2,606 research outputs found
Institutional Arrangements for the Community Engagement in the Natural Resources Management: Case Study of the Lake Eyre Basin
Get PDFThis paper presents an overview of the formal institutional arrangements for natural resource management (NRM) in the Lake Eyre Basin (LEB) and the role of these arrangements as an enabling environment for community engagement in NRM. The appropriate scale of NRM management and the complexity and expense of effective community engagement is discussed. The paper highlights challenges faced by NRM groups in remote regions and their need for proper support and sharing in significant decision making processes. Regional interface groups are presented as relatively recent experiments in ecological intervention that have operated in a rapidly changing policy environment. The paper concludes with a summary of potential key challenges for NRM in the LEB region and suggests that interface organisations require understanding, capacity and support to utilise their investments and program activities to learn about how to improve and adapt to meet the challenges of their operating environment.institutional arrangements, NRM, participation, public consultation
Remotely Engaged? A Framework for Monitoring the Success of Stakeholder Engagement in Remote Regions
Get PDFThe importance of stakeholder engagement for the success of natural resources management processes is widely acknowledged, yet evaluation frameworks employed by administrators of environmental programs continue to provide limited recognition of or insistence upon engagement processes. This paper presents a framework for monitoring and evaluation of engagement that aims to better incorporate community engagement into mainstream environmental programs, in particular in remote regions such as arid and desert regions of the world. We argue that successful monitoring of engagement should not only comprise a generic set of indicators but rather, in addition to the principles of good monitoring practice, should take into account a variety of the stakeholder interests as well as key regional drivers, addressing them at right geographic, institutional and time scale.engagement, evaluation, governance, natural resources, participation, stakeholders
Socio-economic profiling of tropical rivers<br />
Get PDFSummary of the reportTropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge (TRaCK) consortium was established in 2007 under the Commonwealth Environment Research Facilities Programme with the aim of providing the science and knowledge that governments, communities and industries need for the sustainable use and management of Australia’s tropical rivers and estuaries. This report has been written as a part of the Tropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge (TRaCK) project 3.1, “People and economy”.Tropical rivers of Australia are defined as catchments stretching from Broome in Western Australia to Cape York in Queensland, draining into either the Timor Sea or Gulf of Carpentaria. Tropical rivers (TR) thus include 54 river catchments and cover an area of more than 1.3 million km2. Key characteristic of the tropical rivers, in general, is that their hydrology is determined by a short and distinct wet season, followed by longer dry season. While water might be abundant during the wet season, it is generally ephemeral and becomes scarce during the dry season.This document reports on four major objectives of stage (B) of the TRaCK project 3.1, “People and economy”. The four objectives were: (a) to develop an integrated conceptual framework for the socio-economic profiling; (b) to update existing knowledge with data from the 2006 Census; (c) to develop profiles of individual catchments based on their individual socio-economic characteristics; and (d) to compare and contrast the TR catchments and to identify catchments which are socio-economically ‘similar’ or ‘dissimilar’.The conceptual framework developed for the study (objective a) was grounded in the social impact assessment theory but also reviewed literature from other related research areas, such as adaptive capacity, social resilience and institutional analysis. The original framework also included a “wish list” of variables that should ideally be populated in order to provide full profiles of socio-economic conditions across the north. The conceptual framework is presented in Section 2 of the report.The data collection and updating process (objective b) has identified several important data gaps, discussed further in Section 5.1 of the report. A comparison of the “wish list” of variables developed at the start of the project with the list of variables for which we were able to find recent, readily available secondary data, revealed some important data gaps. As a result, the conceptual framework originally proposed could not be populated to the full extent and was thus collapsed into the following five domains: (a) population / demographic characteristics; (b) economic parameters; (c) infrastructure and housing; (d) human and social capital, combining institutional arrangements with individual wellbeing; and (e) environment, heritage and land use. The data were used to create GIS-linked maps of socioeconomic characteristics of all catchments across the north (Section 3), as well as to create profiles of each individual catchment (objective c, presented in Section 4.1 and Appendix 2).Although the tropical rivers (TR) region represents around a quarter of the Australian land mass, it contains just two percent of the population. The region is characterised by disperse human settlement, with the only significant populations (more than 10,000 people) located in and around Darwin in the Northern Territory, Broome in Western Australia, and Mount Isa in Queensland. The Accessibility/ Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA) indicates that large tracts of the TR region fall within the “very remote” category of ARIA as defined by ABS, with scores higher then 10.5.The percentage of people speaking a language other than English at home is relatively high in TR region. Most of the languages, other than English, which are spoken at home are Indigenous languages. And the percentage of the population speaking non-Indigenous languages at home is proportionally smaller (up to 15 percent per catchment) than populations speaking Indigenous languages at home (up to over 80 percent per catchment). For example, in Leichhardt River, only 74 percent of population was born in Australia, yet 82 percent speak only English at home. In contrast, the entire populations of both the Moyle and the Walker river catchments were born in Australia, yet only 12 and 10 percent, respectively, speak only English at home.About 42% of all homes in TR region have an internet connection, while 65% of all homes have a motor vehicle. In addition, catchments closer to urban regions such as Adelaide River (near Darwin) tend to have higher rates of internet connection and homes with registered motor vehicle (56% and 95% and, respectively), while more remote catchments tend to have a very low percentage of homes with internet connection (such as, for example, 20% in King Edward River or 11% in Fitzmaurice River) and a low percentage of homes with a registered motor vehicle (34% in King Edward River and 38% in Fitzmaurice). Similar disparity appears in human capital data. To use the same catchments as examples, less than one percent of people in the Adelaide catchment never attended school, while 3% of people in the Fitzmaurice and 5.5% of people in the Kind Edward catchment have never received any formal schooling.Combined government-provided services such as health, education, defence and public services were identified as the largest employer in the region, employing on average 25 percent of persons over 15 years of age in TR catchments in 2006. The second largest employment sector was agriculture and forestry, with an average of 11.5 percent across catchments, followed by mining, retail and construction, each employing around 4 percent of population over 15 years of age. Median weekly income per person varied greatly between catchments from around 150 per person per in mining-dominated catchments like the Leichhardt and Embley. The majority of the labour force in the catchments across the TR region was concentrated in the Darwin region. The few other catchments with larger settlements, such as Mt Isa, Broome and Katherine, dominate the remaining numbers of total labour available in the TR region and the labour force across the majority of other catchments is very limited suggesting that this might be one of the limiting factors for potential developments in the future.Basic infrastructure in the north is also limited. Transport infrastructure is limited to a weak network of all-weather sealed roads and airports, and very few ports. This is particularly true in the Kimberleys, Arnhem Land and Cape York Peninsula. Services are also limited to a few larger rural centres. For example, one third of 54 northern catchments profiled did not have any educational facilities. Similarly, the overwhelming majority of the community organizations across TR region registered in Australian Community Guide, 97 percent, were located within 10 catchments of the region.Much of the land in the TR region is in its natural condition, with most land use following within the categories of ‘land under conservation’ ‘traditional Indigenous use’, and ‘land under production from a relatively natural environment’ (such as grazing of natural vegetation). Other land uses, such as land under dryland agriculture, irrigated land and land under intensive uses, are minimal across the region. Great differences however do exist between the catchments. For example, all of the land in Goyder River catchment is classified as in natural condition (under traditional Indigenous use), while only 2.5% of land in Gilbert River is classified as being in natural condition (under conservation), with no land under traditional Indigenous use. The majority of land in Gilbert River catchment, more than 95%, is under grazing.To meet the last objective of this study, TR catchments were compared and contrasted in order to identify catchments which are socio-economically ‘similar’ (and, by corollary, socio-economically ‘dissimilar’). It is important to note that, given the complexity of variation between the catchments, more good quality data is needed to reduce the uncertainty around the findings of this investigation. Nonetheless, distinct clusters of catchments have been identified and are discussed in Section 4.2 of the report.For example, Settlement Creek, Staaten, Keep, Gilbert, Holroyd and Norman rivers were grouped together as relatively similar. This cluster is characterised by relatively high levels of employment in agriculture and a high percentage of land under grazing. Mobility is also relatively high, with a large proportion of people owning their homes. A medium to high proportion of residents speak English only. Catchments in this cluster have low numbers of homes with no vehicles or no internet connection, and a relatively low percentage of people with no schooling. Household sizes and numbers of people per bedroom are also low, as well as the percentage of women with 3 children or more and the percentage of one parent families. The percentage of Aboriginal people in those catchments is low to relatively low.Another cluster identified in the analyses comprised of the Jardine, King Edward, Coleman and Watson rivers and Bathurst and Melville Islands. This cluster is characterised by a low mobility of population, low incomes and low employment in agriculture, manufacturing or mining. Employment by government is higher. In these catchments a low percentage of people are purchasing their homes, while most families are renting homes from the community organisations. An increased proportion of the population has no schooling. Catchments in this cluster also have medium to relatively high numbers of homes with no vehicles and no internet connection, and a relatively high proportion of women with 3 children or more. Household sizes and numbers of people per bedroom are higher than in the previous clusters described. The percentages of Aboriginal people in these catchments are medium to high, however, the percentage of land under Indigenous traditional use is not very high (except at Bathurst and Melville islands).In summary, the socio-economic profiling identified considerable differences both between and within the catchments in the north. Biophysical and cultural differences, as well as differences in human, social and institutional capital and available infrastructure, will play a large role in determining both the opportunities for development (mining, agriculture, tourism) as well as capacities of the communities in those catchments to identify opportunities and take the advantage of the opportunities as they present themselves.This study summarised data that might be of help to other researchers and communities in the north engaged in development of sustainable use and management options for the tropical rivers. Furthermore, identification of different types of catchments, that are not necessarily geographically linked but are similar in socio-economic terms, might aid in development of the management approaches that are more targeted, and thus more appropriate, than “one size fits all” approach; yet require lesser effort than targeting of individual catchments. Potential of this approach to be used for improved understanding and management of natural resources issues in other rural and remote regions of Australia warrants further research. Research into development of catchment typologies based on entire sets of data, that is biophysical characteristics as well as socio-economic characteristics of the catchments, also warrants further research
Terms of Engagement: Consensus or Control in Remote Australian Resource Management?
Get PDFCommunity based natural resource management (NRM) has seen a shift in the discourse from participation to engagement, reflecting a focus on increasingly active citizen involvement in management and action. This paper considers this shift in relation to two contrasting theoretical perspectives. The first is deliberative democracy, drawing on Habermas, which emphasises the importance of discussing and rationalising values and actions. The second is governmentality, or ‘governing through community’ which draws on Foucault, emphasising neo-liberal management styles and ‘self-help’. In considering the empirical relevance of these theoretical perspectives, this paper draws on a case study of public engagement in NRM in the Lake Eyre Basin, a remote, inland region of Australia. This research yielded a practical set of “factors for success” for public engagement in remote areas. The findings support the view that, especially in remote regions, public engagement in NRM reflects contrasting goals. We make two conclusions. First, that these contrasting objectives emphasise the tension between deliberative and neo-liberal conceptualisations of engagement; and second, the evidence for neo-liberal interpretations of engagement are stronger than for deliberative interpretations of engagement in the case study region.participation, decentralisation, governmentality, deliberation
Australian Indigenous insights into ecosystem services: beyond services towards connectedness – people, place and time
Get PDFThe Millennium Ecosystem Assessment focused attention on benefit flows from ecosystems to humans, although nowadays, ecosystem service (ES) researchers typically acknowledge reciprocal flows from humans to nature and there is growing recognition of the need to better incorporate insights from other cultures. We set out to do this, giving primacy to the voice of an Australian Aboriginal group during a workshop that developed an (Aboriginal) model of the nature-people relationship. ES were a component of the model, but the Aboriginal model was not ‘atomistic’ (with separable parcels of land, separable ES, or separable individuals who are not part of community); it focused primarily on connections between and within the human and natural systems. Temporal dimensions were considerably longer than those commonly considered by Western scientists, feelings and spirituality were central, and stewardship activities were highlighted as not only improving the environment but also directly improving wellbeing. Evidently, Country needs to be looked after the ‘right way’; it is not enough to simply account for the ES values that are generated or the stewardship activities that are undertaken (e.g. controlling weeds); one also needs to record how this is done (e.g. with respect) and by whom (e.g. traditional owners)
Resident perceptions of the relative importance of socio-cultural, biodiversity, and commercial values in Australia\u27s Tropical Rivers - Report for the North Australia Water Futures Assessment<br />
Get PDFEXECUTIVE SUMMARYBackground and overview of project (chapter 1):This report describes research that was commissioned by the Northern Australia Water Futures Assessment (NAWFA) Cultural and Social program. The NAWFA Cultural and Social program has funded a number of research projects to help fill some of the critical information gaps about Social and Cultural values associated with Australia’s Northern Rivers.The TRaCK NAWFA Social and Cultural project was comprised of three research activities that were carried out by CSIRO, Charles Darwin University (CDU), James Cook University (JCU) and Griffith University (GU) as part of the Tropical Rivers and Coastal Knowledge (TRaCK) program. The three activities ran in parallel from March 2011 for a period of 12 months, and were: • Sub-project 1 – Social and cultural values in the planning cycle (CSIRO and CDU); • Sub-project 2 – Relative values of water for trade-offs (JCU); and • Sub-project 3 – Developing management models for Indigenous water strategies (GU). This report relates to Sub-project 2 – Relative values of water for trade-offs.The overarching aim of this project was to improve our understanding of the Social and Cultural values associated with Australia’s Tropical Rivers. Its specific objectives were to improve our understanding of: 1. the relative values of water for different stakeholder groups; 2. the rate at which different stakeholder groups are willing to trade-off economic development for those values; 3. the extent to which stream flow and/or water quality could change before there was a ‘significant’ impact on Social and Cultural values; and hence 4. the likely response of stakeholders to the consequences of upstream development scenarios and to potential changes in the downstream uses of water.The project was undertaken within a limited timeframe. Although data collection processes ensured that a reasonable cross section of views were obtained, these views are not considered to be representative of the views of all residents of Northern Australia. Furthermore, although researchers have been able to conduct a relatively detailed analysis of much of the data and produce useful results, there is scope for further, more sophisticated analysis that may generate further insights. As such, this work should be viewed as generating ‘preliminary’ findings.Generic methods (chapter 2):A hammer is not capable of fixing all building problems. Likewise, no single valuation method can be used in all situations. One needs to consider a variety of different issues, including data availability, ethical and information requirements.Social and Cultural values are only loosely associated with the market (if at all). As such, many valuation techniques (particularly those which rely on observable market prices) could not be used to asses ALL values of interest. Instead, stated preference techniques were chosen since they alone are able to assess a full range of values (irrespective of whether or not they are associated with the market).However, researchers were aware of the fact that if they used stated preference techniques to measure preferences at an individual level by asking about Willingness to Pay (WTP), and if they then added those ‘preferences’ across multiple individuals (each with a different income), they would create what is – in essence – a weighted index of value (where the weights are a function of income). Researchers therefore decided to use both dollar and non-dollar denominated stated preference techniques.Sampling (chapter 3):Researchers were cognizant of the fact that the work was commissioned by NAWFA, with the overarching goal of providing information (about Social and Cultural values) to assist water planners. These planners work, almost exclusively, with local residents. So, researchers decided to assess only the ‘values’ of residents in the tropical river’s region – although great care was taken to ensure that information was collected from a broad cross-section of those residents.A questionnaire was mailed out to more than 1500 residents across Northern Australia. Researchers received 252 usable responses, which were supplemented by interviews that were conducted with 39 residents of the Upper Mitchell River, QLD. The upper part of this catchment was chosen for an intensive case study for three reasons: (1) it is in the formative stages of water policy and planning, so a study such as this was well-timed to provide information that might assist those involved in the planning process; (2) Researchers needed to ensure that data were collected from both Indigenous and non-Indigenous residents, and they had already worked with several Indigenous people in and around the upper reaches of the Mitchell, making it relatively easy to engage with various groups in a short study period of time; and (3) development issues confronting those in the Mitchell Catchment are likely to precede those in other TR catchments (with the exception of regions in and around Darwin), meaning that lessons learned from this case-study could be useful in other regions in later years.The entire sample included a smaller percentage of Indigenous people, large families, young people and people who did not go to university, than the population from which the sample was drawn. The sample did, however, contain observations from a broad cross-section of most of our targeted ‘stakeholder’ groups, namely residents who depend upon the agricultural, mining, government and ‘other’ sectors for income and employment, allowing many important observations to be drawn.Readers are cautioned not to simply look at aggregate measures (e.g. means), and assume that those measures can be used to draw inferences about the population at large. Instead readers should first check to see if the variable of interest is ‘consistent’ across stakeholder groups. Where differences exist, readers should look at the information most pertinent to the group(s) of interest, rather than at aggregate measures. If used in this way, the information generated in this report is likely to be very useful.Readers are, however, urged to exercise extreme caution when seeking to use insights from this study to draw inferences about Indigenous values in other parts of the TR region. This is because of the relatively low number of Indigenous responses received, and the fact that most Indigenous respondents came from one small area of the TR region. But readers should even be cautious about trying to draw inferences about the values of other Indigenous people within the study area; our Indigenous sample did not include people from ALL traditional owner groups in the Upper Mitchell.Objective 1 – (chapter 4):Researchers sought to assess the relative importance which a wide variety of residents of Northern Australia place upon nine different goods/services associated with Australia’s Tropical Rivers, including the values associated with the ‘use’ (consumptive or otherwise) of rivers for: supporting human life (referred to as Life); for supporting Biodiversity; for use in Commercial ventures; for future generations (termed Bequest); for simply ‘being there’ even if never used (termed Existence); for recreational Fishing; for other types of Recreation; for Aesthetics; and for Teaching.Importantly, the list of values comprised six examples of Social and Cultural values, and three examples of other (non-Social/Cultural) values. These other values were included to enable researchers to gauge the importance of Social and Cultural values RELATIVE to other ‘values’.Respondents were presented with a list of those values and asked to indicate (i) how important each was to their overall well-being; and (ii) how satisfied they were with it. When not completely satisfied, they were asked to explain why. The data were analysed using several different approaches, clearly highlighting the following:• In terms of importance, the top three values identified by respondents were Biodiversity, Life, and Bequest.• The highest satisfaction ratings were associated with Biodiversity, while Life, Bequest and Aesthetics were equally second highest.• Many of the stated causes of dissatisfaction related to concerns about what might happen in the future (rather than to concerns about what was happening now).• Most stakeholder groups held similar views about the ranking of values (in terms of ‘importance’) from highest to lowest, although some socio-demographic, economic, and sense of place factors were found to have a minor influence on importance scores.• One of the highest policy priorities seems to be that of Commercial values. This is not because such values were considered to be important (they were rarely in the ‘top three’), but because the satisfaction scores associated with these values were so low. Evidently, the issue here is not one of protecting Commercial values, but of addressing problems, and concerns relating to the commercial use of water. Resident concerns included, but were not limited to issues associated with: pollution (past, present, or potential future), pricing, overuse, lack of certainty in supply, allocation and lack of monitoring. Interestingly, there were no systematic or predictable differences in the responses of different stakeholder groups in either the satisfaction scores or the indices of dissatisfaction associated with Commercial values; evidently respondents were consistently ‘dissatisfied’ with this value (although for many different reasons).A small subset of respondents (interviewees) were also asked to participate in a cognitive mapping exercise – the aim being to determine the extent to which the values assessed in the survey could be viewed as complementary or competitive. Biodiversity, Life and Social/Cultural values were viewed as being largely complementary to each other. In contrast, Commercial values were consistently viewed as quite separate from – and often competitive or detrimental to – these other values (with the important exception of tourism).Objective 2 (chapter 5):Respondents were also presented with a series of (hypothetical) development ‘scenarios’. First, they were asked to indicate how much they would be willing to pay (WTP) to prevent development that would impact upon Social and Cultural values. Then they were asked to indicate how much they would be willing to accept (WTA) as compensation if development caused damage to their Social and Cultural values. Finally they were asked how much they would be willing to pay to reduce current development, thus increasing their opportunity to enjoy Social and Cultural values.Data were analysed using a variety of different methods, highlighting the following:1) A large proportion of respondents were strongly opposed to the development scenarios, evidenced by the fact that - Fewer than 33 per cent of respondents indicated that they approved of the development scenarios presented in the first two scenarios – even when the impact on Social and Cultural values was relatively small.- A relatively large percentage of respondents refused to consider any trade-off at all (between 30% and 70%, depending upon the format of questionnaire presented).- Some respondents noted that they had already spent thousands of dollars fighting development proposals in and around ‘their’ rivers.- Of the group that agreed to ‘play’ the trade-off ‘game’, approximately 5 per cent were WTP/A significant sums of money to avoid damage or to ‘repair’ damage to their Social and Cultural values) with maximum values cited in the survey of 10,000. These maximum values generated highly skewed distributions with mean WTP/A ranging between almost 28,000; median values were much more modest (between 15 and 100).- More than 50 per cent of respondents indicated that they would be willing to accept a DECLINE in income if it was associated with improved opportunities to enjoy their Social and Cultural values.This strong sentiment is not altogether surprising given the fact that the previous chapter clearly showed that Commercial values were, almost always, rated as being less important than some Social and Cultural values – particularly Bequest. Moreover, it is consistent with previous studies in the region (e.g. Straton and Zander, 2010).This strong sentiment may also at least partially reflect an assumption on the part of respondents that the scenarios would affect more than just Social and Cultural values (i.e. they may be assuming that the development will also impact values such as Biodiversity which are viewed by some as essentially inseparable from Social and Cultural values).2) When outliers (i.e. the very high WTP/A dollar votes) were excluded, researchers found that:- WTP was strongly linked to ability to pay, but that those on low incomes are willing to sacrifice a much higher proportion of their income to protect their rivers than those on high incomes (three to four times higher). This is also consistent with previous findings of Straton and Zander (2010).- The importance which people place on Biodiversity is, almost always, a positive and statistically significant determinant of their WTP to protect Social and Cultural values (reinforcing earlier observations about the complementarity of these values).- People’s expressed willingness to accept compensation for ‘damage’ to Social and Cultural values (which they are unable to prevent from occurring) is significantly higher than their expressed willingness to pay to avoid the damage from occurring in the first place. The potential policy significance of this is discussed in chapter 7 (summarised under issue 3, page vi).Objective 3 (chapter 6):Respondents were asked to consider a range of hypothetical scenarios that involved changes to stream flows and water quality in nearby rivers. Specifically, they were asked to indicate (on a five point Likert scale) how these changes would affect their satisfaction with Social and Cultural values. Analysis of the data highlighted the following issues:• Any change which stops the flow of perennial rivers – even if only for a month or two – is likely to have a significant, negative impact on Social and Cultural values. (The term significant indicates that more than 50% of respondents said that such a change would either reduce or greatly reduce their satisfaction.)• Respondents were generally positive or ambivalent about changes in stream flow which reduced dry periods. In other words, those who live near an intermittent river system stated that they would either have increased or consistent levels of satisfaction with their Social and Cultural values if the dry periods were shortened (or if the river becomes perennial). The important exception to this occurred with respect to perennial but UNPREDICTABLE flows. Perennial flows are viewed positively – as long as the flows are constant, or related to natural, seasonal fluctuations.• Scenarios that reduce water quality (be it due to increased levels of turbidity or algae) are likely to create a significant negative impact on Social and Cultural values; improvements are likely to generate a significant positive impact.• Respondents viewed reductions in water quality more negatively than reductions in stream flow, and were consistently more positive about scenarios that involved improvements in water quality than about scenarios that involved increases in stream flow. This may be at least partially due to the fact that respondents are used to living in regions that have extremely variable climates. Changes to stream flows may thus be considered somewhat ‘normal’.Concluding remarks and recommendations (Chapter 7):Objective 4 asked researchers to determine:What is the likely response of stakeholders to consequences of upstream development scenarios and to potential changes in the downstream usages of water?Chapter 4 clearly showed that Commercial values are considered to be less important than Biodiversity, Life and some Social/Cultural values, while chapter 5 clearly showed that at least some people are WTP substantial amounts of money to prevent development that impacts upon their Social/Cultural values. As such, it seems that developments which impact upon downstream usages of water are likely to be met with quite a negative reaction.The opposition is likely to be characterised by significant disquiet amongst a possibly vocal minority (those refusing to consider any trade off at all, or WTP very large sums of money to prevent the development from occurring) and a present, but less significant disquiet amongst a larger group of other residents.Those most willing to accept trade-offs for development include the wealthy and/or people who place highest values on Commercial uses of rivers; those who place a high value on Biodiversity (a significant proportion of respondents) and/or those who are relatively poor seem to be much less willing to trade their Social and Cultural values for greater income flows.Other important comments/insightsISSUE 1: Interviewee data indicates that Biodiversity, Life and Social/Cultural values are somewhat complementary to each other, whereas, Commercial values are almost always viewed as quite separate from – and often competitive or detrimental to – these other values (with the important exception of tourism). Moreover the larger (mail out) data set showed a strong correlation between WTP to protect Social/Cultural values and stated importance of Biodiversity values.Evidently, for many Northern Residents, the existence of biodiversity may be a necessary pre-condition for maintenance of many Social and Cultural values. Determining whether or not the existence of biodiversity is also a SUFFICIENT condition for the preservation of Social and Cultural values, stands as a vitally important topic for further, more thorough, research. Why is this so important?• If the existence of high quality biodiversity values is both a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of high quality socio-cultural values, then preservation of the former guarantees preservation of the latter. However, if the existence of high quality biodiversity values is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for the existence of high quality socio- cultural values, then preservation of the former does not guarantee preservation of the later; other steps may be necessary (e.g. guaranteeing access to areas of high biodiversity value).• Moreover, if the Biodiversity and Social/Cultural values that are derived from one ‘area’ are non-rivalrous (meaning that society can benefit from both, simultaneously), then their values should be added together1 before being traded off against other competing uses of that ‘area’. This is analogous to the situation where a private property owner seeks to determine how much land to devote to cattle and how much to wheat: he/she should firstly estimate the value of ‘cattle’ by considering potential income from both beef and leather, and then compare that (combined) value to the potential income that can be earned from the alternative (wheat). Failure to do so, would be to under-allocate resources (e.g. land, or in this case, possibly aquatic resources) to activities that generate multiple values (e.g. cattle, or in this case, possibly biodiversity and socio-cultural values).Until we are able to learn more about these important issues2, planners may, therefore, wish to adopt a pre-cautionary approach (as advocated by the NWI). That is, they may wish to proceed as if these values are non-rivalrous, perhaps setting aside MOREthan the ‘bare minimum’ that is required to maintain biodiversity values, and also ensuring that other steps are taken to facilitate the appreciation of socio-cultural values (e.g. ensuring residents have access to important areas).ISSUE 2: Respondents were particularly concerned about changes which impact upon water quality, although those who live near perennial rivers were also very concerned about any change that would stop their stream/river flowing for even a short period each year. Moreover, comments made during focus groups and in interviews (as well as comments written on returned, mail-out questionaries) indicated that (a) many respondents have a holistic view of their environment (incorporating social, cultural, economic and biophysical values); (b) they did not feel as if all local environmental management issues were being dealt with effectively; and that (c) their oppositio
The significance of environmental values for destination competitiveness and sustainable tourism strategy making: insights from Australia's Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area
Get PDFSustainable destinations must deliver products that perform better than their competitors and at the same time protect key environmental drawcards. This research explores the environmental–economic interface of a major destination, both as a case study in how to approach this complex relationship and as a contribution to the methodology of tackling the need for understanding competitive pressures as part of sustainable tourism strategy creation. Using the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area (GBRWHA) as an example, the paper assesses 21 key environmental values, including Indigenous culture, against market-based factors, in terms of their importance for visitors as regional drawcards, satisfaction with them and the way in which changes in them might affect trip numbers and duration across different regions. While the natural values of the GBRWHA are found to be the most important drawcards, satisfaction scores were significantly lower than importance scores for a number of these values. Visitors responded more negatively to the prospect of environmental degradation than to the prospect of a 20% increase in local prices: the detailed impact depends, however, on location and visitor mix. Clear ocean, healthy coral reefs, healthy reef fish, and lack of rubbish were the top four most important values
Economic values and Indigenous Protected Areas across Northern Australia. Final report
Get PDFWe undertook a systematic review of the empirical valuation literature relating to benefits associated with Indigenous protected Areas (IPAs), revealing that some benefits are quantified in monetary terms more frequently than others, both in Australia and elsewhere. This does not mean that the quantified benefits are more important than other benefits. Instead it indicates that they are easier to quantify. As a result, there are substantive gaps in our understanding of numerous benefits – of their value to different people, in different contexts, in their entirety, and relative to other benefits (Section 5). Our research indicated that while a lack of price does not mean lack of value, it often means lack of ‘visibility’ or ‘presence’. So, vitally important non-market goods and services associated with IPAs may be overlooked, particularly by decision-makers who are driven by quantitative and/or economic data. It is important to find ways of highlighting the importance of those non-market benefits, so that resources can be directed in a manner that generates most benefit per dollar spent
Multiple co-benefits of Indigenous land and sea management programs across northern Australia: final report
Get PDFOur aim is to generate information that can be used to help design, monitor, and/or select ILSMPs to help meet the goals of key stakeholders. We focus on goals above and beyond environmental goals – i.e. those that can be considered to be co-benefits. These diverse goals include seeking to enhance individual wellbeing, help communities meet their aspirations, support the development of Indigenous businesses and/or promote regional economic development. When determining what an ‘Indigenous land and sea management program’ is, we visualise a Venn diagram with intersecting sets.
• Set one: There are innumerable traditional Indigenous land and sea management activities or practices that have been going on for tens of thousands of years – these include, but are not limited to getting out on country, looking after waterholes, hunting and burning (Section 2.1.1).
• Set two: Government and non-government organisations fund a variety of different programs, some of which support Indigenous people and some of which support land management (Section 2.1.2). Not all land mangagement programs facilitate Indigenous practices, and not all Indigenous programs facilitate land management.
For the purposes of this project, we focus on the intersection of those two sets, defining an ILSMP as a program that funds or supports traditional Indigenous land management activities
- …
