Conservation

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The Commonwealth government’s decision to wave through a controversial tourism development in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area was made in defiance of strident opposition from the expert statutory advisory body for the region’s management, <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/giblinite/status/1052020975775014912" target="_blank">it was recently revealed</a>.
In August, federal environment minister Melissa Price’s office <a href="http://epbcnotices.environment.gov.au/_entity/annotation/d3c5c54d-18af-e811-b817-005056ba00a7/a71d58ad-4cba-48b6-8dab-f3091fc31cd5?t=1539327928331" target="_blank">decided</a> the proposed luxury development on Halls Island did not need to be assessed under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act.
But according to documents tabled in Tasmania’s parliament by the Greens this morning, the state’s <a href="https://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?id=1715" target="_blank">National Parks and Wildlife Advisory Council</a> had advised the opposite, as well as recommending that the proposal should not be approved at all in its current form. The council also argued “contentious projects” like this one should not be considered for the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area without “an agreed framework to guide assessment”.
This situation is not unique, and reveals a deeper problem with our national environmental laws. They may look strong on paper, but their strength can be eroded by bureaucratic discretion.
From conservation to commercialisation
Tasmania’s wilderness has long been ground zero for the struggle between conservation and commercialisation of our natural estate. In the 1980s, the Commonwealth government nominated the area for <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/181" target="_blank">World Heritage listing</a> to stop the state government building a hydroelectric dam on one of Australia’s last truly wild rivers.
The “locking up” of large parts of wilderness from industrial development has prompted deep social divisions. Nevertheless, the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA) has since become part of Tasmania’s cultural and natural fabric. Yet this wilderness is now under renewed threat, as commercial interests seek to capitalise on its tourism potential.
World Heritage Areas must have an up-to-date management plan to ensure compliance with Australia’s obligations under the <a href="https://whc.unesco.org/en/convention/" target="_blank">World Heritage Convention</a>. In 2016 the Commonwealth and Tasmanian governments <a href="https://dpipwe.tas.gov.au/Documents/TWWHA_Management_Plan_2016.pdf" target="_blank">revised the TWWHA management plan</a> to reflect its “socio-economic” value, allowing a range of tourism uses that were banned under the previous 1999 plan.
The World Heritage Committee <a href="https://whc.unesco.org/en/decisions/6290/" target="_blank">warned in 2015</a> that without “strict criteria for new tourism development”, there would be significant risks to the area’s “wilderness character and cultural attributes”. Australia accepted the recommendation but has still not meaningfully implemented strict criteria to assess and protect wilderness values, even as it accepts proposals for tourism developments.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/240388/original/file-20181012-119123-mwlla0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/240388/original/file-20181012-119123-mwlla0.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Proposed commercial infrastructure projects involving built structures, transport, and modification of the natural environment in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area, which have received preliminary or final approvals at October 2018. 30 proposals have been made and additional projects are likely to be announced as the EOI process continues. (c) Nick Fitzgerald 2018.
Since both levels of government agreed to open up the TWHHA, a range of commercial interests have proposed tourism developments there. Expressions of interest for commercial developments are done behind closed doors, but it is clear that <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-12/hodgman-challenged-over-lake-malbena-development/9860202" target="_blank">at least 30 commercial development proposals have been made</a> for sites in the TWWHA, including projects involving permanent huts, lodges and camps, and some that would necessitate helicopter access.
Halls Island
The first of these proposals to be released for public comment and assessed under the 2016 management plan is a plan to build a “luxury standing camp and guided ecotourism experience” at Halls Island in <a href="https://www.parks.tas.gov.au/index.aspx?base=3904" target="_blank">Walls of Jerusalem National Park</a> – a remote highland region of the TWWHA.
The plan includes <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-12/hodgman-challenged-over-lake-malbena-development/9860202" target="_blank">reclassifying the lake surrounding Halls Island from “wilderness” to “self-reliant recreation”</a>. On March 22, 2018, the proponent (Wild Drake Pty Ltd) <a href="http://epbcnotices.environment.gov.au/_entity/annotation/6fdfc222-f732-e811-886f-005056ba00a8/a71d58ad-4cba-48b6-8dab-f3091fc31cd5?t=1539138560646" target="_blank">referred the proposal to the Commonwealth Environment Minister</a> to determine whether it should be formally assessed under the EPBC Act.
Upon referral the proposal met with widespread opposition from scientists, conservation specialists, civil society, and recreational users of the park, especially the fishing community. What became clear today is that it was also strongly opposed by the expert advisory council for the TWWHA.
Expert advice
The National Parks and Wildlife Advisory Council (NPWAC) is a statutory body of independent experts, with responsibility to advise on the management of the TWHHA in line with Australia’s national and international World Heritage commitments. <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://twitter.com/giblinite/status/1052020975775014912" target="_blank">The documents released today</a> show that on July 13 2018, the NPWAC argued strongly against the proposal being allowed to proceed, stating that it “does not support this project progressing at this time”.
It cited a range of objections, including the fact that the development would effectively grant “exclusive private commercial use” of an area in the TWWHA, and that the opening up of airspace to helicopters would set an unwelcome precedent. It also described the development’s planned “standing camp” as a “pretence” because it would involve the construction of permanent buildings for year-round use. And it pointed to the proposal’s failure to address adequately the risk to threatened species and the fire-sensitive nature of the property.
Like the World Heritage Committee, NPWAC argued that the range of projects currently proposed for the TWWHA “should not be considered until there is an agreed framework to guide assessment”. Yet despite this, the minister’s delegate allowed the proposal to proceed without further assessment under the EPBC Act.
Commonwealth government’s decision
On August 31, 2018, the delegate of the minister decided that the referred action “is not a controlled action”, which means that it will not be subject to any further assessment, or even attention, by the Commonwealth government. No other reasons were given to reject the NPWAC’s recommendations, or the submissions from 78 individuals (including expert scientists) and 808 campaign submissions opposing the development.
Government ministers are not bound to act on expert advice. But they do have a duty to take it into account in a meaningful way. That is especially the case when expert advice is so clear, and supported by a range of relevant, independent and compelling public submissions from scientists and specialist groups.
In the case of Halls Island, these factors should have tipped the balance towards undertaking a proper, legal assessment of the proposal and its likely impacts.
In a response to The Conversation, Price said her department had considered a range of advice and concluded that the proposed development is “not likely to have significant impacts on any nationally protected environmental matters, including the value of the World Heritage Area”.
Examined against the government’s increasingly cavalier attitude to our national estate, world heritage, and role in global environmental governance it is tempting to conclude that Tasmania’s wilderness has become yet another place where economic values trump conservation ones.
The Commonwealth is supposed to provide a check and balance on states’ self-interest in exploiting areas of outstanding universal value. But with another 29 development proposals on the list, our fear is that Tasmania’s World Heritage “wilderness” will become a lot less wild in the future.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/104854/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Brendan Gogarty, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Tasmania
Nick Fitzgerald, PhD candidate, University of Tasmania
Phillipa C. McCormack, Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Tasmania
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/green-light-for-tasmanian-wilderness-tourism-development-defied-expert-advice-104854" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Green light for Tasmanian wilderness tourism development defied expert advice

<html><body>
Some 600 hectares of land on New South Wales' Woomargama Station has been slated for land conservation for the Nature Conservation Trust of NSW.
Clare Cannon of the Melbourne Darling family engaged the NCT to place a covenant on one third of her property.
She said feel very strongly about providing leadership in the space and showing that you can run a profitable business while also being focussed on sustainability, planting trees and preserving wildlife.
"There is an increasing customer demand for sustainable practices in farming. Woomargama Station is a serious farm business running poll merino sheep and poll Hereford cattle, exporting wool internationally," she said.
“European buyers are very interested in animal welfare, and they’re particularly interested in sustainability,” Cannon explained. “We’ve done the provenance of food, and it’s still a big issue; the provenance of clothing is the next one.
Cannon’s Woomargama NCT covenant protects box gum woodland, which is estimated to have been cleared so extensively that only around 3.5 percent of the original extent still exists.  
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

Woomargama Station gifts 600 hectares for conservation

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/63448/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
It was in the mid-20th century when the American agricultural scientist Norman Borlaug showed us how to make wheat and rice stems shorter, to increase their yield.
He’s often referred to as the Father of the Green Revolution and his breakthrough meant food was suddenly more abundant across much of the world.
For example, Mexico had a 300% increase in wheat production attributed in part to Borlaug’s work. Later, India and Pakistan had a 60% increase in their harvests, helping both countries to become agriculturally self-sufficient.
Thanks to other advances, such as vaccines, people started living longer and healthier lives.
The human population responded to this boon by catapulting from 2.6 billion to 7.3 billion in just 60 years. It continues to rise by about 80 million per year.
<h2>The heat is on</h2>
But things are warming up. Atmospheric carbon is at 400 parts per million, the highest it has been since the Pliocene era 5.3-million to 2.6-million years ago.
Despite the massive human population increase in the past 20 years, the amount of farmed land used to feed these people has not increased. In fact, it has decreased slightly to 1.4 billion hectares.
As towns, roads and factories take over established farming land, it is becoming increasingly difficult to find suitable land on which to develop new farms. Most of it has already been developed.
The rate of annual increase of the international cereal crop is falling, although the actual tonnage harvested is still rising.
<h2>Harsher weather</h2>
Future climate scenarios predict that many croplands will soon be subjected to less rainfall and higher temperatures. That means the area of prime farmland will shrink and the area of marginal farmland will grow.
The big four staple crops of the world – those that feed most people – are wheat, rice, soybean and maize.
These crops each have different relative tolerances to abiotic stress – those stresses not caused by pests and pathogens but by factors such as drought, heat, soil salt, frost and so on. But these crops are generally not well adapted to marginal farmlands.
Traditional crop breeding, which involves sexual crossing of different varieties and closely related species, has failed to deliver the quantum increases in abiotic stress hardiness in the big four crops.
Our research is exploring routes beyond traditional ones to deliver tougher crops for a hotter, drier world.
<h2>Learn from the desert plants</h2>
What can we do to future-proof our crops? How can crop production be increased by another 44% to feed the 9.3 billion people expected to be alive in 2050? How can it be done again by 2100 to feed 12 billion?
This must be done while using the same or even less farmland and under increasingly challenging climatic conditions. This is where a knowledge of desert plants may help.
<h2> </h2>
<div class="enlarge_hint"> </div>
Australia’s desert plants are the Bear Grylls of abiotic stress tolerance. They live under extremes of drought, heat and inhospitable soils. They also cope with the surprisingly frequent frosts that occur under clear desert night skies.
The plants that thrive in Australia’s ten named deserts today are those that have weathered every record-breaking drought and heatwave for the past 1.5 million years. Those that failed are dust or fossils.
Although quite a lot is known about how crop plants cope with periodic stress, far less is known about the suite of mechanisms that desert plants employ every day.
<h2>New research</h2>
Although the deserts would seem to be obvious places to look for novel strategies to protect crops living under hotter dryer conditions, this is not a well-researched area. This is because much of the Australian flora from those regions is not closely related to the exotic plant species we grow for food.
The best-case scenario is that stress-tolerance strategies that evolved in desert plants can be applied to crops; under climatic conditions that kill today’s crops, the new traits will maintain or increase grain yields. This is not likely to be a straightforward task.
Where beneficial traits are encoded in DNA, recombinant DNA technology will be used to transfer new genes into crops, after satisfying the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator and other regulatory bodies that they are as safe as other genetically modified (GM) and non-GM crop plants.
The flora and fauna of Australia are potentially an innovation goldmine. Plant scientists from other countries have already anticipated this. They are feverishly collecting large numbers of Australian desert plants and shipping them back home.
This research could be done anywhere in the world, but I think it should always be done in close collaboration with Australian universities and government research organisations. Positive outcomes of this research will benefit the world, as Borlaug’s dwarfing genes did.
Desert areas everywhere in the world face threats from destructive human exploitation. Many Australian people and governments still see deserts as barren wastes, but they are far from that.
Conservation of large parts of the remaining pristine desert areas in Australia must become a high priority. Preserving desert biodiversity is essential for the intrinsic values and ecosystem services they already provide, and because they may play a role in saving billions of people from starvation.
Steve Wylie senior research associate in molecular virology of wild and cultivated plants, virus ecology, metagenomics, host-pathogen evolution, symbiosis, Murdoch University and author for The Conversation. He can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/steve-wylie-27161" target="_blank">here</a>.
</body></html>

jchancellor-FAypfDUnLy

Look to the Australian deserts to future-proof our crops from drought

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/61306/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
Koalas are a much-loved Australian icon and a tourism moneyspinner too, contributing more than A$1 billion each year to Australia’s economy.
Worringly, however, there is growing evidence that koala populations are declining rapidly in many parts of Australia. They are thought to be declining in all but one bioregion (a way of classifying ecosystems) in Queensland and New South Wales.
They also face the growing threat of climate change. Recent modelling found that koala habitat could be considerably reduced as the world warms, particularly due to heatwaves and rainfall.
These declines are deeply concerning and failure to reverse them can result in only one outcome: the loss of koalas from many parts of the Australian landscape. But conserving koalas is a complex job.
<h2>A wicked problem</h2>
In western Queensland, koala numbers declined by 80% between 1995 and 2009, mainly because of habitat loss, drought and heatwaves.
In southeast Queensland, where threats from urban development are a key factor, some populations fell by 55-80% between 1996 and 2015.
The picture is similar in NSW, where there is evidence for a substantial decline in koala numbers over the two centuries from European settlement in 1788 to the first major statewide survey in 1986-87. Subsequent studies have identified steep declines and local extinctions of koala populations in the past 30 years.
Unfortunately, there may be no quick fix: koala recovery has many of the characteristics of a wicked problem, riddled with dilemmas, trade-offs and tough choices.
For a start, koalas are declining for several complex reasons. In the western parts of Queensland and NSW, the main factors are climate change (drought and heatwaves) and habitat loss. Along the coast, koalas are chiefly threatened by rapid urban development and the associated impact of vehicle collisions and dog attacks.
There is also considerable uncertainty about the role of disease (such as chlamydia and retroviral infections) in driving koala declines. We don’t know whether this is a cause or a symptom of the koalas' plight, but we know that it is likely to be having an important impact.
These complexities make it difficult to identify the best management strategies to try to improve things.
There are also social and political complexities that tend to polarise, or at least confuse, the debate about koala conservation. For instance, there are strong trade-offs between koala conservation and other human needs and wants, such as land for urban development, agriculture and economic progress. In reality, these trade-offs tend to limit what is possible for koala recovery.
<h2>Finding solutions</h2>
In our research we are looking at koala recovery strategies that factor in different threats and trade-offs. In a recent study we looked at which recovery strategies to prioritise across NSW.
Interestingly, instead of spreading conservation efforts thinly across the state, we found the best option by far is to concentrate on particular regions.
If funding is low (say, A$2 million each year) we found it better to focus on koalas in eastern parts of NSW and reduce threats from urban development, particularly dog control.
But if funding is higher (say, A$40 million per year) it is possible to spread conservation efforts more easily between eastern and western parts of the state (reducing the impact of urban development in the east, and habitat loss in the west).
The NSW government has pledged A$100 million for threatened species over five years. With only some of this going to koalas, our work indicates that the strategic prioritisation of limited funding is critical (and potentially should favour eastern over western populations).
<h2>Planning for koala recovery</h2>
Koalas were listed as “vulnerable” in Queensland, NSW and the Australian Capital Territory under national threatened species legislation in 2012. This is helping to limit impacts on koalas from future development.
But true koala recovery will require a concerted effort by all levels of government and the community to implement measures to combat existing threats. In this process, identifying the best strategic actions and locations for action will be vital.
The federal government has begun a koala recovery planning process, drawing on past efforts. However, a review of koala conservation found that while the objectives were basically fine, the implementation was largely missing.
A key issue is that planning is principally a state matter and detailed planning a local government matter embedded within state legislative frameworks. This means that planning for koala survival and recovery must include all levels of government and their legislative and policy frameworks.
Our research shows the importance of strategic investment in koala conservation, rather than a scattergun approach. The challenge is to formulate an integrated strategy across governments that funds the activities that really work, to yield the highest return for the funds invested. This is not a modest challenge, but is essential to provide koalas with the best chance of long-term survival.
Jonathan Rhodes is associate professor, The University of Queensland and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/jonathan-rhodes-158002" target="_blank">here</a>.
Clive McAlpine is senior research fellow in Ecology, The University of Queensland and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/clive-mcalpine-18709" target="_blank">here</a>.
Daniel Lunney is adjunct professor of Zoology, University of Sydney and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/daniel-lunney-280738" target="_blank">here</a>.
Kerrie Wilson is associate professor and ARC Future Fellow, The University of Queensland and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/kerrie-wilson-229240" target="_blank">here</a>.
Truly Santika is research fellow, The University of Queensland and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/truly-santika-280440" target="_blank">here</a>.
All are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Koalas are feeling the heat, and we need to make some tough choices to save our furry friends

<html><body>
Phillipa McCormack, University of Tasmania; Jan McDonald, University of Tasmania
Australia’s conservation laws presume that we can preserve everything in its natural state. But in a changing world, we'll have to be more flexible than that.
Australia recently gained an unenviable title: perhaps the first country to lose a mammal species to climate change. The Bramble Cay Melomys, a native rodent found on one tiny sand island in the remote northern regions of the Great Barrier Reef, reportedly became extinct after rising seas destroyed its habitat.
The melomys' likely extinction is a symptom of the massive changes taking place across the natural world. Faced with these changes, we cannot possibly save every species without increasing funding for conservation.
We should be trying to conserve everything we can, or at least minimising the number of plants, animals and ecosystems that are lost. The problem is that Australia’s conservation laws presume that we can preserve everything in its natural state. But in a changing world, we’ll have to be more flexible than that.
<h2>The new nature</h2>
Our conservation laws were drafted on the assumption that, if human intervention could be avoided or managed, plants and animals would survive in their natural, pristine environments.
We now know that that is not the case. Nature is dynamic. Humans have had a pervasive influence on the environment and recent research suggests that pristine environments no longer exist.
Climate change will rapidly accelerate environmental change. Shifting temperature and rainfall will shift the specific conditions that species depend on to survive. Everything will be on the move.
On top of these gradual climate shifts, more frequent and intense bushfires, storms and heatwaves will destroy some habitats and increase the threatened status of many species. In some cases, these extreme events may result in localised extinctions.
Climate change is creating new problems for biodiversity (such as new invasive species) and is making existing problems worse (such as by changing fire patterns).
<h2>What does conservation mean if we can’t save everything?</h2>
Far from making conservation law irrelevant, these challenges mean that conservation policy and laws are more important than ever.
Expanding land and marine reserves, restoring and connecting habitat with other areas, and reducing other threats such land clearing or feral animals are all important climate adaptation strategies.
But many Australian plants and animals will not be able to move fast enough to escape extreme events or to keep pace with their specific climate niches on their own. To conserve these species, we may need to engage in high‑intervention conservation strategies, such as assisted colonisation.
This involves moving an individual, population or species to a place where it has never been found before. This tactic is being investigated for the endangered Western Swamp Tortoise in Western Australia, as its wetland habitat begins to dry out.
Conservation laws in Australia were not designed to accommodate these kinds of dynamic and proactive approaches to conservation management.
<h2>Legal road blocks</h2>
Current conservation laws promote keeping or returning the environment to what it used to be, whether that is pristine or not.
In a recent paper, we looked at three ways laws may impede conservation in a changing world.
First, current laws emphasise maintaining the current status and location of ecosystems and their constituent parts, or returning them to an “undisturbed” state.
Second, they place high value on biodiversity that is rare, native and wild.
Finally, they emphasise reserves (especially on public land) as the sites for most conservation effort.
For example, national park laws typically require agencies to conserve national parks in their natural state. This is usually defined by the plants and animals that are already there or that have been found there in the past.
But some species might need to be moved into national parks, even if they have never been found there before, or out of national parks to somewhere more climatically suitable. Current laws do not let us do this.
Rather than an outdated idea of what is “natural”, we need new objectives that focus on diversity and ecosystem function and health. If introducing a plant or animal into a national park will increase its chance of surviving under climate change and will not undermine the health of the park’s ecosystems, the introduction should not be excluded just because the species is not “native” to that specific park. This approach would help species adapt through movement across boundaries.
<h2>Letting species go</h2>
Another example of a potential legal roadblock is the emphasis on individual threatened species in both legal protection and funding. For instance, the Coalition government has pledged AU$5 million for specific actions to protect some of the most endangered of Australia’s listed threatened species.
But this is an example of assuming that we can save everything. The contracting ranges and already precarious status of many listed speciesmake it unlikely that we will be able to conserve them all, and impossible to do so in their historic locations.
Choices based on what species we fund are rarely transparent and the public is rarely consulted about what we value the most. We need to have a conversation about how we value species and ecosystems in a changing world. If more people realised that we cannot save everything, perhaps more people would demand that appropriate funding is allocated to saving as much as possible.
While funding remains limited, we need objectives that reflect the certainty of some loss of species in the wild and that clearly define the criteria we are using for targeting some species for protection while letting others go.
Our conservation laws direct how we will act to save species and ecosystems under climate change, and whether we will succeed. But climate change makes our current objectives unachievable.
We must not give up on conserving as much as we can as the climate changes. Laws can be used to help us achieve this goal. But we urgently need a national conversation about what reform is needed to ensure the best possible conservation results for Australia’s precious wildlife, plants and ecosystems.
 
</body></html>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

We can't save all wildlife, so conservation laws need to change

<html><body>
<img src="https://counter.theconversation.edu.au/content/57114/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
GUEST OBSERVER
The sky is blue and you are walking through a park, speaking with a colleague, discussing a new project. You feel energised, puffing slightly as your pace speeds up with the excitement of tossing around ideas as you walk among the trees.
This is how the Nature Conservancy envisages you may spend an hour of your working week this week. April 18-24 is Work with Nature Week, a campaign to encourage Australians to engage with the natural environment. The hope is that you will come to appreciate nature – if you don’t already – and support conservation efforts.
Nature, according to the campaign, can improve your concentration and make you a sharper and more creative thinker. What boss wouldn’t want their employees to “work with nature”?
The health and ecology research literature brims with examples of the positive effects of nature on well-being. Exposure to nature helps us recover from stress and mental fatigue and restores concentration. Lower blood pressure, improved concentration and more positive emotions are identified when people go for a walk in a natural environment compared with an urban environment.
Attention Restoration Theory (ART) explains that restoration requires a different experience – such as “getting away” – in an environment that is together interesting, non-threatening and realistic. If you have spent your morning in a meeting room or office, a park with trees and perhaps a pond or fountain is about as different as you can get.
<h2>Finding nature in the heart of the city</h2>
If you work in the middle of the city, how practical is it to spend an hour of your working week surrounded by roads and concrete, pollution and the occasional rat? Even if you can go and sit among the pigeons for an hour, how “natural” is that experience of nature?
Urban ecologists have realigned thinking about nature in cities. Cities are novel environments that have the potential to support surprising amounts of nature. Parks, surrounding national parks, street trees and even private gardens create a large-scale urban forest that wildlife can use.
For example, in Sydney vulnerable Powerful Owls have been sighted in the Royal Botanic Gardens in the middle of the city. Australian cities have even been found to act as hotspots for threatened species.
Conserving any local native areas and species is important to maintain the unique natural identity of a city. In addition, manicured parks and gardens provide new kinds of plants with the potential to support both local and native species. Nature is dispersed through our cities, even if we don’t notice it.
<h2>What supports well-being in cities?</h2>
We have published research that identified the aspects of urban environments that support human well-being. Being able to move safely around a city (walkable space) and enabling space for social interaction are known factors of good urban design. Green space is another factor that, for the reasons discussed above, is important to ensure we can survive in cities.
We add biodiversity and ecosystem services to the equation as both are necessary if we are also to thrive in cities. Without sufficient biodiversity, the nature we encounter may not be realistic enough for a successful restorative experience, according to ART. Biodiversity can also keep species in check – for example, reducing the numbers of animal vectors of disease such as mosquitos and ticks.
Ecosystem services are critical to our survival. More than the air we breathe and the water we drink, when ecosystems fail, this has serious consequences for human well-being. Environmental degradation has been found to affect people who work in rural environments, but cities are already degraded landscapes. Urban nature has never been more important.
If you are considering how to spend an hour working in nature this week but your calendar is hectic and you are facing a wall of meetings, don’t despair. You could even benefit from nature just by glancing at it. In a recent Australian study, a glance at a green roof has been found to be more restorative than a glance at a concrete roof.
Working with nature is not limited to sitting in a lush garden with your laptop. A walking meeting through a landscaped area, which would provide the added benefits of exercise, or even a glance at a natural view might help you to recover from your day’s stress.
The Work with Nature campaign has another function: to remind decision-makers that we need nature in our cities. There are many forms it might take. An atrium or view from your office has the potential to help you function more effectively at work, but a large inner-city park offers us the realistic green space that provides the full benefits of nature.
Lucy Taylor is doctoral candidate in Urban Ecology, University of Sydney, and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/lucy-taylor-112010" target="_blank">here</a>.
Dieter Hochuli is associate professor, School of Biological Sciences, University of Sydney and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/dieter-hochuli-135191" target="_blank">here</a>.
Both are authors for The Conversation.
</body></html>

Reducing stress at work is a walk in the park

<html><body>
The Victorian Planning Minister, Matthew Guy, has made a move to ensure that private land owners on beaches covered by Public Conservation and Resource zones will only be able to go ahead with the agreement of the state government.
Before this, there was apparently a loophole allowing private land owners the ability to build permanent structures ‘as of right’. This could be anything from a deck, verandah or shade structure to a fence, sign or significant outdoor furniture.
Now, however, these zones will be kept from private development under amendment VC115.
“The Victorian Coalition government will not allow public accessed beaches to be built  on, where the land is technically held in private ownership,” Guy said in a recent statement.
They are currently further looking at legislative options regarding clarifying title boundaries around Port Phillip Bay.
No use or development will be able to go ahead on the land without a planning permit from now on. To obtain this, an owner must put in an application, which will then look to seek consent from the Secretary of the Department of Environment and Primary Industries. A local planning authority will assess the applications. This is likely to be the local council for many.
“With this change, any permit application to use or develop land within this zone will require consent. This is wide-ranging and includes fences, signs, outdoor furniture, shade sails, flag-poles, sheds, pergolas, verandahs and decks. Until today’s reforms, building these structures on private land in this zone did not require a planning permit.”
Guy expressed his belief that this was an appropriate response, with the government currently working on the process of defining boundaries in areas with a high water mark.
“This change to the PCR zone will ensure proper management of beaches. It will prevent inappropriate development and construction from occurring. Beaches will remain accessible for everyone in this state – as they should be.”
</body></html>

Conservation

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Conservation

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News