CHAPTER 10 NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES … · United Nations Environmental Programme...

CHAPTER 10

NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AND GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE: PLANNING FOR PERTH’S ‘GREEN’ MATRIX

Natasha Pauli and Bryan Boruff

INTRODUCTION

Perth is located in one of the world’s thirty-five global biodiver-sity ‘hotspots’ – areas that are endowed with an exceptionally

high diversity of vascular plant species found nowhere else on Earth (at least 1,500 endemic species) and where more than 70 per cent of the areal extent of native vegetation has been lost (Mittermeier et al., 2005; Myers et al., 2000). The expansive growth of the Perth metropolitan footprint as previously referred to in chapter 3 and 7, has contributed to the loss of biodiversity, together with the ecosystem services provided by natural areas (such as carbon sequestration, habitat for wildlife and purification of air and water). Despite this growth, Perth still retains an array of natural areas with conservation significance (many of which are protected from development), including wetlands, coastal dune systems and urban bushland reserves. Many of these areas have been preserved since European settlement through a combination of conservation planning and urban planning processes.

The slow global economic recovery and current commodity price volatility, combined with a deceleration in the construction phase of the Western Australian resources boom, has brought to light questions concerning the state’s ability to supply (and pay for) a range of future physical infrastructure for urban inhabit-ants. An often less-considered component of urban infrastructure,

239

Planning for Perth’s ‘Green’ Matr ix

biodiversity and natural habitats have been found to positively influence mental and physical health, and even happiness, in addition to other elements of urban liveability (Badland et al., 2014; Nisbet & Zelenski, 2011; Pereira et al., 2012; Pereira et al., 2013; Sandifer, Sutton-Grier & Ward, 2015; Zelenski & Nisbet, 2014). The multiple, valuable goods and services provided by natural areas have led to calls for explicit consideration of ‘green infrastructure’ in service delivery, alongside traditional built infra-structure (Tzoulas et al ., 2007). Optimising the use of existing natural areas and green spaces by the community for recreation and other pursuits, while at the same time systematically plan-ning for the retention or restoration of native vegetation in new developments, could help to achieve goals in urban planning as well as conservation and environmental management.

The aim of this chapter is to examine the role of urban ecosystems, and particularly native biodiversity, in providing for liveable communities in Perth. Conceptually, similarities exist between notions of ‘ecosystem services’ and ‘liveability’ as both have been used in policy and management contexts, however, little research exists identifying how these two concepts might be combined and applied in urban planning. Specifically, we assess the degree to which (1) biodiversity and natural environments and (2) ecosystem services and green infrastructure have been considered within past and existing urban planning frameworks for the Perth metropolitan area. Our work establishes a baseline for future demand-side research on natural environments and green infrastructure to better inform policy makers involved in urban planning and management.

LIVEABILITY AND THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENTFor a number of years, Perth has been one of a small number of global cities that consistently finds itself in the top ten list of the world’s most ‘liveable’ cities as ranked by the Economist Intelligence Unit. The index is based on thirty indicators falling within five

240

Chapter 10

broad categories and measures factors related to stability, health-care, culture and the environment, education and infrastructure provision. But what exactly is ‘liveability’? Liveability as a concept encapsulates the health, well-being and the quality of life of indi-viduals (Department of Infrastructure and Transport, 2013). From a planning perspective, a liveable neighbourhood is one that is ‘safe, attractive, socially cohesive and inclusive, and environmen-tally sustainable; with affordable and diverse housing linked to employment, education, public open space, local shops, health and community services, and leisure and cultural opportunities; via convenient public transport, walking and cycling infrastructure’ (Lowe et al., 2013, p. 11). These characteristics can be further conceptualised as the domains of liveability (Figure 1), each con-tributing to the well-being of individuals living within a community. In an effort to bring a more quantitative approach to the study of liveability for health and social outcomes, Badland et al. (2014) reviewed and synthesised indicators for eleven distinct liveability domains. The natural environment was seen as a fun-damental contributor to liveability, as it is a prerequisite for human health (Badland et al., 2014) See chapter 12 for further elaboration on liveability.

Figure 1: Liveability, the natural environment and characteristics of well-being (modified from Badland et al ., 2014) .

241


Gaining importance amongst academics and practitioners alike is the role of ‘green infrastructure’ in promoting the health and well-being of communities. Green infrastructure can be considered as the components of urban natural environments that deliver important environmental, social and economic services to urban communities (such as parks and reserves, waterways and wetlands, whether designed or in their natural state, greenways, agricultural areas, roof gardens, public open spaces and more; Ely & Pitman, 2014). Empirically, green infrastructure has been linked to enhanced human health and well-being, community cohesion and economic vitality whilst at the same time moderating cli-mates and enhancing biodiversity (Ely & Pitman, 2014), as shown in Figure 2. Green infrastructure encapsulates our cultural, visual and aesthetic values, makes our neighbourhoods more attractive and draws people closer to nature. As green infrastructure plays an important role in enhancing the liveability of our cities it also enhances the sustainability of our urban environments providing many essential ‘ecosystem services’.

Ecosystem Services in Urban EnvironmentsAs our population becomes increasingly urbanised and daily life is augmented with manufactured goods and technology, people’s relationship with nature and the goods and services provided by natural environments has become increasingly disconnected (Miller, 2005). These services are not always traded in formal markets but provide for essential life-supporting functions such as the purification of air and water, the maintenance of biodiversity and mitigation of environmental hazards (Daily, 1997). Coined ‘ecosystem services’, these are the ‘conditions and processes’ that support the basic functions of life whilst providing the natural goods that form the foundation of our material processions.

Drawing from a foundation in ecosystem ecology, current discourse surrounding environmental system functioning and the services these systems provide has been guided by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) conducted under the auspice of the

242

Chapter 10

United Nations Environmental Programme (MEA, 2005). The aim of the assessment was to examine the impact of ecosystem change on human well-being and provide a foundation to enhance the conservation and sustainable use of our planet’s natural envi-ronments. Formally defined through the MEA, ecosystem services ‘include provisioning services such as food, water, timber, and fiber; regulating services that affect climate, floods, disease, wastes, and water quality; cultural services that provide recreational, aes-thetic, and spiritual benefits; and supporting services such as soil formation, photosynthesis, and nutrient cycling’ (MEA, 2005, p. V). Or more generally, as identified, these include provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services.

Figure 2: Benefits of natural environments for promoting liveability .

243


In an urban setting, ecosystems support the health of resi-dents and improve quality of life (Bolund & Hunhammar, 1999) whilst contributing to the liveability of our neighbourhoods (Badland et al ., 2014). Within the urban environment, Bolund and Hunhammar (1999) identified seven key natural components: street trees, lawns and parks, urban forests, cultivated land, wetlands, lakes and seas, and rivers. These provide essential services such as air and storm-water filtration, climate regulation, noise reduction, waste treatment and locations for recreational and cultural engage-ment (Figure 3; Costanza et al ., 1997; Gómez-Baggethun et al ., 2005; Gómez-Baggethun & Barton, 2013). However, it is worth noting that the relationship between nature and human health is not always straightforward. For example, the effects of vegetation on air quality in urban environments has been well documented; vegetation can remove pollutants such as ozone (O

3), nitrogen

dioxide (NO2), particulate matter less than 10 μm (PM10), sulphur

dioxide (SO2) and carbon monoxide (CO), but vegetation also

emits biologically volatile organic compounds (BVOC), which can be converted to ozone and therefore contribute to pollution, with the exact balance determined by vegetation composition, as some species emit more BVOCs than others (Nowak, Crane & Stevens, 2006). The ways in which natural urban environments provide ecosystem services to the population are place-specific and therefore must be addressed for each individual location.

URBAN ECOSYSTEMS IN PERTH

Perth’s Unique Natural EnvironmentClimate and physical setting have influenced the ecosystems pre-sent in what is now the metropolitan area of Perth. Climatically, Perth enjoys a Mediterranean-type temperate climate with hot, dry summer periods (Köppen classification Csb (Kottek, Grieser, Beck, Bruno & Franz, 2006)), the majority of rainfall occurring between May and October and July and August, which are the

244

Chapter 10

coolest and wettest months. A decreasing trend in annual rainfall since the mid-1970s is now well established; with a continued drying trend projected under future climate-change scenarios (Hope, Drosdowsky & Nicholls, 2006; Bates, Hope, Ryan, Smith & Charles, 2008).

Most of the Perth metropolitan area is situated on the Swan Coastal Plain, a region that has a distinct physiographic and bio-geographic character. The coastal plain is of low elevation and gently undulating. The sediments that form the coastal plain were laid down through marine, alluvial (sediments deposited by rivers) and aeolian (wind-driven) processes; the sediments are oldest in

Figure 3: Function of natural environments in promoting urban ecosystem services .

245


the east and youngest in the west (Commander, 2003). Three major ancient dune systems run roughly parallel to the coast. The Quindalup dunes are the most recent and are closest to the present-day coastline. The Spearwood dune system is interme-diate in age, with the older Bassendean dunes lying furthest to the east. The dune-derived sands are generally nutrient-poor with low clay content and consequently low moisture-holding capacity. The Pinjarra Plain formation consists of alluvial soils, formed at the base of the Darling Scarp to the west by sediments deposited by drainage systems (Seddon, 1972). On the eastern extent of the Perth metropolitan area, suburbs in the ‘foothills’ region straddle the Darling Scarp, which separates the coastal plain from the deeply weathered surface of the Precambrian crystalline rocks (such as granite) of the Yilgarn Craton. Less densely populated suburbs lie to the east of the Scarp along the dissected valleys of the plateau (Commander, 2003).

Wetlands and rivers are an important part of Perth’s character. The Swan River (Derbal Yerrigan in the Noongar language) is the largest in the Perth region. The river holds great spiritual and cultural significance to the Noongar people as the link between the land and sea, and as the location of a number of sacred sites recognising the activity of the Waugul, a giant serpent that created waterways and valleys along the length of the river (Graham-Taylor, 2009; see chapter 6). The Swan River is geographically an estuary within the western sections of the Perth metropolitan region, affected by tides and the influence of ocean water; the location of the interface between fresh and saltwater varies season-ally with rainfall and inflow from the upstream catchment.

Europeans first settled along the banks of the Swan River, where the peaty soils of shallow wetlands were often used to sup-port horticulture or market gardens. Prior to European settlement and subsequent clearance of native vegetation for agriculture, the Swan Coastal Plain contained an enormous diversity of basin and plain wetlands (Davis & Froend, 1999). Distinct ‘chains’ of lakes occur along the interdunal depression between the Quindalup and

246

Chapter 10

Spearwood dunes and between the Spearwood and Bassendean dunes; many of which are expressions of the unconfined superfi-cial aquifer contained in the porous sedimentary rocks underlying the region’s dunal systems.

The biogeographic region which encompasses the city of Perth has long been recognised for its extraordinary plant species’ biodi-versity and endemism; nearly half the species found in south-west Western Australia are found nowhere else on earth – more than 7,300 taxa of vascular plants have been identified (Gole, 2006; Myers et al.). This high biodiversity is unusual given the relatively flat topography of the region and nutrient-poor soils (Hopper & Gioia, 2004). Contributing factors to this diversity are thought to be long-term isolation; the weathered, ancient landscape that has not been glaciated for over 200 million years, allowing ancient lineages from the Gondwana supercontinent to persist and evolve throughout time (Hopper, 2009); and habitat specialisation pro-moted by the region’s poor soils (Beard, Chapman & Gioia, 2000). While the Perth metropolitan area is not located within the most diverse habitats of the south west ecoregion (such as kwongan heath, and extensive granite outcrops), it still harbours important biodiversity values where over 2,000 species of vascular plants have been recorded (Environmental Protection Authority, 2015).

Over 500 species of vertebrate animals are found in south-west Western Australia (more than 330 species have been recorded in the Perth metropolitan area), with a high degree of endemism recorded for reptiles and frogs in particular (Environmental Protection Authority, 2015; Mittermeier et al., 2005; Valentine 2009). Invertebrate biodiversity is also high, particularly in eucalypt woodland and forest vegetation, but it is largely undocu-mented (Majer, Recher, Heterick & Postle, 2001), as is common for invertebrates worldwide (Clark & May, 2002).

Perth’s diverse natural spaces (Figure 4) are important for more than just their biophysical and conservation values. These spaces hold great cultural, social and economic importance for the Nyoongar people (see, for example, McDonald, Coldrick &

Figure 4: Perth’s natural environments and green spaces (data provided by the Centre for the Built Environment and Health; Landgate) .

247


Spearwood dunes and between the Spearwood and Bassendean dunes; many of which are expressions of the unconfined superfi-cial aquifer contained in the porous sedimentary rocks underlying the region’s dunal systems.

The biogeographic region which encompasses the city of Perth has long been recognised for its extraordinary plant species’ biodi-versity and endemism; nearly half the species found in south-west Western Australia are found nowhere else on earth – more than 7,300 taxa of vascular plants have been identified (Gole, 2006; Myers et al.). This high biodiversity is unusual given the relatively flat topography of the region and nutrient-poor soils (Hopper & Gioia, 2004). Contributing factors to this diversity are thought to be long-term isolation; the weathered, ancient landscape that has not been glaciated for over 200 million years, allowing ancient lineages from the Gondwana supercontinent to persist and evolve throughout time (Hopper, 2009); and habitat specialisation pro-moted by the region’s poor soils (Beard, Chapman & Gioia, 2000). While the Perth metropolitan area is not located within the most diverse habitats of the south west ecoregion (such as kwongan heath, and extensive granite outcrops), it still harbours important biodiversity values where over 2,000 species of vascular plants have been recorded (Environmental Protection Authority, 2015).

Over 500 species of vertebrate animals are found in south-west Western Australia (more than 330 species have been recorded in the Perth metropolitan area), with a high degree of endemism recorded for reptiles and frogs in particular (Environmental Protection Authority, 2015; Mittermeier et al., 2005; Valentine 2009). Invertebrate biodiversity is also high, particularly in eucalypt woodland and forest vegetation, but it is largely undocu-mented (Majer, Recher, Heterick & Postle, 2001), as is common for invertebrates worldwide (Clark & May, 2002).

Perth’s diverse natural spaces (Figure 4) are important for more than just their biophysical and conservation values. These spaces hold great cultural, social and economic importance for the Nyoongar people (see, for example, McDonald, Coldrick &

Figure 4: Perth’s natural environments and green spaces (data provided by the Centre for the Built Environment and Health; Landgate) .

Christensen (2008) and Collard & Bracknell (2012)) as well as for non-Indigenous residents of the Perth metropolitan area. In his ground-breaking work Sense of Place (Seddon, 1972), George

248

Chapter 10

Seddon was one of the first authors to recognise the importance of understanding both biophysical and social values in Perth’s urban planning. From a conceptual perspective, the role of ecosystem services serves to highlight the economic, social and cultural importance of Perth’s biophysical environment and this role has increased in prominence in Perth’s strategic planning ethos.

The Value of Urban Ecosystem Services in PerthIn an attempt to quantify the importance of Perth’s natural resources, a small but growing body of research has explored the extent or value of the services provided by urban ecosystems across the city, particularly in relation to groundwater, wetlands and native vegetation. Groundwater extracted directly from the superficial aquifer by bores is used as a major source of residential irrigation in Perth; Lieb, Brennan & McFarlane (2006) indicated that over $100 million is saved annually by using locally accessed groundwater to irrigate private and public lawns and gardens, rather than water supplied by ‘Scheme’ infrastructure and sourced elsewhere. Tapsuwan, Ingram, Burton & Brennan (2009) used a hedonic pricing method to demonstrate that proximity to wet-lands is positively associated with property price in north-western suburbs and property prices have been positively associated with the presence of leafy trees on adjacent public land (Pandit et al ., 2013; 2014). In the western suburbs of Perth, modelling indicated that intact vegetation results in net carbon sequestration and a net removal of air pollutants (including O

3, NO

2, SO

2 and CO) even

after consideration of the production of BVOCs (Saunders, Dade & Van Niel, 2011). A ‘willingness to pay’ study on the use and non-use values associated with urban bushland in the south east of Perth indicated that community attachment values were in the order of $2 million to $16 million when extrapolated to the entire popula-tion of Perth (Pepper, McCann & Burton, 2005). This growing body of evidence illustrates the economic value that can be placed on Perth’s natural environment, which could serve as an incentive to promote green infrastructure throughout the planning process.

249


THE CHANGING STATE OF PERTH’S NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS

A recent report by the Environmental Protection Authority con-solidates and highlights well-versed concerns about the factors that have degraded Perth’s natural environment since European set-tlement and the impacts that continue to exert pressures on these spaces (Environmental Protection Authority, 2015) . Native bio-diversity, wetlands and waterways have been particularly affected since settlement. On the Swan Coastal Plain, approximately 30 per cent of the former extent of native vegetation remains intact and of this roughly 25 per cent is formally protected in conservation reserves. Vegetation complexes on heavier, more fertile soils (such as clays and loams) that were developed early in the city’s history for agriculture are particularly threatened. Around 10 per cent of the flowering plants found in the Perth metropolitan area are listed as of conservation concern (Environmental Protection Authority, 2015). Eucalypt forest and woodland vegetation on the Darling Scarp and Plateau has been retained in greater quantities within drinking water catchments and other protected areas, although the majority of this vegetation has been logged for valuable jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata) timber.

Wetlands, a defining feature of the Swan Coastal Plain, have been badly degraded. Around 70 per cent of the total historical wetland area is estimated to have been lost through drainage, infill, urban development or other activities (Halse, 1989). Comprehensive mapping of wetlands from Mandurah to Wedge Island estimates that 25 per cent of this portion of the coastal plain is wetlands, comprising 10,000 individual wetlands cov-ering over 360,000 hectares (Hill, Semeniuk & Semeniuk, 1996). With increased abstraction of groundwater from the superficial Gnangara and Jandakot mounds, and reduced recharge due to climate change and reduced rainfall, phreatophytic (ground-water-dependent) vegetation on the Swan Coastal Plain is also threatened, with likely changes in floristic composition over time (Froend and Sommer, 2010). The Swan-Canning estuary system

250

Chapter 10

and the Peel-Harvey estuary have both suffered from increased nutrient inputs, deoxygenation, algal blooms, loss of wildlife and riparian vegetation, with pressures continuing to grow from catchment development.

THE ROLE OF PLANNING IN INFLUENCING NATURAL SPACES IN PERTH

The current shape, extent and condition of Perth’s natural spaces have been heavily influenced by a dual set of planning processes: firstly, those strategic and metropolitan plans that have focussed largely on planning the future of urban development in Perth and, secondly, environmental protection policies that have as their core aim the conservation in perpetuity of ecological values and pro-cesses on the Swan Coastal Plain (see also chapters 8 and 11). In many cases, the overall goals for protecting and managing natural spaces in Perth have been similar for both processes, particularly at a region-wide scale. At a finer spatial scale, particularly with respect to urban subdivisions and individual developments, there are often conflicts over how to best manage natural spaces into the future, with considerable pressure to develop remnant or degraded wetlands and vegetation for urban land and associated infrastruc-ture. In the following sections, we provide an analysis of how environmental planning in Perth has evolved through the major metropolitan planning strategies and conservation regulations and identify contested areas where collaboration between the two sides of planning could help improve liveability through demand-side policies that capitalise on the multiple benefits provided by Perth’s natural environments.

The Treatment of Natural Spaces in Metropolitan Planning Strategies for PerthThe Swan River Colony was established in 1829 and grew slowly until the gold rush era of the 1890s. Recognising the value of natural areas visited regularly by Perth residents for leisure, large

251


tracts of unallocated Crown land were designated as nature reserves, including Kings Park (established 1871), John Forrest National Park in the Darling Range (1898), Yanchep National Park (1905) and several other large parks up until the 1950s (Moir, 1995; Foley & Williams, 2016). The importance of reserving buffers around the foreshores of coasts, rivers, streams and lakes was recognised in the 1930s, with regulations enacted to ensure adequate setback from these features, as well as availability of public parks, in early urban subdivisions (Foley & Williams, 2016). These notions have remained deeply entrenched in subsequent planning norms and regulations throughout the region’s development (e.g. Stephenson & Hepburn, 1955; Government of Western Australia, 1992 and 2006).

The first Town Planning and Development Act (1928) for Perth established ‘general provisions’ for natural features and conserva-tion, which local governments could elect to include in Local Planning Schemes or Town Planning Bylaws (Table 1). However, there is still considerable variation in the degree to which local government authorities (LGAs) require developers to protect native vegetation (Perth Biodiversity Project, 2007).

In 1955, Perth’s first systematic regional plan, Plan for the Metropolitan Region, Perth and Fremantle (Stephenson & Hepburn, 1955), placed emphasis on the provision of public open space (POS) as a key element in regional planning, reiterated in chapter 11. POS was divided into three categories: (1) Local Open Space, (2) District Open Space and (3) Regional Open Space. Private open spaces and agricultural areas were also acknowledged. Of significant importance were Regional Open Spaces intended to provide for recreational experiences (including sporting fields, botanic gardens and urban parks) as well as protect important natural areas for conservation and retain the natural, ‘rural’ character of Perth within built-up areas. These were formalised with statutory designation as ‘Parks and Recreation Reserves’ in the Metropolitan Region Scheme 1963, which drew heavily on the Stephenson-Hepburn Plan (Hedgcock & Yiftachel, 1992; Moir, 1995).

252

Chapter 10

The metropolitan planning strategies and associated initia-tives that followed – The Corridor Plan (Metropolitan Region Planning Authority, 1970), Metroplan (Department of Planning and Urban Development, 1990), Network City (Western Australian

Strategic Plan Growth Pattern Objectives Linking Planning and the Environment Town Planning and Development Act (1928)

NA • Govern land development for best possibleadvantage, including parks, gardens and reservesby enabling preparation of Town PlanningSchemes or Town Planning Bylaws

• Establish general provisions on natural featuresand conservation that local governments couldelect to include in Town Planning Schemesincluding tree planting in streets, parks and openspaces, public reserves, gardens, playgrounds,sports and recreational grounds and other publicopen spaces

• Specify requirements for conservation of ‘naturalbeauties’ including lakes and other inland waters,banks of rivers, foreshores and harbours and otherparts of the sea, hill slopes and summits andvalleys

Plan for Metropolitan Region Perth and Fremantle (Stephenson-Hepburn Plan; 1955)

Basis of Perth’s urban planning – mosaic of land-use zones for future growth including residential, infrastructure and open space

• Set aside 28,000 ha of land for public open space• Develop a network of public open space as natural

breaks between communities• Preserve and improve beaches• Protect the Swan River from pollution, stagnation

and encroachment• Conduct survey of resources in the surrounding

Perth region to identify further reserves• Identify areas within the general plan for open

spaces for the protection of wildlife• Establish a Green Belt on the Perth periphery

Corridor Plan (1970)

Corridor City – consolidate development along transport corridors with non-urban green wedges in-between

• Provide an enhanced urban environment• Preserve the essential character of non-urban

areas• Develop Gnangara ground water supply• Prohibit further allocation of open space in urban

core• Allocate 10% of subdivision land for recreation

Metroplan (1990) Corridor City – widening of established corridors

• Maintain air and water quality• Restrict noise impact• Create recreational opportunities• Foster a low stress environment• Develop a system of inter-linked regional parks and

reserves• Maintain protection of the coastline, Swan River

and Darling Scarp• Protect and conserve water reserves (Jandakot

and Gnangara aquifers and Darling Range)• Address climate change through energy efficient

design, conservation of natural vegetation cover• Develop a metropolitan coastal policy• Conserve and protect agricultural land and key

natural resources

Table 1: Perth’s major planning initiatives, approach to growth and emphasis on the region’s natural environment .

253


Planning Commission and Department for Planning and Infrastructure, 2004), Directions 2031 (Western Australian Planning Commission, 2010) and the recently issued draft of the Perth and Peel@3 .5million (Western Australian Planning Commission, 2015) suite of strategic land-use planning docu-ments, which are in turn part of the implementation of Directions 2031 (ibid, 2010)– all recognised the importance of Regional Open Spaces for conservation and recreation. These strategic plans are non-statutory, with a thirty- to forty-year planning horizon that will allow for land to be set aside via the statutory planning system in advance of need.

As the understanding of the role of green infrastructure in providing urban ecosystem services developed, so too did the importance of Perth’s natural environments in the region’s plan-ning strategies. Following The Corridor Plan of 1970, Metroplan (Department of Planning and Urban Development, 1990) identi-fied, for the first time, a wide range of benefits provided by urban green spaces such as the maintenance of air and water quality, the reduction of noise pollution and its role in mini-mising stress. The plan also recognises the potential impact of climate change on Perth’s environments, calling for the adoption of water- and energy-efficient design and the conservation of existing natural resources. These sentiments were carried for-ward by the State Planning Framework Policy (Western Australian Planning Commission, 2000) which further recognised the need to minimise environmental risks and conserve ecological systems and the biodiversity of the region; concepts which had not been discussed in previous plans.

In 2004, Network City (Western Australian Planning Commission and Department for Planning and Infrastructure, 2004) shifted the region’s development approach from a ‘Corridor City’ to a ‘Connected City’, or one that attempts to consolidate urban development through integrated land-use and transporta-tion networks. However, the notion of networks also applied to Perth’s natural environments with a call for interlinked reserves,

254

Chapter 10

greenways and POS. In addition, the concept of well-being was introduced for the first time, provided for by a city that is both liveable and sustainable, of which a healthy and abundant natural environment is a core component.

The concept of liveability is prominent in the current metro-politan plan for Perth, Directions 2031 and Beyond, which asserts that ‘by 2031, Perth…people will have created a world class liveable city; green, vibrant, more compact and accessible with a unique sense of place’ (Western Australian Planning Commission, 2010, p. 2), supported by five strategic ‘themes’ (that the city should be liveable, prosperous, accessible, sustainable and responsible). The plan proposes three integrated networks as its spatial basis: activity centres, movement networks and green networks. The green network is described as ‘a network of parks, reserves and conserva-tion areas that support biodiversity, preserve natural amenity and protect valuable natural resources’ (Western Australian Planning Commission, 2010, p. 3), as was identified in the city’s previous strategic plan (Network City).

Region-wide strategic plans operate in concert with planning policies and processes that take effect at a finer spatial scale, which should reflect and ‘operationalise’ the principles of strategic plans in detailed planning. One of the most significant of these is the Liveable Neighbourhoods (Western Australian Planning Commission and Department for Planning and Infrastructure, 2007; see chapter 12) policy, which governs the design and assessment of structure plans and subdivisions for new urban areas developed in greenfield and large urban infill sites. Among the eight elements of good neighbourhood design listed in Liveable Neighbourhoods are public parkland and urban water management. The policy document states that ‘Protection of waterways, significant vegetation and habitat, more sustainable urban water management and incorpora-tion of items of cultural significance are all required’ (Western Australian Planning Commission and Department for Planning and Infrastructure, 2007, p. 1). In line with planning norms for Perth since at least the 1950s, Liveable Neighbourhoods requires

255


developers to reserve 10 per cent of the total available subdivis-ible space for POS. These public open spaces were originally intended to provide space for active and passive recreation (such as playgrounds and playing fields). Areas of bushland that are already protected and foreshore reserves within the subdivision (adjoining coastlines, wetlands, streams and rivers, which must be ceded to the state) are not included within the subdivisible area or the 10 per cent POS.

Conservation Planning for Environmental Protection in PerthThere are several pieces of legislation, policies and guidelines aimed primarily at protecting biophysical environmental values that influence urban planning at a local scale in Perth. Many of these take a precautionary approach and have as their primary goal the protection of remnant or significant environmental assets, with the result that developments that may impinge upon these assets are required to go through extensive environmental impact assessment processes.

Overarching pieces of legislation include the Western Australian Environmental Protection Act 1986 (EP Act; Government of Western Australia, 1986) and the Federal Government’s Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act; Australian Government, 1999). The latter protects ‘matters of national environmental significance’ (such as wetlands pro-tected under the international Ramsar Treaty) and some projects may need to undergo assessment at both state and federal level. Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) under the EP Act 1986 are designated to protect threatened species, threatened ecological com-munities and significant wetlands, with permits required for development or land-clearing activities that fall within a declared ESA. Activities that influence the Swan-Canning river system are guided by the Swan and Canning Rivers Management Act 2006 (Government of Western Australia, 2006), while any development that may have an adverse impact on remnant wetlands falls within the scope of the Environmental Protection (Swan Coastal Plain Lakes) Policy

256

Chapter 10

(Government of Western Australia, 1992); the latter outlining appropriate setbacks and buffer zones for all mapped wetlands and their associated conservation status. Where environmental impacts are unavoidable, proponents may need to commit to an ‘environmental offset’ by protecting or restoring significant environmental assets that have similar features to those that will be affected (Government of Western Australia, 2011, 2014).

The particular environmental assets (such as remnant bushland and wetlands) that are prioritised for protection have often been systematically identified through long-running processes designed to produce a ‘comprehensive, representative and adequate’ net-work of reserves to conserve a wide array of natural features. For example, from the 1970s onwards, a process parallel to the met-ropolitan planning schemes was initiated by the Environmental Protection Authority, which focussed on identifying areas of high conservation significance throughout Perth and the sur-rounding region (the ‘System 6’ region). The approach suggested the establishment of regional parks for landscape conservation, wildlife protection, and recreation; many of these overlapped with areas already identified as Regional Open Spaces (Environmental Protection Authority, 1983; Moir, 1995). Today, there are eleven Regional Parks in the greater Perth region (including the Darling Range) and fifteen National Parks (Dooley & Pilgrim, 2009) and a number of marine reserves are also present.

More recently, Bush Forever (Government of Western Australia, 2000a, 2000b) is a non-statutory regional policy which took a whole-of-government approach to identify biologically significant bushland and wetlands for protection and management within the Perth metropolitan area (aiming to represent at least 10 per cent of each of the twenty-six vegetation complexes present and excluding areas already within local conservation reserves); 287 sites were identified and named covering over 50,000 hectares or 18 per cent of the original extent of native vegetation (Western Australian Planning Commission, 2010; Keighery, 2012). The Statement of Planning Policy No 2 .8: Bushland Policy for the Perth

257


Metropolitan Region (Western Australian Planning Commission, 2010) provides a policy and implementation framework for the sustained protection of Bush Forever sites. A formal amendment to the Metropolitan Regional Scheme Amendment for Bush Forever and Related Lands was passed in 2010 (MRS 1082/33) which reserved many Bush Forever sites from development. Full statutory protection of all listed Bush Forever sites has not yet been achieved; as of 2012 more than one-third of all sites had no assigned man-agement agency (Gray & Cooper, 2012). Bush Forever is strongly supported by a dedicated network of environment-focussed com-munity groups.

Local government authorities in Perth are responsible for managing nearly 7000 hectares of bushland and wetland areas (Perth Biodiversity Project, 2007). The Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) developed the Local Government Biodiversity Planning Guidelines to aid LGAs in the preparation and implementation of Local Biodiversity Strategies (Del Marco et al ., 2004; WALGA, 2016). These strategies could then guide development of local planning policy for biodiversity conservation; management of biodiversity on land managed by or vested in the local government; development of incentives for conservation on private land; and amendment of local planning instruments (Del Marco et al., 2004). Seventeen LGAs developed Local Biodiversity Strategies during the Perth Biodiversity Project’s funded period (2001–2014). The Local Government Biodiversity Planning Guidelines were designed to help LGAs best use the limited resources available to environmental managers during renewal and development processes, balancing the need for development with the need for conservation.

Trade-offs, Tensions and Conflicts Between ‘Planning’ and ‘the Environment’Strategic and conservation planning documents developed for the Perth region cite common objectives, such as conserving the natural environment and promoting sustainable development. However,

258

Chapter 10

in practice, there are tensions, ambiguities and inconsistencies that provide fuel to proponents of the argument that development and conservation are incompatible. Key among these criticisms are non-specific implementation mechanisms to support green objectives in planning; pressure for the 10 per cent POS in urban developments to fulfil a growing list of environmental and social objectives (many of which depart significantly from the original purpose of POS intended largely for recreation; Grose, 2009); and stringent enforcement of multiple levels of environmental assessment measures, even where conservation values have been largely lost over time. The latter is currently being addressed at a regional scale by a broad consultative process as part of the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Perth and Peel Regions (ongoing with the next public outputs expected in 2016; see Commonwealth of Australia and State of Western Australia, 2011).

In a recent comparative assessment of five current urban plan-ning documents for Australian cities against the UN Habitat criteria for urban sustainability, Davidson and Arman (2014) argue that neither Directions 2031 nor any of the other reviewed docu-ments contain any substantial discussion or elaboration of the role of ‘photosynthetic spaces’ as part of green infrastructure. Indeed, none of the report cards on the delivery of key measures outlined in Directions 2031 mention any indicators of green infrastructure or green network development, despite this being cited as one of the three central spatial elements of the plan. The key performance indicator relating to natural environments found within Directions 2031 is to implement a biodiversity protection plan, which is to date still ongoing and closely tied to the Strategic Environmental Assessment of the Perth and Peel Regions. Tensions remain between conservationists, developers and other parties with regards to the implementation of protection for Bush Forever sites; for example, a reduction in the proportion of active POS (e.g. sporting fields) within new subdivisions was partly attributed to the requirement to protect Bush Forever sites within newly developed outer suburbs of Perth (Middle, Tye & Middle, 2010).

259


At the suburban, subdivision or neighbourhood scale, current urban planning policies in Perth, such as Liveable Neighbourhoods, do not attribute a significant value to native vegetation for recreational or other social, cultural or economic purposes, despite wording within numerous planning documents stating the importance of natural areas. New urban residential developments have for dec-ades been required to reserve 10 per cent of the total subdivisible area for POS; the origins of this figure are derived from pre-1950s (British) planning norms around recreation and green space (Grose, 2009; Veal, 2013). Under current guidelines developers may leave up to 20 per cent of the total area ceded as POS as native vegeta-tion, as this is seen as falling outside the definitions of either ‘active’ or ‘passive’ recreation (Western Australian Planning Commission and Department for Planning and Infrastructure, 2007). Indeed, if approval for a subdivision is granted, developers are not required to gain further approval for clearing unprotected native vegetation within the subdivision, unlike many other forms of clearing which is subject to provisions found within the EP Act 1986.

The Perth metropolitan area has a remarkably low residential density, even when compared with other Australian cities. In order to reduce the continued outward sprawl of the metro-politan area of Perth, Directions 2031 recommends that 47 per cent of new urban developments should be ‘infill’; whether this be through the redevelopment of a number of lots simultaneously or subdivision of individual large blocks into multiple smaller housing units. Such infill strategies are likely to reduce vegetated areas even further where redeveloped parcels contain limited vegetation. In the inner city suburb of Como, Brunner and Cozens (2013) found that there was little incentive for developers to retain pre-existing vegetation when redeveloping land and the predominant trend was for removal of all vegetation. Native vegetation on private land, a concern that may be more relevant in outer Perth, is therefore at risk of being removed or degraded during urban infill developments. The size of private gardens has diminished over time in many Australian cities (including Perth),

260

Chapter 10

with a shift towards increasingly larger houses relative to lot size (Hall, 2008, 2010). With the reduction in vegetation on private land, vegetation on public land (such as street trees) becomes increasingly important to fulfil ecosystem services such as provi-sion of shade, removal of pollutants and habitat for wildlife.

SYNTHESIS: POLICIES TO MAKE THE BEST USE OF PERTH’S NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS

Perth has a long history of forward-thinking urban and conservation planning, which has helped to preserve a valuable regional network of natural habitats and green spaces dedicated to both active and passive recreation. Indeed, a recent survey indicated a mean tree canopy cover of 26 per cent across metropolitan LGAs, ranging from 9 per cent to 62 per cent (for comparison, Sydney recorded 15 per cent mean canopy cover and Melbourne 13 per cent using the same methodology; Jacobs, Mikhailovich & Delaney, 2014). However, densification, infill development, urban sprawl and a reduction in private open space are gradually decreasing vegetation cover and placing increased pressure on existing POS to fulfil a growing list of environmental, social and cultural functions. An updated vision for conserving and planning for urban greenspace is required for Perth to maintain and enhance liveability as it grows to accommodate an estimated 3.5 million residents by 2050. The following section is by no means an exhaustive exploration of possible policy solutions but instead provides a few examples of recent research on planning for public open space, rethinking street verges, financing and public education. The focus is on demand-side policies that incentivise or regulate the development and use of green infrastructure, raise revenue specifically for management of POS and target investment of limited government resources in natural assets in order to limit the financial burden on state and local governments given prevailing economic conditions.

261


Deliberate Planning for Urban Green InfrastructureThe growing body of research on urban green infrastructure is not well integrated with current urban design and planning processes in Australian cities (Norton et al ., 2015). To this end, Norton et al . (2015) present an Australia-specific framework that local govern-ments could use to identify priority areas within neighbourhoods for urban green infrastructure development and maintenance; based on vulnerability, heat exposure and behavioural exposure. Their approach focusses on street trees; urban, green open space; green roofs; and green façades (Norton et al., 2015). The first two elements can already be directly or indirectly addressed by local governments, either by maintaining and developing existing parks and street verges or by encouraging developers to design POS in an effective way to promote urban shading and cooling. Green roofs and green façades are relatively uncommon in Australia, but public, government and industry interest is growing (Williams, Rayner & Raynor, 2010).

Vegetation on street verges and within road reserves (such as median strips) is increasingly important to maintain the ‘urban forest’ as vegetation on private land disappears (Bolleter, 2016; Hall, 2010; Pandit et al., 2013, 2014; Western Australian Planning Commission, 2009). In Perth, street trees are managed by LGAs, with a variety of policies and programs that are currently in place. In new urban developments there is often limited space to plant street trees due to reduced verge widths and requirements for footpaths and crossovers (WALGA, 2014). In established suburbs, street verges are often under-utilised for amenity and under-planted, frequently dominated by parched grasses and bare soil with no shade or trees (Bolleter, 2016). Bolleter (2016) provides several innovative proposals to improve the amenity value of street verges in suburbs undergoing infill by increasing plantings of trees and low-growing plants, slowing traffic in residential areas and using street verges as ‘community gardens’, with the possibility of paying for these developments through increased property rates from subdivision and developer contributions. For

262

Chapter 10

example, a broad-leaved street tree can result in a 4.3 per cent median increase in property value, equivalent to $17,000 (Pandit et al., 2013), which would provide a strong financial incentive for homeowners to advocate for and nurture street trees were this more widely known.

LGAs should increase their efforts to ensure that street verge and road reserve vegetation is planted, regularly maintained and valued by the local community by more stringently enacting policies with the support of relevant state government entities in planning, transport, water and environment as well as prioritising the design of planted street verges and median strips in redevelop-ment plans. Remote sensing technology, such as that employed by the Urban Monitor program (Caccetta et al ., 2012, 2015), allows for the regular monitoring of street tree canopy cover so that LGAs can set and monitor vegetation/revegetation targets.

The long-standing requirement to reserve 10 per cent of new developments for POS has helped maintain Perth’s green network. However, the list of functions that POS is expected to fulfil has grown far beyond the originally intended recreation (Grose, 2009) and many of these functions are arguably poorly served by the developers’ common approach of removing all native veg-etation and providing expansive open areas. LGAs must pay for the ongoing upkeep of POS, therefore complex parks represent greater expense for all parties. One way forward would be for LGAs to work with developers to prioritise and clearly specify the functions that POS should fulfil in new and redevelopments – for example, water-sensitive urban design might be appropriate in an area where recharge to the superficial aquifer is important; children’s play areas with opportunities to interact with nature might be relevant for suburbs with a high proportion of young families; appropriately oriented irrigated green space with shady, leafy trees might be emphasised in areas where reducing ambient temperature takes priority; and retaining native vegetation might be important in areas of high conservation significance where water for irrigation is limited.

263


The optimal spatial orientation of POS to fulfil these func-tions could also be modelled in advance of development. Given that there is high variability within Perth suburbs in terms of ground cover type, energy balance and albedo (Jacobs et al ., 2014), a spatially explicit GIS-based approach such as that provided by Norton et al . (2015) would aid in prioritising areas for green infrastructure retention and development. A strategic approach would also help facilitate connectivity of green infrastructure, cre-ating green corridors (and potentially native vegetation corridors) between new developments. POS resulting from urban subdivi-sion has rarely been used to retain high-quality habitats or restore remnant vegetation in any systematic way (Grose, 2009), but this could change if the value of natural areas for recreation, education, physical and mental health were more clearly recognised.

Green roofs contain vegetation growing in a specialised sub-strate. Vertical greening refers to twining or climbing plants on walls or vegetation planted on substrates attached to walls. Green roofs have well-established hydrologic and energy-saving envi-ronmental advantages compared to ‘business-as-usual’ approaches, with some benefits for biodiversity (although they tend to support a simplified community of generalist species; Williams et al., 2010, 2014). The uptake of green roofs and walls has been greatest in temperate climates in Europe and North America (Williams et al., 2010); Singapore is also notable for its urban forest and wealth of green roofs and gardens in a densely populated con-urbation. Appropriate plants and substrates can be selected to overcome the challenges of maintaining green roofs in the severe moisture-deficit conditions experienced in Mediterranean cli-mates (Razzaghmanesh, Beecham & Kazemi, 2014), but detailed research, practice and guidelines that could support the introduc-tion of policies in Australian cities are lacking overall (Williams et al., 2010).

Overseas, uptake of green roofs and walls has generally required the introduction of regulations requiring new or retro-fitted buildings over a certain size to have greenery covering a

264

Chapter 10

specified percentage of the roof or wall area (Vijayaraghavan, 2016). As further locally relevant information becomes available, implementing policies on green roofs, walls and façades in new developments could help to increase the benefits provided by urban green infrastructure, particularly in densely built-up areas that are lacking in other forms of green space. Further, local and state government authorities could promote best practice by including green roofs and walls in their buildings and develop-ments. The ‘Urban Orchard’ rooftop garden in the Perth Cultural Centre precinct is one local example.

Financing Urban Green InfrastructureThe funding that is ideally required for conservation far exceeds that which is spent by national governments, even given the potential economic benefits provided by well-managed natural spaces (Balmford et al ., 2002). Management of POS and con-servation lands in urban areas faces similar challenges. Sources of funding for urban green spaces and parks have been discussed in reports such as the UK’s Paying for Parks (CABE Space, 2006) and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) Financing Green Urban Infrastructure (Merk, Saussier, Staropoli, Slack & Kim, 2012). CABE Space (2006) put forward eight strategies for funding public parks. In addition to the ‘tra-ditional’ sources of revenue such as local authorities, taxation and developers, it also proposed multi-agency public-sector funding (for example, drawing on funding for health, transport, planning and environment sectors for the same project, where multiple benefits are clear); bonds and commercial finance (such as loans to LGAs that are slowly repaid); income-generating activities (such as licences, franchise, or charges); endowments (an investment that generates income to be used to fund POS); and voluntary sector involvement (through labour, public stewardship and outreach). Some of these strategies may be appropriate in Perth as is consid-ered more fully for urban infrastructure in general in chapter 28.

265


Choice modelling and ‘willingness to pay’ studies have been used by economists to assess the theoretical amount that households would be willing to pay for green infrastructure, through mecha-nisms such as increased taxes, environmental levies, fees or charges. Willingness to pay is often highly context-specific, influenced by household demographics (households exert different preferences for POS such as parkland, conservation, agricultural preserves and water reserves based on residents’ needs, ages and income as shown by Klaiber and Phaneuf (2010) in Minneapolis-Saint Paul) and the scarcity of urban green space. For example, in densely populated Hong Kong, over 80 per cent of residents were willing to pay to recover a possible future loss of urban green space (Lo & Jim, 2010). Given the heterogeneity of Perth residents and types of POS, it is likely that there would be a wide range of ‘willingness to pay’ for urban conservation, making an across-the-board envi-ronmental levy on households a likely unpopular means of raising revenue. Indeed, Pepper et al . (2005) found that around one-third of respondents to their survey were not willing to pay for conserva-tion of a particular urban bushland. However, there may be scope to introduce a voluntary payment for residents to contribute to the management of regional parks or locally significant conservation areas (such a fee exists for Western Australia’s National Parks).

Local government authorities are often limited in their ability to manage existing natural assets and POS due to resource con-straints, especially in a situation where economic stagnation limits revenue generation. Some options are available for revenue genera-tion in the form of property rates. Residential parcels adjacent to POS and wetlands may experience an increase in property value, which could increase the revenue to local governments from property rates over the long term (Geoghegan, Lynch & Bucholtz 2006; Tapsuwan et al., 2009). A portion of these increased rev-enues could be set aside to help local environmental management. More explicitly, Section 6.37 of the Western Australian Local Government Act 1995 allows for the imposition of a ‘specified area rate’ (SAR) on top of standard property rates for properties

266

Chapter 10

within a portion of its district for the purpose of meeting the cost of infrastructure that may benefit ratepayers, over a defined period of time. Some examples include the levying of SAR for landscaping of lakes and public open space in new subdivisions in the City of Busselton; drainage works in Midland and Guildford in the City of Swan; landscaping in a light industrial area in the City of Stirling; park and infrastructure maintenance in new subdivisions in the City of Gosnells; landscaping and park services in three subdivisions in the City of Joondalup; and town centre development in the City of Subiaco and Town of Claremont (City of Busselton, 2015; City of Stirling, 2015; City of Gosnells, 2016; City of Joondalup, 2016; City of Subiaco, 2016; City of Swan, 2016; Claremont Town Centre, 2016).

Public Education and AwarenessThe effective planning and financing of urban green infrastructure ultimately depends on public support for such initiatives. Perth has a long history of involvement of community-based, dedi-cated ‘Friends’ groups in the management of bushlands and parks, although many of these groups face challenges related to lim-ited finances and ‘burn-out’ among volunteers (Dhakal, 2011). However, not all members of the public are as interested in or aware of the broader values of native habitats and native species; preferences for types of POS are likely to be highly heterogeneous within and between suburbs. Low-growing sclerophyllous heath and shrubs may be seen as ‘messy’ and dull, rather than as biodi-verse habitat for wildlife, and nature reserves may be viewed as havens for dangers such as snakes and bushfires. Australian gardens and many landscaped public areas have traditionally espoused a ‘European’ aesthetic based on manicured lawns, colourful flowers, lush greenery and exotic species (Williams & Cary, 2002; Trigger & Head, 2010), although native plants and ‘high habitat’ gardens are becoming more common (Kurz & Baudains, 2010; Uren, Dzidic & Bishop, 2015). There is a strong divide between Perth gardeners in their preference for ‘native’ or ‘exotic’ species (Kurz &

267


Baudains, 2010), which can be expected to flow into landscaping for public open spaces. Attributes of native plants that are valued by gardeners include habitat for wildlife, reduced maintenance and reduced water and fertiliser usage (Uren et al ., 2015). Increased public education and engagement on the values of native vegetation remnants (for human health and well-being as well as for wildlife) and the use of native plants in landscaping would help to ensure local residents are more inclined to advocate for the retention of native vegetation on private and public property (Ikin et al ., 2015).

CONCLUSIONThrough forward-thinking urban planning, conservation planning and public advocacy, Perth has managed to retain valuable native and landscaped public open spaces, despite rapid development and removal of large tracts of natural vegetation. However, accelerating infill development and suburban expansion pose major threats to vegetation on private and public land. There is significant scope to improve local biodiversity and provide ecosystem services through advocating for higher coverage of street trees, native planting of road verges and median strips, improved design of POS in new developments to meet specified ecosystem functions in tandem with recreation and trialling the implementation of green roofs, green façades and green walls.

A key challenge facing urban planners in Perth is moving from stated recognition to the concrete implementation and incorpora-tion of natural environmental features as valued elements at the individual development scale within urban planning. Comparative analyses of local government areas in Perth, Brisbane, Melbourne and Sydney show that Perth is lagging substantially behind other major Australian capital cities in the incorporation of biodiversity conservation, environmental sustainability, sustainable urban form and active transport in local planning strategies (Gurran, Gilbert & Phibbs, 2014). Among the metropolitan Australian capitals, Perth holds the unique distinction of being situated in a global

268

Chapter 10

biodiversity hotspot. Forward-thinking urban planning strate-gies that prioritise the mutual benefits and cross-overs between conservation and urban development in the form of proactive planning with green infrastructure could move Perth even higher up the list of the world’s most ‘liveable’ cities.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSWe are grateful to one anonymous reviewer and Neil Foley for their comprehensive, insightful and constructive comments on a previous version of this chapter.

REFERENCESAustralian Government. (1999). Environment Protection and Biodiversity

Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Canberra, ACT: Australian Government.Badland, H., Whitzman, C., Lowe, M., Davern, M., Aye, L., Butterworth,

I., Hes, D. & Giles-Corti, B. (2014). Urban Liveability: Emerging lessons from Australia for exploring the potential for indicators to measure the social determinants of health. Social Science & Medicine, 111, 64–73.

Balmford, A., Bruner, A., Cooper, P., Costanza, R., Farber, S., Green, R.E., Jenkins, M., Jefferiss, P., Jessamy, V., Madden, J., Munro, K., Myers, N., Naeem, S., Paavola, J., Rayment, M., Rosendo, S., Roughgarden, J., Trumper, K. & Turner, R.K. (2002). Economic Reasons for Conserving Wild Nature. Science, 297, 950–53.

Bates, B.C., Hope, P., Ryan, B., Smith, I. & Charles, S. (2008). Key Findings from the Indian Ocean Climate Initiative and their Impact on Policy Development in Australia. Climatic Change, 89, 339–54.

Beard, J.S., Chapman, A.R. & Gioia, P. (2000). Species Richness and Endemism in the Western Australian Flora. Journal of Biogeography, 27, 1257–68.

Bolleter, J. (2016). On the Verge: Re-thinking street reserves in relation to suburban densification. Journal of Urban Design, 21, 195–212.

Bolund, P. & Hunhammar, S. (1999). Ecosystem Services in Urban areas. Ecological Economics, 29, 293–301.

Brunner, J. & Cozens, P. (2013). ‘Where Have All the Trees Gone?’ Urban Consolidation and the Demise of Urban Vegetation: A case study from Western Australia. Planning Practice and Research, 28, 231–55.

CABE Space. (2006). Paying for Parks: Eight models for funding urban green spaces . London, UK: Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment.

Caccetta, P., Collings, S., Devereux, A., Hingee, K., McFarlane, D., Traylen, A., Wu, X. & Zhou, Z.-S. (2012). Urban Monitor: Enabling effective

269


monitoring and management of urban and coastal environments using digital aerial photography . Final report: Transformation of Aerial photography into digital raster information product. Perth, WA: CSIRO.

Caccetta, P., Collings, S., Devereux, A., Hingee, K., McFarlane, D., Traylen, A., Wu, X. & Zhou, Z.-S. (2015). Monitoring Land Surface and Cover in Urban and Peri-urban Environments Using Digital Aerial Photography. International Journal of Digital Earth, 1–19. doi: 10.1080/17538947.2015.1046510.

City of Busselton. (2015). Minutes for the Council Meeting Held on 25 February 2015. Busselton: City of Busselton.

City of Gosnells. (2016). Specified Area Rates . Retrieved from http://www.gosnells.wa.gov.au/Your_property/Your_City_rates/Rates_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions/Specified_area_rates.

City of Joondalup. (2016). Rates at a Glance . Retrieved from http://www.joondalup.wa.gov.au/Live/Rates/RatesAtAGlance.aspx.

City of Stirling. (2015). 2015/2016 Budget . Statutory Budget. Perth, WA: City of Stirling.

City of Subiaco. (2016). How Rates are Calculated. Retrieved from http://www.subiaco.wa.gov.au/Your-home/Rates/How-rates-are-calculated.

City of Swan. (2016). Your Rates Questions Answered. Retrieved from http://www.swan.wa.gov.au/Services-support/Council-Rates/Your-Rates-Explained/Your-Rates-Questions-Answered.

Claremont Town Centre. (2016). Contact Us. Retrieved from http://www.claremonttowncentre.com.au/contact-us.

Clark, J.A. & May, R.M. (2002). Taxonomic Bias in Conservation Research. Science, 297, 191–2.

Collard, L. & Bracknell, C. (2012). Beeliar Boodjar: An introduction to Aboriginal history in the City of Cockburn, Western Australia. Australian Aboriginal Studies, 1, 86–91.

Commander, P. (2003). Outline of the Geology of the Perth Region. Australian Geomechanics, 38, 7–16.

Commonwealth of Australia, State of Western Australia. (2011). Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999, Part 10 Strategic Assessments, Section 146 (1) Agreement relating to the assessment of the impacts of a Plan for the protection of Matters of National Significance in the Perth and Peel regions, Western Australia.

Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R., Sutton, P. & van den Belt, M. (1997). The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Nature, 387, 253–60.

270

Chapter 10

Daily, G.C. (1997). Nature’s Services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Davidson, K. & Arman, M. (2014). Planning for Sustainability: An assessment of recent metropolitan planning strategies and urban policy in Australia. Australian Planner, 51, 296–306.

Davis, J.A. & Froend, R. (1999). Loss and Degradation of Wetlands in Southwestern Australia: Underlying causes, consequences and solutions. Wetlands Ecology and Management, 7, 13–23.

Del Marco, A., Taylor, R., Clarke, K., Savage, K., Cullity, J. & Miles, C. (2004). Local Government Biodiversity Planning Guidelines for the Perth Metropolitan Region . Perth, WA: Western Australian Local Government Association.

Department of Infrastructure and Transport. (2013). State of Australian Cities. Canberra, ACT: Department of Infrastructure and Transport, Major Cities Unit.

Department of Planning and Urban Development. (1990). Metroplan. Perth, WA: Department of Planning and Urban Development, Government of Western Australia.

Dhakal, S.P. (2011). The Five Capitals Framework for Exploring the State of Friends’ Groups in Perth, Western Australia: Implications for urban environmental stewardship. The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic and Social Sustainability, 7, 135–47.

Dooley, B. & Pilgrim, A. (2009). Perth’s Regional Parks – providing for biodiversity conservation and public recreation through a multi-agency approach. In P.J. Maginn, R. Jones & F. Haslam Mackenzie (Eds.), State of Australian Cities National Conference, Perth. University of NSW, Sydney.

Ely, M. & Pitman, S. (2014). Green Infrastructure: Life support for human habitats. Report Prepared for the Botanic Gardens of South Australia, Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Adelaide, SA.

Environmental Protection Authority. (1983). Conservation Reserves for Western Australia . The Darling System – System 6 . Part 2: Detailed recommendations. Perth, WA: Department of Conservation and Environment.

Environmental Protection Authority. (2015). Interim Strategic Advice: Perth and Peel @3 .5 million – Environmental impacts, risks and remedies. Perth, WA.

Foley, N. & Williams, P. (2016). Funding and Governance of Regional Public Land Acquisition in Perth and Sydney. Urban Policy and Research, 34 (2) DOI: 10.1080/08111146.2015.1059321.

Froend, R. & Sommer, B. (2010). Phreatophytic Vegetation Response to Climatic and Abstraction-induced Groundwater Drawdown: Examples of long-term spatial and temporal variability in community response.

271


Ecological Engineering, 36, 1191–200.Geoghegan, J., Lynch, L. & Bucholtz, S.J. (2006). Are Agricultural Land

Preservation Programs Self-financing? In R.J. Johnston & S.K. Swallow (Eds.), Economics and Land-use Policy: Development and conservation at the urban-rural fringe . Washington, DC: RFF Press.

Gole, C. (2006). The Southwest Australia Ecoregion: Jewel of the Australian continent. Perth, WA: Southwest Australia Ecoregion Initiative.

Gómez-Baggethun, E. & Barton, D.N. (2013). Classifying and Valuing Ecosystem Services for Urban Planning. Ecological Economics, 86, 235–45.

Gómez-Baggethun, E., Gren, A., Barton, D., Langemeyer, J., McPhearson, T., O’Farrell, P., Andersson, E., Hamstead, Z. & Kremer, P. (2005). Urban Ecosystem Services. In T. Elmqvist, M. Fragkias, J. Goodness, B. Güneralp, P. Marcotullio, R. McDonald, S. Parnell, M. Schewenius, M. Sendstad, K. Seto & C. Wilkinson (Eds.), Urbanisation, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and opportunities . New York, NY: Springer.

Government of Western Australia. (1986). Environmental Protection Act 1986 . Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA.

Government of Western Australia. (1992). Environmental Protection (Swan Coastal Plain Lakes) Policy 1992 . Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA.

Government of Western Australia. (2000a). Bush Forever Volume 1: Policies, principles and processes . Ministry for Planning and Department of Environmental Protection, Perth, WA.

Government of Western Australia. (2000b). Bush Forever Volume 2: Directory of Bush Forever sites . Ministry for Planning and Department of Environmental Protection, Perth, WA.

Government of Western Australia. (2006). Swan and Canning Rivers Management Act 2006. Government of Western Australia, Perth, WA.

Government of Western Australia. (2011). Draft Environmental Offsets Policy. Department of Environment Regulation, Perth, WA.

Government of Western Australia. (2014). WA Environmental Offsets Guidelines. Department of Environment Regulation, Perth, WA.

Graham-Taylor, S. (2009). Reflections on the Swan River Early Days: Journal of the Royal Western Australian Historical Society, 13, 371–86.

Gray, M. & Cooper, C. (2012). Bush Forever Report Card. In S. Radford (Ed.), Proceedings of a One-day Conference Exploring Bush Forever, the WA Government’s Commitment to its Implementation and Site Management Issues. Urban Bushland Council, Murdoch University.

Grose, M.J. (2009). Changing Relationships in Public Open Space and Private Open Space in Suburbs in South-western Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning, 92, 53–63.

272

Chapter 10

Gurran, N., Gilbert, C. & Phibbs, P. (2014). Sustainable Development Control? Zoning and land-use regulations for urban form, biodiversity conservation and green design in Australia. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 58, 1877–902.

Hall, T. (2008). Where Have All the Gardens Gone? Australian Planner, 45, 30–7.

Hall, T. (2010). Goodbye to the Backyard? – The minimisation of private open space in the Australian outer-suburban estate. Urban Policy and Research, 28, 411–33.

Halse, S.A. (1989). Wetlands of the Swan Coastal Plain – past and present. In G. Lowe. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Swan Coastal Plain Groundwater Management Conference. Perth, WA: Water Resources Council, 105–12.

Hedgcock, D. & Yiftachel, O. (Eds.). (1992). Urban and Regional Planning in Western Australia: Historical and critical perspectives . Perth, WA: Paradigm Press.

Hill, A.L., Semeniuk, C.A., Semeniuk, V. & Del Marco, A. (1996). Wetlands of the Swan Coastal Plain (Vol . 2) . Wetland mapping, classification and evaluation. Perth, WA: Water and Rivers Commission and Department of Environmental Protection.

Hope, P., Drosdowsky, W. & Nicholls, N. (2006). Shifts in the Synoptic Systems Influencing Southwest Western Australia. Climate Dynamics, 26, 751–64.

Hopper, S.D. (2009). OCBIL Theory: Towards an integrated understanding of the evolution, ecology and conservation of biodiversity on old, climatically buffered, infertile landscapes. Plant and Soil, 322, 49–86.

Hopper, S.D. & Gioia, P. (2004). The Southwest Australian Floristic Region: Evolution and conservation of a global hot spot of biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 35, 623–50.

Ikin, K., Le Roux, D.S., Rayner, L., Villaseñor, N.R., Eyles, K., Gibbons, P., Manning, A.D. & Lindenmayer, D.B. (2015). Key Lessons for Achieving Biodiversity-sensitive Cities and Towns. Ecological Management & Restoration, 16, 206–14.

Jacobs, B., Mikhailovich, N. & Delaney, C. (2014). Benchmarking Australia’s Urban Tree Canopy: An i-Tree Assessment . Report prepared for Horticulture Australia Limited by Institute for Sustainable Futures, University of Technology Sydney.

Keighery, G. (2012). Dreams, Schemes and Realisation – natural area conservation in Perth, Western Australia, 1829 to 2012. In S. Radford (Ed.), Proceedings of a One-day Conference Exploring Bush Forever, the WA Government’s Commitment to its Implementation and Site Management Issues.

273


Perth, WA: Urban Bushland Council, Murdoch University.Klaiber, H.A., & Phaneuf, D.P. (2010). Valuing Open Space in a Residential

Sorting Model of the Twin Cities, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 60, 57–77.

Kottek, M., Grieser, J., Beck, C., Bruno, R. & Franz, R. (2006). World Map of the Köppen-Geiger Climate Classification Updated. Meteorologische Zeitschrift, 15, 259–63.

Kurz, T. & Baudains, C. (2010). Biodiversity in the Front Yard: An investigation of landscape preference in a domestic urban context. Environment and Behavior, 44, 166–96.

Lieb, D., Brennan, D. & McFarlane, D.J. (2007). The Economic Value of Groundwater Used to Irrigate Lawns and Gardens in the Perth Metropolitan Area. CSIRO: Water for a Health Country National Research Flagship. Canberra, ACT.

Lo, A.Y. & Jim, C.Y. (2010). Willingness of Residents to Pay and Motives for Conservation of Urban Green Spaces in the Compact City of Hong Kong. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9, 113–20.

Lowe, M., Whitzman, C., Badland, H., Davern, M., Hes, D., Aye, L., Butterworth, I. & Giles-Corti, B. (2013). Liveable, Healthy, Sustainable: What are the key indicators for Melbourne neighbourhoods? Research Paper 1, Place, Health and Liveability Research Program, University of Melbourne. Retrieved from: http://www.communityindicators.net.au/files/docs/Liveability%20Indicators%20report.pdf.

Majer, J.D., Recher, H.F., Heterick, B.E. & Postle, A.C. (2001). The Canopy, Bark, Soil and Litter Invertebrate Fauna of the Darling Plateau and Adjacent Woodland Near Perth, Western Australia, with Reference to the Diversity of Forest and Woodland Invertebrates. Pacific Conservation Biology, 7, 229–39.

McDonald, E., Coldrick, B. & Christensen, W. (2008). The Green Frog and Desalination: A Nyungar Metaphor for the (mis-)management of water resources, Swan Coastal Plain, Western Australia. Oceania, 78, 62–75.

Merk, O., Saussier, S., Staropoli, C., Slack, E. & Kim, J.H. (2012). Financing Green Urban Infrastructure . OECD Regional Development Working Papers 2012/10.

Metropolitan Region Planning Authority. (1970). The Corridor Plan for Perth. Metropolitan Region Planning Authority, Perth, WA.

Middle, G., Tye, M. & Middle, I. (2010). Emerging Constraints for Public Open Space in Perth Metropolitan Suburbs: Implications of Bush Forever, water sensitive urban design and liveable neighbourhoods for active sport and recreation . Report to the Department of Sport and Recreation WA, Perth.

274

Chapter 10

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. (2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis . Washington, DC: Island Press.

Miller, J.R. (2005). Biodiversity Conservation and the Extinction of Experience. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 20, 430–4.

Mittermeier, R.A., Robles Gil, P., Hoffman, M., Pilgrim, J., Brooks, R., Mittermeier, C.G., Lamoreux, J. & da Fonseca, G.A.B. (2005). Hotspots Revisited: Earth’s biologically richest and most endangered ecoregions . Mexico City, Mexico: CEMEX.

Moir, J. (1995). Regional Parks in Perth, Western Australia. Australian Planner, 32, 88–95.

Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., da Fonseca, G.A.B. & Kent, J. (2000). Biodiversity Hotspots for Conservation Priorities. Nature, 403, 853–8.

Nisbet, E.K. & Zelenski, J.M. (2011). Underestimating Nearby Nature: Affective forecasting errors obscure the happy path to sustainability. Psychological Science, 22, 1101–16.

Norton, B.A., Coutts, A.M., Livesley, S.J., Harris, R.J., Hunter, A.M. & Williams, N.S.G. (2015). Planning for Cooler Cities: A framework to prioritise green infrastructure to mitigate high temperatures in urban landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 134, 127–38.

Nowak, D.J., Crane, D.E. & Stevens, J.C. (2006). Air Pollution Removal by Urban Trees and Shrubs in the United States. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 4, 115–23.

Pandit, R., Polyakov, M. & Sadler, R. (2014). Valuing Public and Private Urban Tree Canopy Cover. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 58, 453–70.

Pandit, R., Polyakov, M., Tapsuwan, S. & Moran, T. (2013). The Effect of Street Trees on Property Value in Perth, Western Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning, 110, 134–42.

Pepper, C., McCann, L. & Burton, M. (2005). Valuation Study of Urban Bushland at Hartfield Park, Forrestfield, Western Australia. Ecological Management & Restoration, 6, 190–6.

Pereira, G., Christian, H., Foster, S., Boruff, B.J., Bull, F., Knuiman, M. & Giles-Corti, B. (2013). The Association Between Neighbourhood Greenness and Weight Status: An observation study in Perth, Western Australia. Environmental Health, 12, 49.

Pereira, G., Foster, S., Martin, K., Christian, H., Boruff, B.J., Knuiman, M. & Giles-Corti, B. (2012). The Association Between Neighbourhood Greenness and Cardiovascular Disease: An observational study. BMC Public Health, 12, 466.

275


Perth Biodiversity Project. (2007). Capacity of Perth’s Local Governments to Conserve Biodiversity . Perth, WA: Western Australian Local Government Association.

Razzaghmanesh, M., Beecham, S. & Kazemi, F. (2014). The Growth and Survival of Plants in Urban Green Roofs in a Dry Climate. Science of The Total Environment, 476–7, 288–97.

Sandifer, P.A., Sutton-Grier, A.E. & Ward, B.P. (2015). Exploring Connections Among Nature, Bodiversity, Ecosystem Services, and Human Health and Well-being: Opportunities to enhance health and biodiversity conservation. Ecosystem Services, 12, 1–15.

Saunders, S., Dade, E. & Van Niel, K. (2011). An Urban Forest Effects (UFORE) Model Study of the Integrated Effects of Vegetation on Local Air Pollution in the Western Suburbs of Perth, WA. Proceedings of the 19th International Congress on Modelling and Simulation, Perth, 12–16 December.

Seddon, G. (1972). Sense of Place: A response to an environment: The Swan Coastal Plain . Perth, WA: University of Western Australia Press.

Stephenson, G. & Hepburn, J.A. (1955). Plan for the Metropolitan Region, Perth and Fremantle, Western Australia. Perth, WA: Government of Western Australia.

Tapsuwan, S., Ingram, G., Burton, M. & Brennan, D. (2009). Capitalized Amenity Value of Urban Wetlands: A hedonic property price approach to urban wetlands in Perth, Western Australia. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 53, 527–45.

Trigger, D.S. & Head, L. (2010). Restored Nature, Familiar Culture: Contesting visions for preferred environments in Australian cities. Nature and Culture, 5, 231–50.

Tzoulas, K., Korpela, K., Venn, S., Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kaźmierczak, A., Niemela, J. & James, P. (2007). Promoting Ecosystem and Human Health in Urban Areas using Green Infrastructure: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 81, 167–78.

Uren, H.V., Dzidic, P.L. & Bishop, B.J. (2015). Exploring Social and Cultural Norms to Promote Ecologically Sensitive Residential Garden Design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 137, 76–84.

Valentine, L. (2009). Patterns of Ground-dwelling Vertebrate Biodiversity in the Gnangara Sustainability Strategy Study Area. Perth, WA: Department of Environment and Conservation. Retrieved from https://www.water.wa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/5078/87486.pdf.

Veal, A.J. (2013). Open Space Planning Standards in Australia: In search of origins. Australian Planner, 50, 224–32.

Vijayaraghavan, K. (2016). Green Roofs: A critical review on the role of

276

Chapter 10

components, benefits, limitations and trends. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 57, 740–52.

Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA). (2014). Urban Street Trees Policy Discussion Paper . Perth, WA: WALGA.

Western Australian Local Government Association. (2016). Local Biodiversity Program and Perth Biodiversity Project website . Perth, WA: WALGA. Retrieved from http://pbp.walga.asn.au/Home.aspx.

Western Australian Planning Commission. (2000). State Planning Framework Policy (Variation No . 2) . Statement of Planning Policy No . 1 . Perth, WA: Government of Western Australia.

Western Australian Planning Commission. (2009). The Urban Forest of Perth and Peel Statistical Report: CSIRO 2009 Urban Monitor . Perth, WA: Western Australian Planning Commission.

Western Australian Planning Commission. (2010). Statement of Planning Policy No 2 .8: Bushland Policy for the Perth Metropolitan Region . Perth, WA: Government of Western Australia.

Western Australian Planning Commission, Department for Planning and Infrastructure. (2004). Network City: Community planning strategy for Perth and Peel . Perth, WA: Western Australian Planning Commission.

Western Australian Planning Commission, Department for Planning and Infrastructure. (2007). Liveable Neighbourhoods: A Western Australian Government sustainable cities initiative . Perth, WA: Western Australian Planning Commission.

Western Australian Planning Commission. (2010). Directions 2031 and Beyond . Perth, WA: Western Australian Planning Commission.

Western Australian Planning Commission. (2015). Perth and Peel @3 .5 million (draft). Perth, WA: Western Australian Planning Commission.

Williams, K.J.H. & Cary, J. (2002). Landscape Preferences, Ecological Quality, and Biodiversity Protection. Environment and Behavior, 34, 257–74.

Williams, N.S.G., Lundholm, J. & Scott MacIvor, J. (2014). FORUM: Do green roofs help urban biodiversity conservation? Journal of Applied Ecology, 51, 1643–9.

Williams, N.S G., Rayner, J.P. & Raynor, K.J. (2010). Green Roofs for a Wide Brown Land: Opportunities and barriers for rooftop greening in Australia. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9, 245–51.

Zelenski, J.M. & Nisbet, E.K. (2014). Happiness and Feeling Connected: The distinct role of nature relatedness. Environment and Behaviour, 46, 3–23.

CHAPTER 10 NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES … · United Nations Environmental Programme...

Documents

Transcript of CHAPTER 10 NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS, ECOSYSTEM SERVICES … · United Nations Environmental Programme...