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering are termed ‘restoration ecotourism’ by Weaver (2001).
Other advantages of urban ecotourism include:
· Infrastructure is already developed, and accessible to all
· Convenience for the ecotourist, especially those who have limited time available and would
otherwise be unable to travel to remote ecotourist destinations
· Preservation of urban bushland areas which may otherwise threatened by development
· Unlike ecotourism in protected areas and other fragile ecosystems, ecotourism in the city actually
lessens this impact, and existing infrastructure of a city is generally much more able to handle
tourism impacts than such areas. In fact, ecotourism may result in improvement to the environment
through the use of funds generated for conservation measures
· Located close to other environmental and cultural areas of interest, so ecotours can involve a variety
of destinations and experiences
· Raise the awareness of sustainability issues in the city
· Local ecotour guides are method of providing revenue to local communities, or educational
experience for student volunteers
Some potential challenges include:
· Costs of land, leases or permits
· Legislation – may be difficult to convince the relevant governments to support the idea
· Security issues / fire hazard, as it is difficult and expensive to patrol. Security is more of a problem in
urban areas, as they are very easily accessible to the wrong types of people as well as ecotourists.
The fire hazard is also increased – urban areas have high rates of fire, especially due to arson
· Smaller, more degraded habitats with less ‘spectacular’ sights. Revegetation / restoration may be
required – this is quite expensive and time consuming. For example, Warrawong took over a decade
to restore, although the fact that it was once a dairy farm suggests that it was more degraded than
56 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
most urban bushland areas.
Urban ecotourist market
In applying the concept of ecotourism to urban areas, it is important to look at the urban tourist market.
It is difficult to quantify the market in urban areas, as there are very few such operations currently operating. However, information about the general ecotourist market can be integrated with information with the urban tourist market in an attempt to quantify the urban ecotourist market.
“Every visitor attraction is an element of a tourist destination and can be a vital element which provides the major activity at the destination and the primary reason for visiting the destination. A small attraction in a place with a strong image as a destination will not attract visitors in its own right, but will benefit from the ready-made flow of visitors” p73 of Law
Law (2002) identifies the urban tourism markets as:
· Business travellers
· Conference and exhibition delegates
· Short-break holiday makers
· Day trippers
· Visitors to friends and relatives
· Long holiday-makers on a tour, stopping off on a short visit
· Long holiday-makers using the city as a gateway to the surrounding region
57 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Previous proposal for Underwood Avenue
The idea of developing an ecotourism operation in the Underwood Avenue bushland site was first proposed by a group of UWA academics in 1994. The original idea was suggested by Professor Andrew
Brennan of the UWA Department of Philosophy, who suggested that the area could be used as a sanctuary and community education resource, primarily focussing on conservation biology as well as the issues facing wildlife management in Australia in the 21st century. It was proposed that the ecotourism operation be coordinated by UWA. After engaging the director of Earth Sanctuaries, John
Walmsley, as a consultant, it was recommended that a feasibility study (estimated to cost about $30,000) be carried out to assess the proposal. This suggestion, however, was rejected by the Vice Chancellor and
Chancellor of UWA. The principle idea was to build an Interpretation Centre be built, marsupials (such as possums, honey possums, bandicoots and bettongs) be introduced to the area and small chalets be built for those wishing to stay overnight. The aim of the project was to “provide an environment close to
Perth in which visitors can enjoy wildlife observation, have access to guided night walks, and relax in surrounding in which they can come into close contact with native animals and plants” (Draft Proposal
1994 p2) It was hoped that the project would generate a reasonable income, although it was recognised that it would be nothing like the amount to be gained from selling the land for development. The consultant estimated (in 1994) that the initial start-up costs would be approximately $2-3 million, with an estimated annual running cost of $500,000.
Expected benefits of the development included:
· Providing a service to the community
· Show examples of successful conservation and the ways in which it can be achieved
· Provide a focus for teaching and research (universities, schools, organisations and researchers)
· Provide visitors to WA with an orientation (using methods described below)
58 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
The authors proposed that the development should be “one of the University’s contributions to advancing understanding” (Brennan and Bradshaw 1994).
2.6 ‘Triple Bottom Line’ Economics
Traditionally, decision-making has been based almost exclusively on economics alone – capital costs, expected returns, net present value and other economic considerations determining when, how and where ‘development’ should occur.
Due to the recent concerns about sustainable development (Section 2.3), there have been attempts to include the ‘value’ of the environment into economic analysis, using valuation techniques such as travel-cost method to estimate direct values and methods such as choice modelling, contingent valuation and benefit transfers to estimate direct values as well as non-use benefits (Section 2.1.2). Most of these economic valuation techniques are anthropocentric (values are based on how much people are willing to pay) (DeLacy 1990), and do not generally account for social objectives.
2.6.1 ‘Triple Bottom Line’ Accounting Principle
The principle of ‘triple bottom line accounting’ has been described as a new paradigm relating to the general principle of sustainabilit y (Whittaker 1999). According to Jeurissen (2000), the three bottom lines – economic prosperity, environmental quality and social justice – are interrelated, independent and partly in conflict.
The ‘triple bottom line’ concept was first introduced in 1998 by John Elkington in his book “Cannibals
With Forks: The Triple Bottom Line Of 21st Century Business”. In it, he relates the triple bottom line
59 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering concept to a three-pronged fork – one prong each for economics, the environment and society.
Taylor et al. (2002) developed the basis for the assessment of projects based on this principle, incorporating the three key factors - economic feasibility, social acceptability and environmental viability. The framework can then be applied to the specific case, and used to determine the feasibility of individual options, and as a basis for comparison between various options. The general objectives used in the framework are outlined in the following sections.
2.6.2 Environmental Objectives
“Environmental scarcity is… an ecolo gical fact of life… Until the economic value of environmental quality is an everyday feature of the way we compute progress and, more importantly, of the way we make environmental decisions… the environment will not be given a fair chance” - Pearce 1993 (p3)
In designing an engineering project, the environment is an extremely important aspect that must be considered. Detailed Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) of any proposed projects are effective methods of quantifying any environmental impacts, and they should ideally be conducted before any development occurs. However, in order to compare different projects, informed estimates (qualitative) of environmental effects can be used. Important considerations include:
Environmental effects. The effect on the environment due to the project should be minimised
Sustainability. The project should follow the principles of sustainable development
Waste disposal. The disposal method and quantities of waste must be considered when evaluating a project
Materials and energy source. In addition to the in-situ effect of the project, the environmental impact of
60 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering obtaining the materials and energy utilised or consumed must be considered (for example, energy consumed and environmental impact of mining minerals used in construction)
Greenhouse emissions. In accordance with the Kyoto Protocol, the Greenhouse emissions due to the project should be minimised
Environmental risk assessment. The future risk to the environment due to the project must be accounted for (e.g. risk due to the failure or malfunction of a mechanical component)
Environmental management. Plans in place in order to minimise the impact on the environment
2.6.3 Social Objectives
One of the important steps in designing an engineering solution to a problem is to consider any social impacts of the proposed design. It is also vital that the community is involved in, and kept informed of, all-important decision-making processes, so that the final design is one that is socially acceptable.
As with environmental effects, social objectives are very difficult to quantify, but can be compared in a qualitative manner. Some important considerations include:
Cultural adherence. The project should respect the cultural values of peoples of the region
Social adherence, acceptability and public consultation. There should be continued public consultation to ensure that the project is socially acceptable, and all efforts must be made to minimise public opposition and maximise public involvement.
Public health. The project must in no way have any adverse effects on or pose a risk to public health
Standard of living. All efforts must be made to maintain or improve the local standard of living, and ensure that there are no adverse effects in any way.
61 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
2.6.4 Economic Objectives
The economics of a project is the easiest to quantify of the three key factors of a triple bottom line analysis. However, complete economic analysis is very time consuming, and for the purposes on an initial comparison, comparative estimates of costs and revenues can be substituted. These include:
Economic cost.
Capital costs. The initial outlay, including land, buildings, infrastructure, licensing and labour costs, must be considered.
Operational costs. These include ongoing costs such as wages, maintenance, running costs and taxes
Opportunity costs. The value of opportunities that are forgone due to the implementation of the project
Revenue. The gains from the project should be included, as well as the timeframe for which these gains can be expected
2.6.5 Methodology
In order to assess and compare project options, a simple model must be developed (using the general criteria outlined above) in an attempt to quantify the contributions of the environmental, social and economic factors to the design as a whole.
One such framework was developed by Taylor et al. (2002), the basic principles of which can be adapted to enable the informed evaluation of a wide range of proposals. In their model, a series of broad questions (qualitative) is used to assess each proposal. Each is scored on a scale of one to ten, with a high score assigned to the most favourable outcome. This scoring of each criterion is based upon their relative performance as compared with other options, and is ideally based on as much research as possible. In order to reflect the varying importance of the criteria, the results are also weighted.
62 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
The scoring is divided into three distinct sections (based on the triple bottom line principles), with the results from questions within each sections tallied to become the total section score. These scores are then normalised by dividing by their respective total weighting.
The results are tabulated in what is termed a ‘decision matrix’, which has a relatively simple user interface that is easily modified for different situations. The general format of the matrix is shown in
Figure 10 below.
5User Input of 7Weighted Score = Relative Score of 3Reference Score x Weighting Option /10 1Broad Category Number
2 4 Assessment Importance 6 Different Options Criteria Weighting
ENVIRONMENTAL Design 1 Design 2 Criteria Criteria No Weighting S WS S WS Is the risk to the environment acceptable? 8 1 3 3 4 4 Is the design sustainable? 9 1 4 4 5 5 Are management and monitoring plans? 10 0.75 5 3.75 6 4.5 Is the waste disposed of in an evironmental responsible 11 0.5 6 3 7 3.5 Is the environment being considered during the construction 12 0.5 7 3.5 8 4 implementation phases of the How severe are the environmental effects of utilising the resource? 13 1 8 8 9 9 How extensive are the greenhouse gas emissions? 14 0.75 9 6.75 10 7.5 8Total Weighting 15 1 10 10 8 8 9Option Category Score = åWeighted Environmental Score 6.5 6.462 7 Scores x Total Weighting
Figure 10: Decision matrix (from Taylor et al. 2002)
63 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
There are three 1broad categories in the initial decision matrix - Environmental, Economic and Social.
A fourth category, General, can also be included if required. Each category has 2assessment criteria, which are questions based on the general criteria relating to environmental, social and economic objectives and tailored to the specific situation. They are also assigned a 3reference number.
The 4importance weighting is chosen for each criterion, ranking them in order of importance. The 5user then inputs a relative score out of ten - a score of zero for poor performance and a score of ten for a well-performing design – for all 6design options. The matrix then calculates a 7weighted score, from which the 8total weighting is calculated. This is then used to normalise the 9option category score to a value out of ten.
These scores can then be output in a graphical form, enabling quick comparison between the results from the various options. This method acts as what is termed as a ‘primary filter’, enabling project developers to ‘shortlist’ the most feasible options before embarking on a more costly holistic analysis.
Changes to the specific questions within the framework enables its application to a variety of different situations. It must be noted, however, that care must be taken when designing the questions to avoid initial bias toward one particular option.
64 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
3. METHODOLOGY
In response to the need to develop a quick and effective method of evaluating the comparative costs and benefits of different land-use options, a model (Taylor et al. 2002, Section 2.6.1) based on the ‘triple bottom line’ accounting principle has been modified to enable this evaluation.
3.1 Conceptual Framework for the Evaluation of a Development on Urban Remnant Bushland
In order for the model to be applicable to development proposals on remnant bushland, the questions relating to the triple bottom line criteria must be modified for each of the three categories.
3.1.1 Environmental Criteria
Number Question Reasoning Weighting
1 Is the risk to the environment This is a very important assessment, especially in 1 acceptable? terms of assessing development on bushland 2 Is the project environmentally This relates to aspects of the design, construction 1 sustainable? method and land use practices, and is also a very important assessment 3 Are management and monitoring This relates to the management before, during and 0.75 plans adequate? after the project 4 Is the waste disposed of in an This includes wastewaters, cleared materials, 0.5 environmentally responsible way? rubbish created on the site and wastes produced during the development 5 Is the environment being considered The assesses the consideration of the environment 0.5 in the design? in land use planning, design, and construction 6 Will there be a contribution to Contributions include preservation of natural 0.75 conservation? areas, funding of conservation measures 7 How severe are the environmental Effects on the immediate and surrounding 1 effects? environment – an extremely important consideration 8 What is the effect on greenhouse Greenhouse impacts include loss of carbon sinks, 0.75 gases? use of energy -intensive technologies and poor building design requiring heating / cooling 9 What will be the effect on hydrology, Depends on the extent of clearing / regeneration 0.5 soil stabilisation and other ecosystem functions?
65 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
3.1.2 Social criteria
Number Question Reasoning Weighting
10 Are the cultural needs of the area Important if there are areas of cultural 1 affected? significance within the area 11 Have the concerns of the public been Important - public opposition can be a powerful 1 addressed? force, especially in urban areas where there is likely to be many residents nearby 12 Have the public been consulted It is vital to involve the public in development 0.75 about the design? projects, particularly about emotive issues such as bushland use 13 Are there any public health risks? This includes risks due to fire, dangerous fauna 0.75 from the bushland, emissions from the development 14 Is the current standard of living Developments have the potential to alter local 1 maintained? amenity and standard of living, such as loss of recreational area or improvement to the local infrastructure 15 Is the design socially acceptable? Social acceptability is very important – education 1 and consultation may be required 16 Will the profits be used for public Will any benefits due to the development be 0.75 good? shared by the public, or only by those directly involved in the development? 17 Will there be societal environmental Contributions to society’s understanding, 0.75 contributions? appreciation and relationship with nature
3.1.3 Economic criteria
Number Question Reasoning Weighting
18 How expensive is the option? The comparative expense is very important 1
19 What is the initial outlay of the The initial outlay must be estimated in order for 1 design? comparisons to be made, and is a very important factor in decision making 20 How expensive are the operational Ongoing operational costs must be considered 0.75 costs? 21 How costly will maintenance be? Maintenance costs of such projects should be 0.5 considered as they may impact on the overall viability of an option 22 How much revenue will be raised? The total revenue raised is important in evaluating 1 feasibility 23 What is the timeframe of the The timeframe in which this revenue will be 0.5 revenue? received is also important – is it a once-off payment or a continuous source of funds 24 What are the opportunity costs Opportunity costs (the economic value of 0.75 involved? opportunities forgone due to the development or non-development 25 How much will the infrastructure Infrastructure both within the development and 0.75 cost? surrounding it, including roads, services etc.
66 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering 3.2 Selection of the Study Site
The Underwood Avenue bushland site was chosen for investigation for a number of reasons. Firstly, as the land is privately owned (by UWA) and has been earmarked for future development, there is a real threat to its survival. The land has also been found to have high conservation value (see Section 2.2.6), and its proximity to the city centre, public transportation and other nature-based attractions (Kings Park,
Bold Park, Indian Ocean) make it a great potential ecotourism site.
3.3 Application of the Framework to Underwood Avenue
Four general options for the Underwood Avenue bushland site were identified from the literature relating to the area:
· Preservation of the bushland for conservation purposes only
· Development of the site for residential housing
· Development of the site for commercial purposes
· Development of an ecotourism operation to fund its preservation
The general framework described above was applied to each option, through the careful consideration of the issues surrounding each option (described below).
3.3.1 Option 1: Preserve the Bushland – Conservation Only
Issues and considerations
· Compensation to UWA
Due to the limited educational funding received by UWA, the University is relying on the sale of the
67 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
land to fund educational and infrastructure development on the campus. Several options for
compensation have been considered. One option is that a conservation organisation (eg. Bush
Heritage Fund) purchases land for the purposes of preservation and conservation only. However,
although such organisations are committed to raising revenue to purchase remnant vegetation for
conservation purposes, value for conservation dollar (for the same amount of money, hundreds of
times more area in remote areas than in urban areas) and the degraded nature of many urban
bushland areas (restoration is difficult, expensive and generally not as ecologically worthwhile as
purchasing undisturbed bush) means that urban areas are not generally purchased. This does not
mean, however, that urban bushland is any less important. Another option is that Government
negotiates with UWA for purchase of the land or offers a land swap (this has been agreed to in
principle by UWA), resulting in the preservation of the bushland. These options are fairly unlikely,
however, as unlikely, as the government funds available for conservation initiatives are limited, and
the government is committed to negotiated planning solutions for this reason.
· Funds for management and conservation plans - even after the bushland area has been obtained,
funding for management, conservation and restoration is costly, and it would be likely that the scale
of any schemes would be minimal and thus little improvement to the ecosystem would be possible
· Risk to the public due to fire is not reduced
· Public opinion (Water Corporation survey) shows that a large majority support the preservation of
the bushland
3.3.2 Option 2: Development – Residential
The specific example examined as part of this analysis is the proposal put forward by the University of
Western Australia.
68 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Issues and considerations
· Cost to the community of infrastructure development (sewerage, roads etc) that would occur if the
development were to go ahead
· Costs to the community of upgrading the Subiaco WWTP to meet the standards required
· Loss of regionally significant bushland and its associated social and environmental benefits. For
example, one study into a different regionally significant piece of land in Forrestfield estimated the
land had a benefit to the community worth $3.3 million (Pepper 2001)
· Compromising of the Greenway
· Educational and scientific opportunities in the bushland forgone – such a small remnant (8.5ha) will
suffer greatly from edge effects and other impacts.
· BUT educational opportunities in the university enhanced by the revenue from the development
· Odour issues – public health concerns, aesthetic issues
· Attitude of UWA - funds for University development are required from some source
· Reduced fire risk from the bushland to local residents
· Public opinion is seems to be overwhelmingly against the project, as demonstrated in the Water
Corporation Survey. Further, more comprehensive study must be conducted in order to verify these
results .
· Loss of bushland and the resultant loss of aesthetic values associated with it (nearby residents,
nearby hospice etc)
· Provide one of the few opportunities left for people to purchase blocks of land close to the city and
the beach in an area with ‘spectacular’ views
3.3.3 Option 3: Ecotourism Operation
There are many different alternatives for an ecotourism development at the site. The opportunity
69 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering considered here is a sanctuary-style development based on the Karakamia model.
Issues and considerations
· Current condition of the bushland – needs rehabilitation, which is expensive, removal of pests,
recent fire damage, but funds provided by the ecotour operation to carry out this management
· Aesthetic issues - nearby dogs from a dogs home barking, odour problems (and possible related
health problems) due to the treatment plant
· High land value – ownership, taxes (Suggestion that taxes and rates on lands with remnant
vegetation be reduced in order to provide an incentive for preservation)
· Not a quick solution
· Identify interested parties – there is the possibility of a joint venture with industry and government
agencies such as CALM (as with Karakamia)
· High initial costs when purchasing the land and restoring it. However, the consultant from the
original proposal suggested that restoration of the area would be relatively straightforward
· Capital costs, including the cost of setting up the enterprise, including equipment, transportation,
infrastructure (such as information centres, fencing and pathways), staff hiring and training,
administration costs and taxes, duties and licence fees.
· Operation costs (ongoing): staff wages, promotion and commissions, energy and fuel costs,
consumables
· Opportunity cost (amount of money forgone) is high
· Conservation and educational activities would be provided by the project – schools, universities and
TAFE all nearby
· Appeal – eco-generalists
· Seasonality of ecotours – hot summer (night tours), cold / wet winter (focus on indoor activities or
wet-weather activities such as frog watching).
70 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
· Group size and organization. Ecotourism principles – usually sma ll groups (more tourist satisfaction
with small groups, but less revenue gained). The increase in satisfaction probably won’t translate to
a much greater willingness to pay. However, the impacts will be greater if there are large groups
visiting
· Funding mechanism will be very important. It may be possible to obtain initial financial support
from the government and corporations to develop interpretive centres and other facilities, but after a
decade or so, extensive maintenance will be required to maintain the quality of the ecotourism
experience. This funding may be more difficult to attract, and it may be necessary to fund these costs
through revenue from the operations
· Private sale of land and subsequent ecotour development - from looking at case studie s of ecotour
operations, it is apparent that ecotourism will not result in substantial profits (for example, Earth
Sanctuaries) – instead the funds generally seem to cover operation, management and conservational
costs. Thus, it is apparent that in order to preserve the land, some mechanism to purchase the land
should be developed. This is potentially a major hurdle.
· Supreme Court action – could recover the value of the land – no longer require the bushland be
destroyed?
· Permits, accreditation (NEAP), training, legal issues (public liability and other insurance)
· Volunteers may be willing to work on the project – cost savings, educational benefits
· Increase local aesthetic values – management of the area resulting in the area becoming more
pleasing to look at, monitoring and maintenance to reduce the fire risk to residents
· Permission from CALM and other authorities to re-introduce mammals
3.3.4 Option 4: Development - Commercial
A possible solution to the odour issue problem that has been suggested by the Water Corporation is an
71 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering eco-business park. This suggestion has been investigated by the Water Corporation in the form of a pre-feasibility study conducted in early 2002. However, this study contained very limited specific information, and further investigations into the potential of the idea are beyond the scope of this project.
The option is therefore discarded from the decision-making process, as there is not enough details relating to the idea to enable informed judgements.
72 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
4. RESULTS: CASE STUDY ON UNDERWOOD AVENUE
BUSHLAND
The final results from of the matrix are shown in Figure 11, and in table form in Appendices (Appendix
11, Appendix 12 and Appendix 13)
Figure 11: Decision Matrix Results - Underwood Avenue Bushland
In terms of environmental scores, the third option (ecotourism) scored the highest, with a score of 8.89.
Next was Option 1, with a score of 7.96, which is a difference of less than one mark. Lowest ranked was the second option (development), with a score of 3.15 – more than four points below the highest ranked option.
Option 3 also ranked the highest in terms of the social criteria, scoring 7.76. Option 1, with a score of 6.0, was again second highest, and Option 2 ranked the lowest, with a score of 3.0. As with the
73 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering environmental criteria, this score is well below the other two results.
The pattern that emerged in the environmental and social scores does not appear in the economic scores, with Option 2 scoring the highest with 6.0. Second highest was Option 3, scoring 4.4, and lowest was
Option 1, scoring 2.92.
The total scores revealed Option 3 as the most preferable option, scoring 21.07. Next was Option 1, scoring 17.28. Lastly, Option 2 scored 12.36.
74 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
5. DISCUSSION
From looking at the Australian Wildlife Conservancy case study, as well as the Earth Sanctuaries operation, it is apparent that the potential benefits (in terms of profit) of an urban ecotourism operation on urban bushland are nowhere near as significant that would result from the clearance and development of the same land. Instead, most profits should be directed back into the site itself in terms of restoration efforts, mammal reintroduction and facility upgrades. Even then, it has been estimated that the time taken before the capital invested in the project is returned, as the capital investment required for such projects is very high.
However, recent trends toward sustainable development and triple bottom line accounting stress the need for a holistic approach when considering developments, considering not only the economic side but also the related environmental and social issues. Through the application of the model developed by
Taylor et al. (2002), the results clearly show that although the economic analysis favours the residential development (Option 2), the triple bottom line analysis favours the development of an ecotour operation over the other two options.
This option (Option 3) not only retains the bushland, but returns all revenue to maintaining or improving the conservation value of the area. The first option, while also preserving the bushland, does not incorporate any mechanisms by which management plans or site improvements may be funded. The third option, while also retaining part of the bushland area, will result in impacts on the ecosystem processes, biodiversity and integrity of the remaining portion.
The use of holistic analysis methods, such as the triple bottom line method used in this report, is the necessary next step in moving toward a sustainable future.
75 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
5.1 Ecotourism Operation Structure
The most important consideration is the method by which access to the land is obtained. One option that has the potential to overcome this problem is the formation of a community land trust, whereby donations from interested parties be pooled to fund the land purchase and development
There are many different possible structures of an ecotourism project in urban bushland. One promising opportunity involves Aboriginal cultural tourism components, as research has shown that there is a significant market for Aboriginal cultural experiences within the a natural environment, as well as opportunities for nature-based (eco) tourism. If these two markets can be successfully combined, then the operation will attract those interested in Aboriginal culture as well as those interested in nature.
A sanctuary style development is most appropriate for the area, as the use of fencing is the only way to restrict access. After removal of introduced pests from the area, mammals and other fauna can be introduced to the area, providing local, domestic and international visitors with the opportunity to view fauna in its natural habitat. The effectiveness of the restoration efforts will also be maximised through the installation of the fencing, however it van be designed to allow reptile species to come and go as they please.
Facilities on the site will include boardwalks, a restaurant to allow relaxed interaction, an interpretation centre, pathways and other facilities. The principles of sustainable tourism design, as previously described, should be applied in order to maximise environmental efficiency.
76 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering 5.2 Ecotour Features
The Underwood Avenue bushland site has many potential ecotourist attractions, including: l Astronomy (part of a night walk program) l Fungi – one species turns green when touched (Gyrosporus species), and many other fascinating
species present l Bandicoots (Quendars) – could be introduced, good because they can breed more than once a year
(as with Karakamia). Other small native animals formerly native to the area can also be introduced. l Possums (especially for night walks) l Spiders – also good for night walks as they can be viewed with head torches l Orchids – many different species present l Birds – white tailed black cockatoo, tawny frogmouths (night-time), and many others l Frogs have been reported l Bats are known to occur in the Shenton Bushland (3 species), and are probably also in the
Underwood Avenue site l Restaurant – top of a hill with good views, but in degraded area (meets sustainable design criteria).
There may be an issue with Aboriginal heritage site in this area. l Crossed trees that form an archway occur on the site l Guided walks – day and night (depending on season) l Accomodation / lodging facilities? There are already a large number of hotels and other
accommodation available in the PMR, and so lodging facilities may not be feasible. Also the
introduction of such features to such a small land area may be a problem, and cause further
ecological damage, especially greater visitor impacts. HOWEVER, there doesn’t seem to be
accommodation having environmentally sensitive design in the PMR, so this may present a great
opportunity.
77 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
78 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
6. CONCLUSION
Although urban areas are not usually associated with the concept of ecotourism, research into the current status of urban bushland and ecotourism suggest that ecotourism in urban areas has the potential to offer all the benefits associated with tourism. In addition to this, the possibility of improving the areas through management and restoration funded by the ecotourism operation makes urban ecotourism a promising concept. The main problem associated with ecotourism on privately owned lands is that urban land values are usually very high, making the opportunity cost involved with developing the ecotour program outweigh (in economic terms) any revenue benefits.
However, purely economic assessment of the relative costs and benefits of such schemes ignores the sustainable development and triple bottom line approaches, which are becoming increasingly significant in our changing world. When a triple bottom line approach is applied to three possible development options for a urban bushland remnant (Underwood Avenue, Shenton Park), the results clearly show that the development of an ecotour program is the best option out of three proposals for the area.
Clearing bushland will provide an instant income but long term it is not the way to go. Ecotourism operations can provide a sustainable future but only if it is carefully thought out and integrated with other tourism attractions.
This analysis, however, is fairly quantitative, and it is recommended that a more in-depth evaluation of a specific management and ecotour development plan to be conducted by specialist consultants in the fields of marketing and economics. Further work also needs to be carried out, including a detailed survey of the entire bushland site and the comprehensive assessment as to the local community’s attitudes toward the different options. Community consultation is also recommended with any such proposal – the
79 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering community surrounding the case study site has not, as yet, been involved in the various planning processes.
80 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
7. REFERENCES
Aretino, B., Holland, P., Peterson, D. & Schuele, M. 2001, Creating Markets for Biodiversity: A Case Study of Earth Sanctuaries Ltd, Productivity Commission Staff Research Paper, AusInfo, Canberra
Aretino, B., Holland, P., Matysek, A. & Peterson, D. 2001b, Cost Sharing for Biodiversity Conservation: A Conceptual Framework, Productivity Commission Staff Research Paper, AusInfo, Canberra
Australian Wildlife Conservancy 2002a, Homepage, [Online], Available: http://www.australianwildlife.org/, [2002, 28th September]
Australian Wildlife Conservancy 2002b, Australian Wildlife Conservancy Annual Report 2002, [Online], Available: http://www.australianwildlife.org/AWCannualreport.pdf, [2002, 1st October]
Australian Wildlife Conservancy 2002c, Newsletter 2002, [Online], Available: www.australianwildlife.org/AWC-newsletter.zip, [2002, 2nd October]
Bailey, C. 1996, ‘Western Shield : Bringing Wildlife Back from the Brink of Extinction’ , LANDSCOPE, vol 11
Beardmore, K. 2000, Implementing Perth's Bushplan 2000, [Online], Available: http://www.urbanforest.on.net/KBeardmore.pdf, [2002, 6th June]
Bells, N. 1998, ‘Sustainable Design and Technology’, in Ecotourism through to the year 2000 : proceedings of the Ecotourism Association of Australia national conference 1997, ed S. McArthur & B. Weir, The Ecotourism Association of Australia, Brisbane, Qld.
Bennett, M. 1999, ‘Improving Legal Mechanisms for Protecting Urban Bushland: The Urban Bushland Strategy Recommendations and Beyond’, in Managing our Bushland – Proceedings of a conference about the protection and management of urban bushland, eds K. Tullis & K. McLean, Urban Bushland Council (WA), West Perth W.A.
Binning, C. & Young, M. 1997, Motivating people : using management agreements to conserve remnant vegetation, Environment Australia Biodiversity Group, Canberra
Binning, C. & Young, M. 1999, Conservation hindered :the impact of local government rates and state land taxes on the conservation of native vegetation, Environment Australia Biodiversity Group,
81 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering Canberra
Blamey, R.K. 2001, ‘Principles of Ecotourism’, in The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism, ed D.B. Weaver, CABI Publishing, UK
Boase-Jelenik, D. 2002, Friends of Underwood Avenue Bushland, [Online], Available: http://home.it.net.au/~bojel/underwood/, [2002, 15th September]
Boo, E. 1990, Ecotourism: The Potentials and Pitfalls Volume 1, World Wildlife Fund, Washington D.C.
Brennan, A. & Bradshaw, D. 1994, Draft Report of the Group Investigating the Proposal for a Sanctuary at Shenton Park, Unpublished
Brown, L.R. 1981, Building a Sustainable Society, W.W. Norton & Co, London, in Lichfield 1988
Buhalis, D. & Fletcher, J. 1995, ‘Environmental impacts on tourist destinations: An economic analysis’, in Sustainable Tourism Development, ed H. Coccossis & P. Nijkamp, Avebury, Aldershot England, pp 3-24
CALM 2002a, Western Shield Project, [Online], Available: http://www.calm.wa.gov.au/projects/west_shield.html, [2002, August 12th]
CALM 2002b, Western Shield : Success, [Online], Available: http://www.naturebase.net/projects/west_shield_success.html, [2002, October 18th]
Cater, E. & Lowman, G. (eds) 1994, Ecotourism : a sustainable option?, John Wiley and Son, New York
Ceballos-Lascurain, H. 1993, ‘Ecotourism as a Worldwide Phenomenon’, Ecotourism – A Guide for Planners and Managers Volume 1, in ed K. Lindberg, & D.E. Hawkins, The Ecotourism Society, Vermont US
Ceballos-Lascurain, H. 1998, ‘Introduction’, in Ecotourism – A Guide for Planners and Managers Volume 2, eds K. Lindberg, M. Epler Wood & D. Engeldrum, The Ecotourism Society, Vermont US, pp 7-10
Charters, T. 1996, ‘The State of Ecotourism in Australia’, in Richins, H., Richardson, J. & Crabtree A. (eds), Ecotourism and nature based tourism : taking the next steps, Ecotourism Association of Australia, Brisbane, pp9-18
82 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Clarke, J. 1997, ‘A framework of approaches to sustainable tourism’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism. vol 5, pp224-233
Cotterill, D. 1996, ‘Developing a Sustainable Ecotourism Business’, in Richins, H., Richardson, J. & Crabtree A. (eds), Ecotourism and nature based tourism : taking the next steps, Ecotourism Association of Australia, Brisbane, pp135-140
Croall, J. 1995, Preserve or Destroy: Tourism and the Environment, Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, London
Department of Land Administration (DOLA) 2002, SkyView WA, [Online], Available: http://www.landonline.com.au/skyviewwa/content/asp/skyviewwa_index.asp?product_group_id=78, [20th October 2002]
DeGryse, J. 1996,‘Urban Bushland in Tasmania’, Australian Parks and Recreation, vol 32, issue 2, pp 41-45
Dowling, R.K. & Weiler, B. 1997, ‘Ecotourism in Southeast Asia’, Tourism Management, vol 18, issue 1, pp 51-57
Duggie, J. 1999, ‘Urban Bushland and Planning: A Case for Further Reform’, in Managing our Bushland – Proceedings of a conference about the protection and management of urban bushland, eds K. Tullis & K. McLean, Urban Bushland Council (WA), West Perth, pp 18-21
Dwyer L. & Edwards, D. 2000, ‘Nature-Based Tourism on the Edge of Urban Development’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 8, issue 4, pp267-287
Eagles, P.F.J. & Higgins, B.R. 1998, ‘Ecotourism Market and Industry Structure’, in Ecotourism – A Guide for Planners and Managers Volume 2, eds K. Lindberg, M. Epler Wood & D. Engeldrum, The Ecotourism Society, Vermont US, pp11-44
Ecologically Sustainable Development Steering Committee 1992, National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, [Online], Available: http://www.ea.gov.au/esd/national/nsesd/strategy/intro.html, [2002, July 3rd]
Environment Australia 1999, An Overview of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, [Online], Available: http://www.ea.gov.au/epbc/publications/pubs/overview.pdf,
83 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering [2002, 5th September]
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Field, G. (ed) 2000, Developing ecotours and other interpretive activity programs : a guidebook for planning, designing, promoting and conducting ecotourism activity programs, Dept. of Conservation, Como W.A.
Figgis, P. 1999, ‘Foreword’, in 1999, Ecotourism : impacts, potentials and possibilities, eds S. Wearing, & J. Neil, Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston
Foster, J. 1997, ‘Introduction: Environmental value and the scope of economics’, in Valuing nature? : ethics, economics and the environment, ed J. Foster, Routledge, London
Glanznig. A. 1995, Native Vegetation Clearance, Habitat Loss and Biodiversity Decline – an overview of recent native vegetation clearance in Australia and its implications for biodiversity, Biodiversity Series Paper No. 6, Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra Government of Western Australia 1995, Urban Bushland Strategy, Ministry for Planning, Perth
Government of Western Australia 2000a, Bush Forever: Keeping the Bush in the City, Volume 1: Policies, Principles and Processes, Western Australian Planning Commission, Perth
Government of Western Australia 2000, Bush Forever: Keeping Bush in the City, Volume 2: Directory of Bush Forever Sites, Department of Environmental Protection, Perth
Heddle, E.M., Loneragan, O.W. & Havell, J.J. 1980, ‘Vegetation of the Darling System’, in Atlas of Natural Resources, Darling System, Western Australia, ed Department of Conservation and Environment, Perth, Western Australia, pp 34-72
Honey, M. 1999, Ecotourism and sustainable development : who owns paradise?, Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Hundloe, T. 1996, ‘Accomodating Tourists and Trees’, in Richins, H., Richardson, J. & Crabtree A. (eds), Ecotourism and nature based tourism : taking the next steps, Ecotourism Association of Australia, Brisbane, pp33-39
Jeurissen, R. 2000, ‘Cannibals With Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business’, Journal of Business Ethics, vol 23, issue 2, pp 229-231
84 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Juric, B., Cossens, J. & Barton, R. 1996 ‘Ecotourism: An examination of the motivations of ecotourism visitors to New Zealand’, in Tourism down under II 3-6 December 1996. Towards a more sustainable tourism : conference proceedings, ed. G. Kearsley Centre for Tourism, University of Otago, Dunedin, N.Z.
Keighery, B., Keighery, G., Gibson, N. & Gunness, A. 1999, ‘Knowing and Understanding the Plants in Our Bushland’, in Managing our Bushland – Proceedings of a conference about the protection and management of urban bushland, eds K. Tullis & K. McLean, Urban Bushland Council (WA), West Perth W.A.
Kerr, J. 1992, ‘Making dollars and sense out of ecotourism / nature tourism’, in Ecotourism, incorporating the global classroom: 1991 international conference papers, ed B. Weiler, Bureau of Tourism Research, Canberra
Knight, J (ed) 1998, Environment Western Australia 1998: State of the Environment Report, Department of Environmental Protection, Perth
Knox, R.B., Ladiges, P.Y. & Evans, B.K. 1994, Biology, McGraw Hill, Melbourne
Law, C.M. 2002, Urban Tourism: The Visitor Economy and the Growth of Large Cities, 2nd ed, Continuum, London
Lawton, L.J. & Weaver, D.B. 2001, ‘Modified Spaces’, in The Encyclopedia of Ecotourism, ed D.B. Weaver, CABI Publishing, UK
Miller, G. 1996, ‘Indigenous Tourism – A Queensland Perspective’, in Richins, H., Richardson, J. & Crabtree A. (eds), Ecotourism and nature based tourism : taking the next steps, Ecotourism Association of Australia, Brisbane, pp45-48
Mummery, J. & Hardy, N. 1994, Australia’s Biodiversity: an overview of selected components, Biodiversity Series Paper No. 2, Biodiversity Unit, Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra
National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity 1996, Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories, Canberra
Page, S. 1995, Urban Tourism, Routledge, London
85 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Parfitt, N. 1999, A National Domestic Survey, Tourism Queensland, Brisbane
Pastorelli, J. 1998, ‘Creative Interpretation Techniques’, in Ecotourism through to the year 2000 : proceedings of the Ecotourism Association of Australia national conference 1997, ed S. McArthur & B. Weir, The Ecotourism Association of Australia, Brisbane, pp 15-17
Pepper, C. 2001, Contingent valuation study of urban bushland at Hartfield Park, Forrestfield, Thesis (M.Sc.), University of Western Australia
Pickett, S.T.A., Cadenasso, M.L., Grove, J.M., Nilon, C.H., Pouyat, R.V., Zipperer, W.C. & Costanza, R. 2001, ‘Urban Ecological Systems: Linking Terrestrial Ecological, Physical, and Socioeconomic Components of Metropolitan Areas’, Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, vol 32, pp 127-157
Pearce, D. 1993, Economic Values and the Natural World, Earthscan, London
POST 2002, Barnett urges bush deal, [Online], Available: http://www.postnewspapers.com.au/20020406/news/017.shtml, [2002, 18th October]
Rees, W. & Wackernagel, M. 1996, ‘Urban ecological footprints: why cities cannot be sustainable --and why they are a key to sustainability’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol 16, issues 4-6, pp 223-248
Robson, A. 2002, ‘Land Sale Will Fund Improved Education’, POST, 2 March
Schmitz, A. & Copley, M. 1997, ‘Karakamia Sanctuary’, LANDSCOPE, vol 13, issue 2, pp17-22
Shephard K. L. & Royston-Airey, P. C. M 2000, ‘Exploring the Role of Part-time Ecotourism Guides in Central Southern England’, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, vol. 8, issue 4, pp324-332
South Australian Urban Forest Biodiversity Plan 1997, [Online], Available: http://www.urbanforest.on.net/pdf/April_97.pdf, [15th October 2002]
Swarbrooke, J. 1999, Sustainable Tourism Management, CABI Publishing, Wallingford UK
Taylor, N., Sivandran, G., Stromme, S., Jogia, V. & Mayer, X. 2002, Evaluation Strategy: Selecting the Optimum Design Solution, Unpublished
86 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering Tisdell, C. 1995, ‘Investment in ecotourism: assessing its economics’, Tourism Economics, vol 1, issue 4, pp 375-387
Tourism Queensland 1999, Grow your ecotourism business: a support kit for operators, Tourism Queensland, Brisbane
Tourism Industry Development Planning Unit 1996, The benefits of tourism to Western Australia , Western Australian Tourism Commission, Perth
Water and River Commission 1996, Urban Bushland Degradation, [Online], Available: www.wrc.wa.gov.au/swanavon/environ_issues/urban_bush.html, [2002, 18th April]
Water and Rivers Commission 2002, Community Groups, [Online], Available: http://www.wrc.wa.gov.au/swanavon/pdf/community_groups.pdf, [2002, 4th September]
Weaver, D.B. 1998, Ecotourism in the Less Developed World, CAB International, Oxon UK
Weaver, D.B. (ed) 2001, The encyclopedia of ecotourism, CABI Publishing, UK
Western Australian Local Government Association 2002, Perth Biodiversity Project, [Online], Available: http://www.wama.wa.gov.au/projServices/pbp/, [10th October]
Weir, B. 1996, ‘Undiscovered Territory: Nature-Based Tourism in the ACT’, in Richins, H., Richardson, J. & Crabtree A. (eds), Ecotourism and nature based tourism : taking the next steps, Ecotourism Association of Australia, Brisbane, pp53-57
Whittaker, M. 1999, ‘Emerging 'triple bottom line' model for industry weighs environmental, economic, and social considerations’, Oil and Gas Journal, vol 97, issue 51, pp 23-27
Wildflower Society of Western Australia 2002, Save Our Bushland Campaign, [Online], Available: http://members.ozemail.com.au/~wildflowers/bushland.html, [20th October 2002]
Williams, J., Read, C., Norton, A., Dovers, S., Burgman, M., Proctor, W. and Anderson, H. 2001, Biodiversity, Australia State of the Environment Report 2001 (Theme Report), CSIRO Publishing on behalf of the Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra.
World Commission on Environment and Development 1990, Our Common Future , Aust. edn, Oxford University Press, Melbourne
87 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Zeppel, H. 2001, ‘Aboriginal cultures and indigenous tourism’, in Special interest tourism: contexts and cases, eds N. Douglas, N. Douglas & R. Derrett, John Wiley & Sons, Milton Queensland, pp 232-259
88 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
8. APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Map of Underwood Avenue and surrounds
Underwood Avenue
Bushland
Bold Park
Perth CBD Shenton Bushland
89 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Appendix 2: Features of Vegetation Complex 49 - Karrakatta Complex – Central and South (from
Heddle et al. 1980)
Complex 49 – Karrakatta Complex – Central and South
“Reflects the cooler, moister conditions in the southern section, with the vegetation consisting predominantly of an open-forest of tuart-jarrah-marri. Seddon refers to the mixed nature of the vegetation in the region, and he classifies the tuart-jarrah-marri as a marginally tall open forest. However, there are insufficient tall tuarts in this area, so open forest is adopted. In the deeper sands on the eastern fringes the tuart is replaced by jarrah, with marri on localised moister sites. Common species in the tuart-jarrah-marri open forest include B. attenuata, B. menziesii (north of Mandurah), B. grandis, C. fraserana and to a lesser extent peppermint (Agonis flexuosa). Shrub species include Jacksonia sternbergiana, J. furcellata, Acacia cyclopis, A. saligna, Hibbertia spp., Casurina humilis, Colothamnus quadrifidus and Grevillea thelemanniana. On the deeper sands of the jarrah woodland, the understorey species show changes and include Hibbertia hypericoides, Conospermum stoechadis, Hovea trisperma and Bossiaea eriocarpa”
(Heddle et al. 1980 p60)
90 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Appendix 3: Criteria for Regional Significance in Bush Forever (from Government of Western
Australia 2000)
Criteria for the selection of Regionally Significant Bushland Areas
· Representation of ecological communities (“a number of areas selected to represent the range of
ecological communities and the places in which these communities merge”)
· Diversity
· Rarity
· Maintaining ecological processes or natural systems
· Scientific or evolutionary importance
· General criteria for the protection of wetland, streamline and estuarine fringing vegetation and
coastal vegetation
· Criteria not relevant to determination of regional significance, but which may be applied when
evaluating areas having similar values
Other selection considerations include:
· Rarity
· Planning constraints
· Opportunities outside the Perth Metropolitan Region
· Size and shape
· Condition
· Relationship to other areas
· Conservation category wetlands
· Ownership or reservation status
· Regional infrastructure requirements
· Basic raw materials and titanium minerals
91 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
(p6)
92 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Appendix 4: Ground Vertebrates of Underwood Avenue and Shenton Bushlands (from Berry unpub.)
Shenton Underwood Skinks Bushland Ave. Bushland Ctenotus fallens ü ü Ctenotus lesueurii ü ü Cryptoblepharus plagiocephalus (Fence skink) ü ü Hemiergis quadrilineata (Yellow-bellied skink) ü ü Lerista elegans ü ü Lerista praepedita ü ü Menetia greyii (Pygmy Skink) ü ü Morethia obscura ü ü Tiliqua rugosa (Bobtail) ü ü Legless Lizards Aprasia repens (Worm Lizard) ü ü Lialis burtonis (Burton's legless lizard) ü ü Geckos Phyllodactylus marmoratus (Marbled Gecko) ü ü Dragons Pogona minor (Bearded Dragon) ü ü Monitors Varanus gouldi (Goanna or Sand Monitor) ü ü Blind Snakes Ramphotyphlops australis ü ü Fixed Front-fanged Snakes Pseudonaja affinis (Dugite) ü ü Simoselaps bertholdi (Jan’s Banded Snake) ü ü Frogs Heleioporus eyrei (Moaning Frog) ü ü Myobatrachus gouldi (Turtle Frog) ü ü Limnodynastes dorsalis (Banjo Frog) ü ü TOTALS 20 20
93 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Appendix 5: Bird Species of the Underwood Avenue Bushland and Surrounding Bushlands (from
Berry unpub.)
SPECIES KINGS SHENTON UNDERWOOD BOLD PARK BUSHLAND AVE. BUSHLAND PARK Mountain Duck ü ü ü* ü Wood Duck ü ü* Australian Hobby ü ü ü ü Black-shouldered Kite ü ü ü Kestrel ü Brown Goshawk ü* ü ü ü Collared Sparrowhawk ü ü ü ü Wedge-tailed Eagle ü Little Eagle ü ü ü* ü Whistling Kite E Painted Button-quail ü ü* ü ü Lace-neck Dove + ü ü* ü* ü Laughing dove + ü ü* ü* ü Bronze-wing Pigeon ü Carnaby's Cockatoo ü ü ü ü Red-tailed Black Cockatoo ü Galah # ü ü* ü* ü Little Corella + ü ü* ü* ü Purple-crowned Lorikeet E ü Rainbow Lorikeet + ü ü* ü* ü Ring-necked Parrot ü ü* ü* ü Red-capped Parrot ü ü ü Western Rosella E Elegant Parrot ü Pallid Cuckoo ü ü ü Fan-tailed Cuckoo ü ü Shining Bronze Cuckoo ü ü Horsfields Bronze Cuckoo ü Australian Owlet-nightjar E ü Tawny Frogmouth ü ü ü ü Barn Owl ü ü* ü Boobook Owl ü ü ü Laughing Kookaburra + ü ü ü ü Rainbow Bee-eater ü ü* ü ü Sacred Kingfisher ü ü ü ü
94 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
SPECIES KINGS SHENTON UNIVERSITY BOLD PARK BUSHLAND BUSHLAND PARK Welcome Swallow ü ü ü ü Tree Martin ü ü ü ü Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike ü ü ü ü Rufous Whistler ü ü ü* ü Golden Whistler E Scarlet Robin E Red-capped Robin ü Grey Shrike-thrush E ü Western Flyeater (Gerygone) ü ü ü* ü Weebill ü ü* ü* ü Yellow-rumped Thornbill ü ü ü* ü Broad-tailed Thornbill ü ü Western Thornbill ü Splendid Fairy-wren E ü Variegated Fairy-wren E White-winged Fairy-wren ü White-browed Scrubwren E ü Willie Wagtail ü ü ü Grey Fantail ü ü ü* ü Grey-breasted White-eye ü ü ü ü Australian Sitella ü ü ü* ü Mistletoe Bird ü ü Striated Pardalote ü ü* ü* ü Spotted Pardalote ü ü Red Wattlebird ü ü* ü* ü Little Wattlebird ü ü Singing Honeyeater ü ü* ü* ü Brown Honeyeater ü ü* ü* ü New Holland Honeyeater ü ü Western Spinebill ü ü ü White-cheeked Honeyeater ü ü ü ü Brown-headed Honeyeater ü White-naped Honeyeater E ü Tawny-crowned Honeyeater ü White-fronted Chat ü Magpie-lark ü ü Grey Butcherbird ü ü ü* ü
95 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering Magpie ü ü ü ü Australian Raven ü ü ü ü
Key
+ = introduced
# = colonised naturally
* = breeding (Shenton Bushland and University Bushland only)
E = extinct
Shaded = probably reliant on corridors of native bush to maintain presence
1 = species listed under the Wildlife Act 1950
3 = habitat specialists with a reduced distribution on the Swan Coastal Plain
4 = wide-ranging species with reduced population on the Swan Coastal Plain
96 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Appendix 6: Photographs of fire and fire damage at the Underwood Avenue Bushland (taken by
M. Owen)
Fire – 5th January 2002
Damage to the bushland after the fire
97 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
The edge of the fire
Immediately after the fire
98 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Appendix 7: Regeneration of the bushland after the fire (taken by M. Owen)
Site A: January 2002 (immediately after fire)
Blackboy regrowth Regrowth
Site A: 20th September 2002
99 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Appendix 8: Greenway Linkages Around Perth City Centre (from Government of Western Australia 2000a)
100 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Appendix 9: Measures recommended by the Friends of Underwood Avenue Bushland to protect the Bold Park to Kings Park Greenway
101 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Bushland remnants to protect as part of the Greenway: a) Banksia farm bushland b) Bushland adjacent to Challenge Stadium c) Bushland along Underwood Avenue (UWA Agriculture Faculty) d) Underwood Avenue Bushland e) Bushland on Cottage Hospice land f) Bushland on Paraquad Centre land g) Bushland on privately owned land and Alzheimer’s Association land along Bedbrook Place h) Bushland on Curtin University land and Royal Perth Rehabilitation hospital land i) Bushland on Shenton College and Health Department la nd j) Bushland on Shenton College k) Bushland adjacent to fire brigade l) Native vegetation along railway line m) Bushland on Army land adjacent to Shenton Bushland
102 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Appendix 10: Bush Forever Map (from Government of Western Australia 2000a)
103 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
104 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Appendix 11: Results - Option 1
ENVIRONMENTAL Option 1 Criteria Criteria No Weighting S WS Is the risk to the environment acceptable? 1 1 10 10 Is the project environmentally sustainable? 2 1 5 5 Are management and monitoring plans adequate? 3 0.75 2 1.5 Is the waste disposed of in an environmentally responsible way? 4 0.5 10 5 Is the environment being considered during the construction of the 5 0.5 10 5 design? Will there be a contribution to conservation? 6 0.75 7 5.25 How severe are the environmental effects? 7 1 10 10 What is the effect on greenhouse gases? 8 0.75 10 7.5 What will be the effect on hydrology, soil stabilisation and other 9 0.5 9 4.5 ecosystem functions?
Environmental Score 6.75 7.963
SOCIAL Option 1 Criteria Criteria No Weighting S WS Are the cultural needs of the area affected? 10 1 8 8 Have the concerns of the public been addressed? 11 1 8 8 Have the public been consulted about the design? 12 0.75 5 3.75 Are there any public health risks? 13 0.75 6 4.5 Is the current standard of living maintained? 14 1 7 7 Is the design socially acceptable? 15 1 9 9 Will the profits be used for public good? 16 0.75 0 0 Will there be societal environmental contributions? 17 0.75 6 4.5
0 Social Score 7 6
105 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Option 1 ECONOMIC Criteria Criteria No Weighting S WS How expensive is the option? 17 1 10 10 What is the initial outlay of the design? 18 1 1 1 How expensive are the operational costs? 19 0.75 4 3 How costly will maintenance be? 20 0.5 4 2 How much revenue will be raised? 21 1 1 1 What is the timeframe of the revenue? 22 0.5 1 0.5 What are the opportunity costs involved? 23 0.75 1 0.75 How much will the infrastructure cost? 24 0.75 0 0 0 Economic Score 6.25 2.92
106 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Appendix 12: Results - Option 2
ENVIRONMENTAL Option 2 Criteria Criteria No Weighting S WS Is the risk to the environment acceptable? 1 1 2 2 Is the project environmentally sustainable? 2 1 2 2 Are management and monitoring plans adequate? 3 0.75 2 1.5 Is the waste disposed of in an environmentally responsible way? 4 0.5 2 1 Is the environment being considered during the construction of the 5 0.5 5 2.5 design? Will there be a contribution to conservation? 6 0.75 4 3 How severe are the environmental effects? 7 1 3 3 What is the effect on greenhouse gases? 8 0.75 7 5.25 What will be the effect on hydrology, soil stabilisation and other 9 0.5 2 1 ecosystem functions? Environmental Score 6.75 3.148
SOCIAL Option 2
Criteria Criteria No Weighting S WS Are the cultural needs of the area affected? 10 1 1 1 Have the concerns of the public been addressed? 11 1 3 3 Have the public been consulted about the design? 12 0.75 3 2.25 Are there any public health risks? 13 0.75 1 0.75 Is the current standard of living maintained? 14 1 5 5 Is the design socially acceptable? 15 1 3 3 Will the profits be used for public good? 16 0.75 7 5.25 Will there be societal environmental contributions? 17 0.75 3 2.25 Social Score 7 3
107 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
ECONOMIC Option 2 Criteria Criteria No Weighting S WS How expensive is the option? 17 1 4 4 What is the initial outlay of the design? 18 1 5 5 How expensive are the operational costs? 19 0.75 7 5.25 How costly will maintenance be? 20 0.5 8 4 How much revenue will be raised? 21 1 10 10 What is the timeframe of the revenue? 22 0.5 2 1 What are the opportunity costs involved? 23 0.75 5 3.75 How much will the infrastructure cost? 24 0.75 6 4.5 Economic Score 6.25 6
108 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
Appendix 13: Results - Option 3
ENVIRONMENTAL Option 3 Criteria Criteria No Weighting S WS Is the risk to the environment acceptable? 1 1 6 6 Is the project environmentally sustainable? 2 1 10 10 Are management and monitoring plans adequate? 3 0.75 10 7.5 Is the waste disposed of in an environmentally responsible way? 4 0.5 10 5 Is the environment being considered during the construction of the 5 0.5 10 5 design? Will there be a contribution to conservation? 6 0.75 9 6.75 How severe are the environmental effects? 7 1 8 8 What is the effect on greenhouse gases? 8 0.75 9 6.75 What will be the effect on hydrology, soil stabilisation and other 9 0.5 10 5 ecosystem functions? Environmental Score 6.75 8.889
SOCIAL Option 3
Criteria Criteria No Weighting S WS Are the cultural needs of the area affected? 10 1 8 8 Have the concerns of the public been addressed? 11 1 7 7 Have the public been consulted about the design? 12 0.75 5 3.75 Are there any public health risks? 13 0.75 8 6 Is the current standard of living maintained? 14 1 10 10 Is the design socially acceptable? 15 1 7 7 Will the profits be used for public good? 16 0.75 9 6.75 Will there be societal environmental contributions? 17 0.75 8 6 Social Score 7 7.786
109 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
ECONOMIC Option 3 Criteria Criteria No Weighting S WS How expensive is the option? 17 1 3 3 What is the initial outlay of the design? 18 1 3 3 How expensive are the operational costs? 19 0.75 4 3 How costly will maintenance be? 20 0.5 3 1.5 How much revenue will be raised? 21 1 5 5 What is the timeframe of the revenue? 22 0.5 9 4.5 What are the opportunity costs involved? 23 0.75 1 0.75 How much will the infrastructure cost? 24 0.75 9 6.75 Economic Score 6.25 4.4
110 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
111 Fiona Prince Department of Environmental Engineering
112