Ecology and Management of Bushland
in Australian Cities
Renae N. Stenhouse
This thesis is presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of The
University of Western Australia
School of Earth and Geographical Sciences
February, 2005
Thesis Declaration
I, Renae N. Stenhouse, declare that this thesis
is the result of my own research
unless otherwise acknowledged.
Signed……………………………..……… date ……………
iii
iv
ABSTRACT
Native vegetation (bushland) in urban areas remains in small, isolated patches embedded
within a matrix of human-dominated land uses. Bushlands in urban areas have high
biodiversity conservation and social values, and there has been a local-level movement
towards protecting and managing urban bushlands in Australia. This thesis aims to test
principles, theories and concepts relating to the ecology and management of bushland
fragments in Australian cities.
Reserves in the more highly populated inner Perth metropolitan area are smaller in size and
contain higher levels of disturbance and weed cover and lower floristic community
diversity and vegetation condition than the larger reserves in the outer metropolitan region.
A detailed study of three Perth bushlands found no statistically significant relationship
between disturbance severity and vegetation condition, though the most disturbed quadrats
had the lowest vegetation condition scores. A commonly used qualitative scale was
compared with an ecologically based, quantitative technique developed in the research. The
qualitative scale was found to be a reliable proxy for assessing vegetation condition, while
also being more user-friendly for community groups and other bushland managers.
The human-caused disturbances and weed cover in urban bushlands indicate a need for
management intervention. Local government has an important role in local biodiversity
management, yet there has been little research on this topic. Staff from local governments
in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide are aware of the disturbances impacting
bushlands vested in them, and consistently rated weeds as the most disturbing impact in
bushlands. Greatest management effort is expended on weed removal. In general, local
governments lack bushland-trained staff and sufficient funding for bushland management
and conservation, and tend not to coordinate with other local governments. Nevertheless,
local governments undertake a range of bushland conservation and management actions,
and assist community groups in bushland management.
Most of the community volunteers who responded to a questionnaire joined a bushland care
group out of altruistic motivation; wanting to help conserve a local bushland. Respondents
cited many benefits from bushland care volunteering, and fewer negative experiences were
v
described. It is suggested that the positive experiences arising from volunteering, such as
skills development and social interactions, will foster continued community bushland care.
The majority of respondents stated that they have a positive relationship with their local
government. Positive partnerships developed where local governments have taken a
‘contract model’ approach to volunteer coordination, have a number of expectations of
volunteer groups, and provide the groups with relatively high level of assistance. Also
important is a local government that supports, respects, trusts and communicates with the
community group, and recognises volunteers’ skills, knowledge and contributions. With
increased resources allocated to local government bushland management and conservation,
and coordination with community groups, the full potential of local bushland management
would be realised.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
My foremost gratitude is expressed to my principal supervisor, Associate Professor Arthur
Conacher, from the Discipline of Geography at The University of Western Australia.
Arthur has provided continual guidance and constructive comment on the research project
and outcomes. I am also grateful for the advice from Dr Raymond Wills, Senior Adjunct
Research Fellow, Discipline of Geography. Thank you to the Australian Federation of
University Women for financial contribution towards travel costs. I appreciate the advice
and support given by postgraduate students and staff in Geography, in the School of Earth
and Geographical Sciences, with special thanks to Julianna Priskin, Ailbhe Travers, Megan
Farrelly, Freea Itzstein-Davey, Sarah Gardner, Sarah Grimes, Emma Woodward, Annabel
Morris, Professor John Dodson, Dr Matthew Tonts and Adrian Voong. Thanks also to
Margo O’Byrne, from Ecoplan at the Department of Conservation and Land Management,
and to everyone at the Australian Research Centre for Urban Ecology at Melbourne
University. I also appreciate the support of my family and friends.
vii
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THESIS DECLARATION
iii
ABSTRACT
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
vii
Chapter One: Introduction to the Ecology and Management of Bushland
in Urban Areas
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
INTRODUCTION
RESEARCH PROBLEM AND AIM
RESEARCH APPROACH
CONTEXT
1.3.1 Native Vegetation in Cities: Definitions, Examples and Values
1.3.2 Patch ecology
1.3.2.1 Patch Size
1.3.2.2 Shape and Edge Effect
1.3.2.3 Connectivity and Isolation
1.3.2.4 Patch Surroundings and Urban Intensity
1.3.2.5 Patch Disturbance
1.3.2.6 Patch Condition
1.3.3 Local-level Environmental Management and Conservation
1.3.3.1 Local Government Urban Bushland Protection and
Management
1.3.3.2 Local Government Role: the Rhetoric
1.3.3.3 Local Government: Potential Actions in Biodiversity
Management and Conservation
1.3.3.4 Community Participation in Environmental and
Natural Resource Management
1.3.3.5 Community-Government Partnerships in Environmental
and Natural Resource Management
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH AND CRITIQUE
REMNANT VEGETATION IN THE STUDY CITIES
1.6.1 Loss of Native Vegetation in Australian Cities
1.6.2 Distribution of Remant Vegetation in the Study Cities
1.6.3 Plant Diversity in the Study Cities
ix
3
3
5
8
9
15
16
17
17
20
22
27
28
30
31
33
35
39
43
45
47
47
48
50
1.7
THESIS STRUCTURE
52
Chapter Two: Fragmentation and Internal Disturbance of Native
Vegetation Reserves in the Perth Metropolitan Area, Western Australia
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
2.2.1 Study Area and Study Sites
2.2.2 Methodological Approach
2.2.3 Patch Attributes
2.2.3.1 Patch Area
2.2.3.2 Patch Shape
2.2.3.3 Connectivity
2.2.3.4 Geomorphic Unit
2.2.3.5 Number of Floristic Community Types
2.2.4 External Influences
2.2.4.1 Local Population Density
2.2.4.2 Surrounding Land Use Matrix Compatibility
2.2.4.3 Distance from the CBD
2.2.4.4 Encapsulation Period
2.2.5 Disturbances (Direct Human Influence) and Vegetation Condition
2.2.5.1 Walking Paths
2.2.5.2 Goat Paths
2.2.5.3 Rubbish
2.2.5.4 Time Since Fire
2.2.5.5 Weed Infestation
2.2.5.6 Condition
2.2.6 Data Analysis
RESULTS
2.3.1 Patch Attributes
2.3.2 External Influences
2.3.3 Disturbances and Condition within Patches
2.3.4 Factor Analysis
DISCUSSION
2.4.1 Patterns of Fragmentation, Disturbance and Condition
2.4.2 Anthropogenic Disturbances in Perth Bushland Reserves
2.4.3 Management Implications
CONCLUSIONS
x
57
58
59
59
60
61
61
61
62
62
62
63
63
63
63
63
64
64
64
65
65
65
65
66
66
66
67
67
70
73
73
74
75
76
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES
77
78
LINK TO CHAPTER THREE
83
Chapter Three: Assessing Disturbance and Vegetation Condition in
Urban Bushlands
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
3.2.1 Whole-of-Site Rapid Assessment of Disturbance and Qualitative
Vegetation Condition
3.2.2 Quantitative Assessment and Vegetation Condition Index
3.2.3 Comparison of Qualitative (Keighery’s Scale) and Quantitative
(VCI) Assessments of Vegetation Condition
RESULTS
3.3.1 Whole-of-Site Rapid Assessment of Disturbance and Qualitative
Vegetation Condition
3.3.2 Assessment of Disturbance and Quantitative Vegetation
Condition (VCI)
3.3.3 Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative Measures of
Vegetation Condition
DISCUSSION
3.4.1 Effect of Anthropogenic Disturbance on Vegetation Condition
3.4.2 Weeds
3.4.3 Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative Assessments of
Vegetation Condition
CONCLUSION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES
LINK TO CHAPTER FOUR
89
90
95
95
96
99
99
99
100
105
106
106
107
108
109
111
112
115
xi
Chapter Four: Local Government Conservation and Management of
Native Vegetation in Urban Australia
4.0
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
4.3.1 The Local Governments
4.3.2 Perceptions of Disturbances in Bushlands
4.3.3 Local Government Management to Mitigate Disturbances in
Bushlands
4.3.4 Differences Among Cities and Urban and Urban-rural Local
Governments for Disturbances and Management
4.3.5 Local Government Efforts in Bushland Protection and
Management
4.3.5.1 Initiation of Bushland Protection and Management
4.3.5.2 Bushland Protection
4.3.5.3 Resources and Staffing
4.3.5.4 ‘Educating and Mobilising the Community’
4.3.5.5 Coordination Among Local Government Authorities
DISCUSSION
4.4.1 Disturbances in Bushlands and Management to Mitigate
Disturbances
4.4.2 Does Action Match the Rhetoric?
4.4.2.1 Bushland Protection
4.4.2.2 Resources and Staff
4.4.2.3 Educating and Mobilising the Community
4.4.2.4 Regional Coordination
4.4.3 Nation-Wide Issues and Responses?
CONCLUSION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES
LINK TO CHAPTER FIVE
119
120
121
123
123
124
126
126
129
129
129
130
131
132
132
132
134
134
135
136
137
138
139
141
142
151
xii
Chapter Five: Community-based Bushland Care in Urban Australia
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
5.1.1 Community Bushland Care Groups
5.1.2 Why Volunteer?
5.1.3 Incentives and Disincentives for Continued Volunteering
METHODS
RESULTS
5.3.1 Characteristics of Volunteers and their Groups
5.3.2 Volunteers’ Motivations
5.3.3 Benefits Gained from Volunteering
5.3.4 Frustrations Experienced by Volunteers
DISCUSSION
5.4.1 Characteristics of Volunteers and Volunteer Groups
5.4.2 Motivations for Becoming a Volunteer and Continuing
Volunteering
5.4.3 Implications
5.4.4 Comparison with Landcare
5.4.5 Limitations of the Research
CONCLUSION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES
LINK TO CHAPTER SIX
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
161
162
163
163
165
165
165
168
170
172
172
175
176
181
xiii
Chapter Six: Community Group-Local Government Partnerships in
Urban Bushland Care
6.0
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
RESULTS
6.3.1 Local Government Assistance Provided to Community
Bushland Care Groups
6.3.2 Local Government Support Requested
6.3.3 Significance of Local Government Assistance
6.3.4 Perceived Local Government Expectations of Groups
6.3.5 Local Government Regulations Placed on Groups
6.3.6 Local Government and Community Bushland Care Group
Relationship
DISCUSSION
6.4.1 Are Partnerships Working?
6.4.2 Data Set Bias
CONCLUSION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
REFERENCES
185
186
188
191
191
191
192
192
193
193
196
196
200
201
203
204
Chapter Seven: Discussion and Conclusions
7.0
7.1
7.2
7.3
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
DISCUSSION
7.1.1 Objective One: Fragmentation and Patch Ecology in the
Urban Bushland Context
7.1.2 Objective Two: Disturbance and Vegetation Condition in
Urban Bushlands, and Qualitative and Quantitative
Assessment of Vegetation Condition
7.1.3 Objective Three: Local Government Capacity to Manage and
Conserve Local Urban Bushlands
7.1.4 Objective Four: Community Participation and Volunteering
in Urban Bushland Care
7.1.5 Objective Five: Community-Government Partnerships in
Local-level Urban Bushland Management
RESEARCH CRITIQUE
CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
209
210
210
213
216
219
221
224
226
229
xiv
Tables
Chapter One
Table 1.1. Effects of Anthropogenic Disturbances Known to Occur in Urban
Bushlands
Table 1.2. Problems and Causes of Failure in Community-Government
Partnerships and Community-based Natural Resource Management,
Identified in Australian and International Literature
Table 1.3. Percent of Each Study City Area as Remnant Vegetation
Table 1.4. Size of Remnants in the Perth Metropolitan Region
25
42
50
50
Chapter Two
Table 2.1. Vegetation Condition Scale
Table 2.2. Encapsulation Period
Table 2.3. Land Use Compatibility
Table 2.4. Vegetation Condition
Table 2.5. Correlations between Continuous Variables
66
67
67
69
75
Chapter Three
Table 3.1. Common Anthropogenic Disturbance Factors in Urban Bushlands in
Australia, their Cause and Effect on the Bushland Ecology
Table 3.2. Vegetation Condition Scale
Table 3.3. Vegetation Condition Index (VCI): Sub-Indices, Indicators and
Observed Values for Indicators
Table 3.4. Disturbances Evident in the Whole-of-Site Assessments
Table 3.5. Mean and Standard Deviation (in parentheses) of Vegetation
Characteristics of Low to High Categories of Vegetation Condition
Table 3.6. Structure Matrix for Discriminant Function Analysis
Table 3.7. Spearman Rank Correlations for Disturbance Score, Keighery’s Scale
and Vegetation Parameters as Sampled in 100m2 Quadrats in
Three Bushlands
Table 3.8. Pearson Correlations among the Vegetation Parameters as Sampled in
100 m2 Quadrats in Three Bushlands
xv
93
94
98
100
101
103
104
105
Chapter Four
Table 4.1. Local Governments in Four Study Cities
124
Table 4.2. Local Government Size, Population Density and Bushland
124
Table 4.3. The Most Common Disturbances and the Greatest Disturbances as
Ranked by LGs
125
Table 4.4. Most Common Management Actions and Main Management Actions
as Ranked by LG Respondents (n=63)
127
Table 4.5. Disturbances and Corresponding Management Actions (n=62)
128
Table 4.6. Spearman Rank Correlation for Disturbances and Management Actions 128
Table 4.7. Weighted Ranking of Greatest Disturbances for Each City
129
Table 4.8. Local Government Annual Budgets and Bushland Management
Expenditure (n=51)
130
Appendix 4.1. Local Government Bushland Management Questionnaire
146
Appendix 4.2. List of Local Governments that Responded to Questionnaire
150
Chapter Five
Table 5.1. Characteristics of Urban Bushland Care Groups
Table 5.2. Benefits gained from Volunteering in Bushland Management
Table 5.3. General Characteristics of Landcare and Community Bushland
Care Groups
162
164
171
Chapter Six
Table 6.1. Common Themes in Respondent’s Descriptions of Positive
Community Group-Local Government Relationships
Table 6.2. Common Themes in Respondents’ Descriptions of Negative
Community Group-Local Government Relationships
xvi
194
195
Figures
Chapter One
Figure 1.1.
Figure 1.2.
Figure 1.3.
Figure 1.4.
Figure 1.5.
Conceptual model for the thesis
Study cities of the thesis
Dry sclerophyll woodland in the Perth area
Coastal heath vegetation at Trigg Bushland Reserve, Perth
Heath on the upper slopes of Hawkesbury Sandstone, in Ku-Ring-Gai
Chase National Park in northern Sydney
Figure 1.6. Wet sclerophyll forest in the valley of Ku-Ring-Gai Chase National
Park in the Sydney region
Figure 1.7. A grassland remnant in the Melbourne region
Figure 1.8. Kings Park and Botanic Garden
Figure 1.9. Urban forest in a housing estate at Järvafälet, Stockholm, Sweden
Figure 1.10. Relationship between patch size, shape and edge habitat area
Figure 1.11. Connectivity
Figure 1.12. Characteristics of vegetation communities along an urban-to-rural
gradient from New York City to rural Connecticut in the U.S.A.
Figure 1.13. The effect of childrens’ play
Figure 1.14. A stormwater drain entering an A-Class reserve in Perth
Figure 1.15. Dumped garden refuse in an urban bushland
Figure 1.16. Flow diagram representing concepts central to the thesis
5
7
11
11
12
12
13
14
15
19
20
21
23
24
24
53
Chapter Two
Figure 2.1. Map of study sites and geomorphic units in the Perth Metropolitan
Region
Figure 2.2. Dumped rubbish in a reserve in outer Perth metropolitan area
Figure 2.3. Scatter Plot of Varimax Rotation of Two Factor Solution for
Variables of Fragmentation, Urban Influence, Disturbance and
Condition
60
69
72
Link to Chapter Three
Figure 2.2. Effects of fire
Figure 2.5. A quarry
Figure 2.6. Rubbish
Figure 2.7. Abandoned cars
Figure 2.8. Dumped garden waste
Figure 2.9. Weeds
85
85
85
86
86
86
xvii
Chapter Three
Figure 3.1. Map of the Perth metropolitan area and study sites
91
Figure 3.2. Principle components analysis for vegetation parameters
102
Figure 3.3. Average scores for each sub-index for the categories of low, medium
and high vegetation condition
103
Figure 3.4. Scatter diagram showing relationship between Vegetation Condition
Index scores and Keighery’s Vegetation Condition Scale scores
106
Chapter Four
Figure 4.1. Australia
122
Chapter Five
Figure 5.1. Respondents’ Motivations for Joining a Bushland Care Group
166
Chapter Six
Figure 6.1. Map of Australia and maps of local government regions for the
metropolitan region of each study city
xviii
189
Appendix
Appendix A: Questionnaire Distributed to Volunteers in Community Bushland
Care Groups
xix
255
xx
Chapter One
Introduction to Ecology and Management
of Bushland in Urban Areas
Kings Park Bushland and the Perth central business district
Photograph by Jeff Doucette
3
1.0
INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes the research problem and associated research aim (Section 1.1),
briefly explains the research approach (Section 1.2) and reviews Australian and
international literature relevant to the research topic (Section 1.3). The literature review
leads to the research objectives to achieve the aim (Section 1.4) and a description of the
techniques used to explore the research problem (Section 1.5). The chapter outlines the
state of remnant bushlands in Australian cities (Section 1.6), and finally, Section 1.7
outlines the structure of this thesis.
1.1
RESEARCH PROBLEM AND AIM
The world is becoming increasingly urbanised. The United Nations predicts that by
2025, 60% of the world’s population will live in urban areas – a figure double that of
1950 (Sukopp 1998). In Australia, 85% of the population reside in urban areas, mainly
in the capital cities. However, the metropolitan regions of the Australian capital cities
are not solely a human domain. Between 3% and 49% of the land area of the capital city
regions have native vegetation cover. The Australian capital cities are centred in areas
of high biological diversity; they were settled at the convergence of major geographical
features, such as river mouths, coastal plains and low mountain ranges, and such
environmental gradients support diverse suites of plant and animal communities, often
not found elsewhere. Urban native vegetation, or urban bushland, remains in small and
isolated patches distributed across the metropolitan areas, embedded within a matrix of
urban land uses. Fragmentation and patch ecology concepts have been well developed
in rural areas (e.g. Diamond 1975; Simberloff and Abele 1982; and reviewed in
Collinge 1996 and in Debinski and Holt 2000). These theories and concepts are only
more recently being tested in relation to natural ecosystems within urban environments
(e.g. Bastin and Thomas 1999; Gibb and Hochuli 2002; Williams et al. 2005). In 2002,
Miller and Hobbs reviewed 217 terrestrial-based studies presented in Conservation
Biology between 1995-1999 and found fewer than 6% of papers described research in
urban or suburban areas. They have stated that ‘…because relatively few studies have
focused on settled areas, there is meagre basis for making recommendations on ways to
mitigate the adverse effects of urban, suburban and exurban development on native
species’ (Miller and Hobbs 2002).
4
Chapter One
Urban bushland has value for the plant and animal biodiversity it harbours, for
ecosystem processes and for providing city residents with areas in which to relax and
recreate in a natural surrounding. There is a movement towards protecting and
managing the bushlands of urban Australia, evidenced by government programs such as
Bushcare (Environment Australia 2002), local government efforts and the formation of
numerous community groups which aim to assist in bushland care in their
neighbourhoods (Safstrom and O’Byrne 2001; Stenhouse 2001). The literature on
decentralisation in natural resource management and community volunteering has been
developed in relation to rural programs such as Landcare and Catchment groups (e.g.
Cary and Webb 2001; Byron and Curtis 2002), and local government implementation of
Agenda 21 (e.g. Mercer and Jotkowitz 2000). Government reports have been produced
on the roles and opportunities for local government conservation of native vegetation
(Binning et al. 1999; Cripps et al. 1999; Bateson 2000). However, there have been no
comprehensive, academic studies into local government and community efforts in
protection and management of urban bushlands in Australia. This was evidenced by a
web-based literature search (searching ‘bushland management local government
Australia’, ‘native vegetation management local government Australia’, ‘conservation
local government Australia’ and ‘community bushland’ using both scirus.com and
scholar.google.com). The search revealed only two relevant journal articles – an invited
editorial on volunteers in bushland management (Safstrom and O’Byrne 2001) and a
case study analysis of bushland management by community groups and local
government in a Shire of Perth, Western Australia (Stenhouse 2001).
With great biodiversity held within the areas of highest human population in Australia,
the co-existence of humans and nature is an important issue. Thus, the overall thesis
aim is to test principles, theories and concepts relating to the ecology and
management of bushland fragments in Australian cities (Figure 1.1).
Introduction
5
State/ Federal Organisations
- Funding and administration,
e.g. Bushcare
- Legislation, e.g. LG Acts
- Metropolitan level planning,
e.g. Bush Forever
Local Societal Organisations
- Local governments:
management, planning
- Community bushland care
groups: management, advocacy
Regional Landscape Ecology
- patch characteristics
- connectivity
- common disturbances
- patch quality
- heterogeneity among sites
Bushlands at Site Level
- site history
- natural disturbance processes
- natural heterogeneity within site
- human caused disturbance
- patch condition
Figure 1.1. Conceptual model for the thesis.
The thesis focuses on bushland patch ecology at the regional and site level, and on the societal
organisations involved in bushland protection and management at the local level. State and Federal
government actions in bushland management and protection are not directly researched, but their
influence on local organisations (e.g. funding to community groups, regional planning, legislative
requirements of local governments) are underlying factors, and thus included in this diagram.
1.2
RESEARCH APPROACH
In this era of rapid urbanisation, ecologists have begun to turn their research attention to
the field of ‘urban ecology’, in recognition of the ecological and social values of urban
ecosystems and the opportunities they provide for investigating the effects of
concentrated human populations on the natural environment. The field of urban ecology
is highly applicable in Australia, where 85% of the population are urban residents,
mainly in the capital cities, and significant proportions of indigenous vegetation
(bushland) remain in most urban areas.
6
Chapter One
The term ‘urban ecology’ can refer to a number of distinct areas of research. The main
areas are: urban planning and design; the ecology of an urban area (including street
trees and gardens); the flows of matter and energy into and out of a city (i.e. considering
the city as an ‘ecosystem’), and the ecology of indigenous or semi-natural ecosystems
within an urban region. Sukopp (1998, p. 3) writes that within the natural sciences,
urban ecology refers to ‘the science of the relationships amongst living creatures and
communities as well as their relationship to their environment’, as applied to biological
resources within urban landscapes. Urban ecology has developed from the field of
landscape ecology, and is a relatively young discipline as ecologists have traditionally
considered only ‘wilderness’ areas of nature as worthy of study (Sukopp 1998). This
view has changed and many ecologists now view natural ecosystems in urban areas as
an interesting and exciting topic for research.
To date there have been a number of studies conducted on the climate, soils, flora, fauna
and habitats of cities (see Rebele 1994; Breuste et al. 1998), yet there is a limited
number of studies that integrate biology and society in urban ecology. Simmons et al.
(2002) hold the view that ‘… to date, urban ecology has focused primarily on ecology,
and has treated the human component as an external influence on the system’. Pickett et
al. (1997) write that we need to understand urban areas as integrated systems, with a
socio-ecological perspective, linking social, cultural, economic, biological and physical
processes. Urban nature is fundamentally influenced by human activities, whether
detrimental or beneficial. It is important to understand both the state of natural
ecosystems in urban areas as well how policy, planning and management decisions
made and implemented by government organisations and the community influence the
same natural ecosystems (Pickett et al. 1997). Given that humans are part of the natural
world, not separate from it, the definition of ecology given by Sukopp (1998) would
necessitate the inclusion of human activities in studying ecosystems in urban areas.
Understanding the complexity of natural ecosystems in urban areas calls for an
interdisciplinary approach (Dow 2000), and this thesis takes a ‘socio-ecological’
approach to investigate human-nature interactions relating to bushland fragments in
Australian cities.
Following this approach, this thesis focuses on both the ecological and human aspects in
relation to urban bushlands in Australia. Urban bushland, for this thesis, is defined as
Introduction
7
patches of native vegetation around which most or all of the original vegetation has
been replaced with urban land uses. Areas of natural vegetation remain in the
metropolitan regions of each Australian city. At this point, a discussion of spatial scale
is necessary in regard to the thesis research approach. To develop ecological theories
and principles for urban bushlands, the research was restricted to one metropolitan area,
due to time and resource constraints. This research was undertaken in the Perth
metropolitan area (Figure 1.2), due to the location of the researcher and because the
Perth region contains numerous patches of bushland. To develop theory on the local
level management of urban bushlands, a wider scope than one city was required, to
allow for comparative analysis of bushland management in multiple cities. Thus,
research was undertaken in the metropolitan regions of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane,
Perth and Adelaide (Figure 1.2). The five largest Australian cities were chosen as the
research scale, under the assumption that this would create a large sample size of local
governments and community groups, and therefore illustrate the widest variety of
efforts, techniques and issues in urban bushland management, to better allow for
development of theory on local level bushland management.
N
N.T.
QLD
W.A.
Brisbane
S.A.
N.S.W.
Sydney
Perth
Adelaide
0
1000 km
VIC.
A.C.T.
Melbourne
TAS.
Figure 1.2. Study cities of the thesis.
The study cities, the five largest capital cities of Australia, are in bold type. The six States and two
Territories of Australia are: New South Wales (N.S.W.), Queensland (QLD), South Australia (S.A.),
Tasmania (TAS.), Victoria (VIC.), Western Australia (W.A.), the Australian Capital Territory (A.C.T.)
and the Northern Territory (N.T.).
8
1.3
Chapter One
CONTEXT
The concepts and theories central to this thesis, namely patch ecology and local-level
environmental management, are discussed in this section. The review begins by
defining a some key terms related to urban ecology, providing examples of urban
bushlands internationally, and pointing to the ecological and social importance of
bushlands in urban areas.
Urban bushlands occur as fragments of the original vegetation that once existed right
across the areas that are now the major Australian cities. Thus, the process of vegetation
fragmentation, and the related principles of patch ecology, have shaped urban
bushlands. The literature on fragmentation, patch size and shape, connectivity and
isolation and edge effects will be reviewed. As well as the effects of fragmentation,
urban bushlands are influenced by the urban matrix in which they are sited, and this
review examines the experimental research into the effects of urban intensity on natural
ecosystems. All ecosystems are subjected to the natural process of disturbance. Given
their locations within an urban environment, urban bushlands inevitably experience
indirect and direct human-caused disturbance. Thus, literature on disturbance ecology
will be examined. It is expected that the urban environment and human-caused
disturbance will have detrimental effects on native vegetation. The field of ecological
condition assessments will be reviewed, as a potential means of assessing the effects of
contemporary anthropogenic disturbance on the vegetation condition of bushland
patches.
Urban bushlands are also shaped by management actions, which aim to maintain the
biological and social values bushlands hold. The main protagonists in urban bushland
management in Australia are local governments and community groups. Accordingly,
the literature on decentralisation and the potential roles of local governments and
community groups in natural resource management (NRM) will be discussed. This
section will review the wealth of international literature regarding community-based
environmental management, the sociology of volunteering, and partnerships in
environmental management.
The theories outlined in the following review have largely been developed from
international literature and/or rural-based studies. For example, a large body of the work
in patch ecology has been undertaken in Europe or in rural Australia. Much of the
Introduction
9
community participation theory comes from research into rural catchment and Landcare
groups. Thus, throughout the review, opportunities to test principles, theories and
concepts relating to patch ecology, decentralisation of NRM and community
participation in the urban bushland context will be highlighted, and these will form the
specific objectives of the thesis (detailed again in Section 1.4.). These specific
objectives will achieve the aim of testing principles, theories and concepts relating to
the ecology and management of bushland fragments in Australian cities.
1.3.1
Native vegetation in cities: definitions, examples and values
Bushland has been defined as:
… land on which there is vegetation which is either a remainder of the
natural vegetation of the land or, if altered, still representative of the
structure and floristics of the natural vegetation
and urban bushland is further defined as:
… all the native vegetation remaining in our cities, suburbs and towns
(Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales 1999).
These definitions were adopted for this study. In this thesis, the terms ‘native
vegetation’, ‘remnant vegetation’ and ‘bushland’ are used synonymously. The term
bushland is used to cover all the types of terrestrial native vegetation that are found in
Australian cities, such as dry and wet sclerophyll forests and woodland, open
woodlands, rainforest, heath, grasslands and grassy woodlands (Figures 1.3-1.7). The
phrase urban bushland does not include aquatic or semi-aquatic communities, such as
mangroves and wetlands, as these face many different issues, such as concerns for water
quality, and often require a different management approach.
While the term ‘bushland’ is widely used in Australia, in the international literature
other phrases describe urban native vegetation. North Americans and Europeans often
use the term ‘urban forest’, although sometimes this refers to all trees in a city region,
including natives and exotic plantings (e.g. Bradley 1995; Konijnendijk 2003; Sukopp
2004). Other phrases include ‘urban habitat’ and ‘indigenous vegetation in urban areas’.
10
Chapter One
Yli-Pelkonen and Nimelä (in press) consider ‘urban nature’ to be one of three
categories:
(1) Relict nature: remnants of original, relatively well preserved nature left between
or within the built up areas of cities and towns;
(2) Human-made nature: such as landscaped parks and gardens, or sites that have
been almost entirely replanted;
(3) Spontaneous nature: nature that occurs in ruderal sites, synthetic nature, and
generally non-native plants or generalist species.
Urban bushland, as defined for this thesis, distinctly falls into the first category, of
‘relict nature’, areas of remnant vegetation. Typically, these fragments have been
modified over the long history of Aboriginal influence (e.g. fire management, hunting
and gathering), the colonial period (e.g. grazing, agriculture, logging, introduction of
exotic species) as well as more recent processes of urbanisation, and as such do not
remain in the actual ‘original state’, whatever that may have been (Bridgman 1995).
However, the bushland remnants in Australian cities tend to have, to varying degrees,
retained vegetation structural layers, a variety of indigenous plant species and some
faunal component, mainly invertebrates and avifauna. The bushlands are generally
impoverished of small to large native faunal species, due to the destructive influence of
feral and domestic cats, domestic dogs and introduced foxes.
The definition of urban bushland given above does not define ‘urban’. To ecologists,
‘urban’ tends to mean landscapes dominated by humans (McIntyre et al. 2000) and is
often not defined. Definitions based on population vary greatly. For example, the U.S.
Bureau of the Census defines ‘urban’ as an area with more than 2500 people (>620
individuals/km2) (McIntyre et al. 2000). The Australian Bureau of Statistics defines an
‘urban centre’ as ‘a population cluster of 1000 or more people’ while areas with fewer
than 1000 people are classified as ‘rural’ (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2000). In the
context of urban socio-ecological research, Yli-Pelkonen and Nimelä (in press) define
‘urban’ as ‘a fairly large, densely populated area characterised by industrial, business
and residential districts’. The authors believe this broad definition is more practical than
a definition based on population densities, as within a metropolitan area or town there
are also non-urban land uses and low population densities. This thesis is set in five of
the Australian capital cities (Figure 1.2), and considers the metropolitan region of each
city to be an urban area. Thus a political boundary rather than population densities
defines ‘urban area’ in this thesis.
Introduction
11
Figure 1.3. Dry sclerophyll woodland in the Perth area. All photographs by the author, unless
otherwise stated.
Figure 1.4. Coastal heath vegetation at Trigg Bushland Reserve, Perth.
12
Chapter One
Figure 1.5. Heath on the upper slopes of Hawkesbury Sandstone, in Ku-Ring-Gai
Chase National Park in northern Sydney.
Figure 1.6. Wet sclerophyll forest in the valley of Ku-Ring-Gai Chase National Park in
the Sydney region. Photograph by A. Stenhouse.
Introduction
13
Figure 1.7. A grassland remnant in the Melbourne region. Photograph by Nick Williams.
Native vegetation is found in urban regions worldwide, including cities in the USA
(Clemants and Moore 2003), Finland (Malmivaara et al. 2002), Sweden (Florgård
2000), Brazil (Silva Matos et al. 2002) and even in one of the world’s most populous
cities, Mexico City (García-Romero 2001). In most cities, settlement preferences (for
example to build on flat land, or near the coast) have influenced the location of
vegetation remnants. Thus some vegetation types are better conserved than others in
urban regions (Matlack 1997). With a relatively recent history of European settlement,
Australian cities are in the fortunate position of having substantial proportions of the
original native vegetation remaining within the metropolitan areas. Numerous small
remnants are scattered across the metropolitan regions. Relatively large tracts of native
vegetation also remain, such as Royal National Park in outer Sydney, and Kings Park,
which is just 1.5 km from the central business district in Perth (Figure 1.8).
The natural vegetation of urban areas has both ecological and social value. Urban
bushlands preserve landscape and ecosystem functions, conserve biological diversity,
provide habitat, and create biotic linkages in the landscape to allow for wildlife
movement and the flow of plant genetic material (Buchanan 1989, p. 1-2). They help to
clean the air (Bridgman et al. 1995, p. 116), protect waterways and groundwater
resources, regulate the local climate and protect the soil against erosion (Government of
14
Chapter One
Western Australia 2000, p. vii). Remnant bushland provides a key to the mosaic of
vegetation types that once existed uninterrupted in the pre-European landscape. The
native vegetation of each Australian city contributes to their distinctive and unique
visual identity: a sense of place, which both residents and visitors can recognise
(Buchhorn et al. 1989, p. 5; Harris and Scheltema 1995).
Figure 1.8. Kings Park and Botanic Garden, adjacent to Perth’s CBD.
Kings Park covers an area of 400 hectares, which includes 267 hectares of remnant bushland, and is
located 1.5 km from the city centre of Perth.
In many countries, urban nature contributes to the ‘liveability of cities and towns’ by
adding scenic beauty, masking traffic noise and providing a natural setting for
recreation and a sanctuary away from the stresses of city life (Figure 1.9; Buchanan
1989, p. 2; Bradley 1995; Kaplan 1995). Urban bushlands are an educational resource
and allow people to interact with natural ecosystems, assisting their experiential
learning about nature and fostering an affinity for bushland (Harris and Scheltema 1995,
p. 3). In Australia, many urban bushlands are Aboriginal heritage sites (Buchanan 1989,
p. 3). For all of these reasons, the development of ecological and management
principles relevant to urban bushlands is critical, so that decisions towards conservation
and management can be informed by scientific data and community values.
Introduction
15
Figure 1.9. Urban forest in a housing estate at Järvafälet, Stockholm, Sweden.
The indigenous vegetation has been preserved in this site during the development. Planners have included
an area for relaxation (a barbeque area and a pool) for the community to enjoy in a natural environment.
1.3.2 Patch Ecology
Urbanisation has lead to increased spatial isolation of vegetation remnants and
decreased patch size (Honnay et al. 1999). Vegetation fragmentation is not unique to
the urban environment; agriculture has resulted in a landscape of vegetation patches
surrounded by rural land uses, and many fragmentation ecology studies have been
undertaken in rural landscapes. Patch ecology research has been influenced by island
biogeography theory, which suggests that the species richness of an island or patch is a
function of island/patch size and degree of isolation (MacArthur and Wilson 1967).
Island biogeography has been applied to mainland ‘habitat islands’ (e.g. Diamond 1975;
Simberloff and Abele 1982), but there have been some concerns with this transfer of
theory (reviewed in Gilbert 1980). Mainland vegetation remnants are not ‘discrete
independent ecosystems’ (Slud 1976, quoted in Gilbert 1980). Rather, they are parts of
an interrupted system of once contiguous vegetation, highly influenced by their humandominated surroundings, and open to penetration by external factors (such as non-native
flora and fauna). Nonetheless, island biogeography theory encouraged research into
species-area relationships of patches and debate on the design of mainland conservation
reserves (Gilbert 1980). This section discusses the main factors which affect the
ecology of a bushland fragment; namely, patch size, edge effect, shape, connectivity
and isolation, the surrounding land use matrix, disturbance and condition.
16
Chapter One
1.3.2.1
Patch Size
The literature on fragmentation ecology indicates that important determinants of the
long-term sustainability of fragmented remnants are patch size, patch shape and
connectivity. It has been recommended for optimal reserve design that larger patches be
retained as they hold more species than smaller reserves (Diamond 1975; Buchanan
1979; Recher et al. 1986; Buchanan 1989, p. 214-215; Dale et al. 2000; Hall et al.
2002). Others report that two or more reserves hold more species (Simberloff and Abele
1982; Zacharias and Brandes 1990) or more endangered or rare species (Jarvinen 1982;
Saetersdal 1994) than one reserve of the equivalent size. The number of species is
largely determined by habitat diversity: a large reserve is more likely to contain more
habitats than a small reserve, although a series of small reserves would cover more of
the heterogeneity in the landscape (Simberloff and Abele 1982). Honnay et al. (1999)
postulate that large patches are better buffered against disturbance and invasion, and
this factor, more than area per se, means patch size correlates with species diversity.
Larger reserves better preserve species with large space requirements and are more
likely to preserve entire ecosystems than smaller patches (Terborgh 1976; Whitcomb et
al. 1976).
In reality, reserve size is not readily increased in established urban environments and
small reserves are better than none. Small reserves, which Shafer (1995) defines as less
than 40 hectares, do have ecological value. They:
1. preserve taxa that can survive in small areas;
2. preserve species that may not be represented elsewhere;
3. act as ‘stepping stones’ between larger remnants, and
4. provide a core area for restoration projects and a source for local provenance
plant seeds (Whitcomb et al. 1976; Davis and Glick 1978; Laurance et al. 1997;
Farina 2000a; Shafer 1995).
Gilbert (1989) has found that people prefer small nature parks; they are perceived as
less threatening than large expanses of bushland. However, small reserves may require
intensive management (Shafer 1995).
Introduction
1.3.2.2
17
Shape and Edge Effect
Small reserves, and also irregularly shaped reserves, have relatively high perimeter to
area ratios (Figure 1.10). This can compromise the quality of the fragment as increased
edge creates an increased interface with rural or urban land uses. This introduces change
and disturbance to the remnant (Porteous 1993; Bastin and Thomas 1999; Honnay et al.
1999). Edge effects reported in the international literature include an increase in: solar
radiation; shade intolerant vegetation; numbers and abundances of exotic plant species;
predation from outside animals; wind force (causing tree mortality), and greater human
impacts, such as rubbish dumping, at the edges of remnants compared to the interior
(Laurance and Yensen 1991; Matlack 1993; Collinge 1996). These environmental
changes may be experienced for tens of metres into the remnant (Collinge 1996). Larger
fragments will have a greater ‘core’ area protected from external influences than smaller
fragments (Saunders et al. 1991). For example, if edge effects extend 50 metres into a
patch, then a 1 hectare patch would be 100% edge effected, a 10 hectare patch would
have 53% of the area as edge, and a 100 hectare patch would be 19% edge (Collinge
1996; Figure 1.10). These edge effects are largely known from research undertaken in
Europe and North America, and are not necessarily applicable in the Australian context.
Most vegetation types in Australia are already structurally open to solar radition and
wind, so there is unlikely to be a decrease in ‘shade-loving’ plant species or increased
rates of wind throw and structural damage at edge environments. Tropical closed forests
are an exception (see Laurance 1997). Edge effects that have been reported for
Australian urban bushlands include: increased weed cover (Hobbs 1991; Morgan 1998;
Rose 1997a,b; Rose and Fairweather 1997); a larger number of weed species (Morgan
1998) and greater anthropogenic disturbance generally (Rose and Fairweather 1997) at
the edge environment than interior.
1.3.2.3
Connectivity and Isolation
The degree of connectivity among vegetation patches in a fragmented environment is
also discussed as a determinant of the long-term viability of remnant vegetation.
Connectivity is the degree to which patches are linked within a fragmented landscape.
Connectivity defines the level of biotic movement among patches, which in turn
influences the inter-breeding, dispersal and the resilience of the populations of flora and
fauna species within patches (Saunders et al. 1991). Connectivity within a landscape
may be through (a) corridors, or (b) proximity to neighbouring patches (Figure 1.11).
Chapter One
18
Corridors are linear strips of vegetation that differ from the extensive matrix in which
they are embedded, e.g. suburbia (Dobson et al. 1999). Also termed landscape linkages,
corridors link otherwise isolated remnant patches, allowing for movement of plants and
animals among remnants, and if in adequate condition, can also provide habitat
(discussed in Saunders and Hobbs 1991; reviewed in Collinge 1996). While it is widely
agreed that corridors improve genetic flow and dispersal, narrow linear vegetation
patches are likely to be highly affected by edge effects (Figures 1.10, 1.11), and can
also facilitate the movement and spread of non-native species. The proximity to
neighbouring patches also defines the level of connectivity of a patch – or, inversely,
the degree of isolation (Figure 1.11). Small patches between large patches decreases
patch isolation within a fragmented landscape, again highlighting the value of small
patches.
To summarise, the major hypotheses tested regarding patch size, shape and connectivity
are:
1. species richness increases with patch area;
2. species abundance/density increases with patch area;
3. edge effects influence patch ecology and are enhanced by small patch size and
irregular shape, and
4. corridors and connectivity enhance movement and increase species richness
within patches.
However, results from research into the effects of fragmentation on patch ecology have
yielded inconsistent results. Debinski and Holt (2000) reviewed twenty experimentallybased research papers on the effects of fragmentation and noted remarkable
inconsistency in results. Increased species richness with increased patch size was
supported by only six of 14 studies and species abundances decreased in six of 13
studies. Positive effects of corridors and connectivity on movement and species richness
was the only consistently supported hypothesis (Debinski and Holt 2000). It is difficult
to differentiate the effects of fragmentation on species numbers and abundances from
other underlying factors, such as: confounding effects of size, shape, edge and isolation;
differential responses for different taxa, such as transient or genereralist species;
differential relaxation times for species; flow on effects; past history of sites; natural
disturbance regimes, and natural landscape heterogeneity. In other words: the specific
effects of fragmentation often can not be elucidated due to inherent biocomplexity in
the systems being studied.
Introduction
19
100 ha
32% edge
1 ha
all edge
10 ha
53% edge
100 ha
19% edge
Patch
Edge habitat
Interior/core
Figure 1.10. Relationship between patch size, shape and edge habitat area, for edge
effects assumed to extend 50 m into patch. As patch size increases, the relative
proportion of edge effected area decreases and core area increases. A square patch
retains larger core area than a rectangular patch of the same area. (Adapted from
Collinge 1996).
20
Chapter One
Isolated
Less isolated
Corridor
Patch
Edge habitat
Connected
Interior/core
Figure 1.11. Connectivity. This diagram represents two patches that are (a) isolated, (b)
less isolated than in the first example and (c) connected by a corridor. Edge and core
areas are shown. (Adapted from Collinge 1996).
1.3.2.4
Patch Surroundings and Urban Intensity
Land uses surrounding the patch (the ‘fragment context’) will also influence the
condition and long-term sustainability of a vegetation remnant (Hobbs 1988; Collinge
1996). The bushland ecosystem will be influenced by the ‘type intensity, and degree of
dissimilarity of habitat types, land uses and human activities adjacent’ (Collinge 1996).
Level of urbanisation is not a measurable scale, and studies that have examined the
effect of urban intensity or level of urbanisation on natural ecosystems generally use
surrogate measures, such as population density or density of road networks, but more
often, a comparison among inner urban, suburban, rural-urban fringe and rural areas
(e.g. Davis and Glick 1978; Gilfedder and Kirkpatrick 1998; Williams et al. 2005).
Studies over time have found that increased urbanisation has detrimental effects on the
native vegetation in terms of causing floristic changes (Kirkpatrick 1974), such as
Introduction
21
increased numbers and proportions of non-native species and losses of native species
(Rudnicky and McDonnell 1989; Robinson et al. 1994). Given the usually short-term
nature of research, a temporal study of the effects of increasing urban intensity on
natural ecosystems is not always an option. To overcome this a number of researchers
have measured the effects of urbanisation along an urban to rural gradient (a space-fortime substitution method). As urban areas tend to have a dense core, surrounded by
rings of less dense development, the gradient paradigm can be used to analyse effects of
increasing urbanisation on ecosystems. Urbanisation brings a progressive decline in
species diversity and domination by invader species with broad niches, and these effects
are greatest in the reserves closer to the city centre (Davis and Glick 1978; Whitney and
Adams 1980, cited in Adams 1994). Gilfedder and Kirkpatrick (1998) found that, in 200
remnants in Tasmania, exotic species richness was higher for remnants in urban than
rural areas. Urban-rural gradient studies from New York City to rural Connecticut
found a number of ecosystem changes in natural forest stands (Figure 1.12).
Urban
Suburban
Rural
● Human population density
● Percent of forested land
● Traffic volumes
● Forest patch size
● Percent of built-up land
● Depth, mass, density leaf litter
● Average temperatures, by 2-3oC
● Plant species diversity
● Soil hydrophobicity
● Soil micro-invertebrates
● Levels of lead, copper, nickel
● Fungal abundances
● Stem densities
● Better air quality
● Rates of litter decomposition and nitrification
Figure 1.12. Characteristics of vegetation communities along an urban-to-rural gradient
from New York City to rural Connecticut in the U.S.A. (Kostel-Hughes et al. 1998;
McDonnell and Pickett 1990; McDonnell et al. 1997; Pouyat et al. 1997).
22
Chapter One
An issue with the urban-rural gradient approach is that rural is often considered natural
(e.g. in Porter et al. 2001) when in fact rural landscapes are also human-dominated.
Rather than simply expressed as distance from the city centre, urban intensity (or
intensity of human domination in a landscape) can be measured by other factors such as
demographic, socio-economic and cultural factors (McIntyre et al. 2000).
1.3.2.5
Patch Disturbance
While all ecosystems are subjected to disturbance, being located in an urban
environment means urban bushlands are especially subjected to anthropogenic
disturbances. White and Pickett (1985, cited in Rebele 1994) define disturbance as:
a relatively discrete event which suddenly disrupts the structure of an
ecosystem, community or population, changing either the availability
of resources or the physical environment.
Natural disturbance events, such as storms and fires, are important components of
ecosystems, and many plant species and communities are dependent on disturbance for
regeneration (Hobbs and Huenneke 1992). Anthropogenic disturbance differs from
natural disturbance in severity, extension and frequency, and thus cannot be adapted to
by the ecosystem in the same way as ecosystems adjust to natural disturbance events
(Farina 2000a). Anthropogenic disturbance can be indirect, such as altered soil
conditions or climate; or modified natural disturbance, such as changed fire regime; or
direct human disturbance, including vegetation removal or trampling (Hobbs 1991;
Farina 2000a). Deleterious effects can result from both excessive and insufficient
disturbance, for instance too frequent fires or fire suppression can lead to changes in
plant composition (Everett and Lehmkuhl 1999). Disturbance can alter the natural
processes and attributes of an ecosystem, such as colonisation, competition, predation,
species diversity, productivity and stability. Overall, the biodiversity and social values
of the remnant are likely to be compromised by anthropogenic disturbances. However,
the idea that disturbance is always detrimental may be a myth. In their research into
vegetation condition of 200 bushland remnants in Tasmania, Gilfedder and Kirkpatrick
(1998) surmised that the remnants with moderate levels of disturbance (grazing and
fire) were often those in the best condition. Anthropogenic disturbance to native
vegetation is by no means a recent phenomenon brought about by urbanisation
Introduction
23
(Kirkpatrick 1994). Humans have been affecting the Australian native vegetation for
over 40 000 years. In the Australian cities, remnant vegetation has had a history of both
Aboriginal influence (firing practices, hunting and gathering) and colonial use (grazing,
agriculture and logging).
Many of the current anthropogenic disturbance factors in urban natural ecosystems are
similar in urban areas worldwide. These include changed fire regimes, weed invasion,
pedestrian, animal and vehicular traffic, intrusion by domestic and feral animals, storm
water runoff, lowered water tables, dumped rubbish, people removing plants and other
bushland objects and impacts resultant from children’s play (Figures 1.13-1.15; Bagnall
1979; Hobbs 1991; Scheltema 1995; Swenson and Franklin 2000). Each of these
disturbances impacts on bushlands (Table 1.1). Most ecosystems experience multiple
disturbances and rather than being additive, multiple disturbances are likely to work in
synergism (Hobbs and Huenneke 1992).
Figure 1.13. The effect of childrens’ play.
Children have broken tree branches to build a Sami-style cubby house in a suburban native forest in
Forus, Stavanger, Norway.
24
Chapter One
Figure 1.14. A stormwater drain entering an A-Class reserve in Perth.
The stormwater flow from a drain (left) has scoured away the soil and vegetation, and weeds line the
edges of the area that has been scoured (right).
Figure 1.15. Dumped garden refuse in an urban bushland.
Dumped garden refuse has caused exotic plants to grow in this remnant patch of forest, Forusskogen
(Forus woods) in the suburb of Forus, in Stavanger, Norway. This is not so troublesome as dumped
garden refuse in Australia, as the snow and frosts of winter will kill the exotic plants before they can
spread.
Introduction
25
Table 1.1. Effects of anthropogenic disturbances known to occur in urban bushlands
Disturbance
Changed fire
regimes
Impacts on Bushlands




Invading
Weeds

Pedestrian,
animal and
vehicular
traffic

Domestic
and feral
animals









Stormwater
runoff
Dumped
rubbish
Dieback
Disease








Temporarily boosts soil nutrients1 which can encourage weed growth
Frequent fire found to:
- cause decline in available phosphous in long term1
- negatively impact plant species diversity2, 3
- change species composition, cause progressive damage to trees, reduce
weakly regeneating species, increase weed species in woodlands4
Fire exclusion in ecosystems adapted to fire found to:
be associated with higher weed cover than burnt areas in grasslands5
- favour excessive spread of weedy native Pittosporum3
- change species composition6
Different seasons of fire favour different species, so repeated burning in
same season may change species composition7, 8
Prevents successful recruitment of indigenous species, alters composition
and community structure, increases competition for resources alters
biogeochemical and hydrological cycles, changes fuel dynamics, detracts
from aethetics1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
Strips away leaf litter and humus, compacts soil surface which restricts root
exploration and increases seedling mortality14, 15, 16
Introduces weed seeds1
Disturbs soil and causes erosion, which can favour weeds1
Spreads disease1
Damages plant cover, especially ground cover 17, 18 and creates openings
which allows weeds to invade and establish6
Eradicates ground flora and seedlings18
People remove soil, mulch, rocks and plants, and graffiti trees and rocks19, 20
Cats, dogs and foxes are known to consume small native animals, including
mammals, birds and insects20, 21, 22
Horse riding can destroy understorey vegetation, disturb soil, cause,
erosion and spread weeds23, 24
Stock grazing compacts soil, reduces palatable grasses, forbs, shrubs and
trees, faeces introduce weeds and increase soil nutrient levels1
Increased total soil phosphorus25, 26
Increased phosphorus concentration in leaves27
Increased water and nutrients facilitate weed establishment25, 28
Increases erosion and siltation along existing drainage lines20
Increased levels of lead, copper and phosphorus28
Unsightly and smothers and breaks native plants29
Garden rubbish introduces weed seeds and stems and plant nutrients, all of
which encourage weed growth29, 30
Kills plants by rotting their roots, especially Banksia spp. and Xanthorrhoea
spp.31
Key to references cited in Table 1.1: 1- Hitchmough 1994; 2 - Bradstock et al. 1995; 3 - Clark and
McLoughlin 1986; 4 - Baird 1977; 5 - Lunt and Morgan 1999; 6 - Hobbs and Huenneke 1992; 7 McLoughlin 1998; 8 - Roche et al. 1998; 9 - Carr et al. 1992; 10 - Cochrane 2001; 11 - Looker 1996; 12 Muyt 2001; 13 - Vitousek 1990; 14 - Florgard 2000; 15 - Matlack 1993; 16 - Wycherley 1997; 17 Littlemore and Barker 2001; 18 - Malmivaara et al. 2002; 19 - Bagnall 1979; 20 - Buchanan 1979; 21 Brunner et al. 1991; 22 - Wallis et al. 1996; 23 - Gobby 1977; 24 - Weaver and Adams 1996; 25 Leishman 1990; 26 - Clements 1983; 27 - Lambert and Turner 1987; 28 - Riley and Banks 1996; 29 Buchanan 1989, p. 226; 30 - Hobbs 1995; 31 - Bailey 1995.
26
Chapter One
Weeds warrant additional attention in this discussion on human-caused disturbance, as
they are a particularly well-researched yet complex component of Australian bushland
ecosystems. To first give a definition, in this thesis weeds are considered to be all
species that are non-indigenous at a site, whether they are aggressive or passive species.
In the context of disturbance, weeds have a dual status. Weed invasion is a response to
disturbance, and some authors suggest that disturbance is a requirement for weed
establishment (Fox and Fox 1986; Rose 1997; Hobbs 2000). Hobbs (2000) states that
while disturbance is a natural component of ecosystems, human alteration of
disturbance regimes and introduction of new disturbance types produces changed
settings and increased opportunities for weed invasion. Weeds are also a disturbance
factor in bushlands. They suppress native plants and reduce native plant recruitment
(Carr et al. 1992; Cochrane 2001; Table 1.1). Weeds are a common problem in urban
bushlands. For instance, Looker (1996) estimates that 70% of bushlands in the Perth
area are affected by weeds, and that 50% of Perth bushlands are ‘overrun’ by weeds.
The above discussion on patch ecology, including patch characteristics, the influence of
the urban environment, and disturbance within patches, leads to the first specific
objective of the thesis. Patch ecology theory has not been well tested in relation to
bushlands within Australian metropolitan regions. One hypothesis that lacks testing is
that: ‘vegetation will be more fragmented in the more highly urbanised areas of a city’.
In other words, is there a relationship between patch characteristics (size, shape,
isolation and edge effect) and urban density within a metropolitan region? Research
gaps also exist regarding anthropogenic disturbances affecting urban bushlands. In
Australia, apart from research into weeds and fire, much of the information in the
literature on anthropogenic disturbance in urban bushlands has come from experiential
knowledge from researchers and practitioners (e.g. Buchanan 1989; Scheltema and
Harris 1995). Some critical questions remain unanswered by scientific research. Are
certain human-caused disturbances more prevalent than others in urban bushlands? How
does disturbance relate to patterns of fragmentation and urban density? A second
hypothesis emerges: ‘highly fragmented patches are also more highly disturbed’.
Thus, the first specific objective of the thesis is: to test principles and theories of
fragmentation and patch ecology for the urban bushland context. Due to time and
resource constraints, this objective will be researched only in one city, the Perth
Introduction
27
metropolitan region. To investigate the relationship between fragmentation, patch
characteristics, disturbance and urban intensity in bushlands within the metropolitan
region, the research uses multiple factors to measure ‘urban intensity’, such as
population density, length of time the patches have been surrounded by urban land uses,
the type of urban land uses surrounding patches, and distance from city centre.
1.3.2.6
Patch Condition
It follows that anthropogenic disturbances, such as those outlined in the preceding
section, will affect the condition of an urban bushland. Studies into the effects of
urbanisation, fragmentation and disturbance on remnants tend to focus on species
diversity, keystone species or special interest species (especially avifauna) (e.g. Honnay
et al. 1999; Park and Lee 2000; Gibb and Hochuli 2002; Crooks et al. 2004). However,
gauging the overall, or total, condition of a bushland fragment involves more than a
single-species focus. The literature on ecosystem condition or vegetation condition (also
‘health’, ‘integrity’ or ‘quality’) asserts there is more to consider than species diversity
or indicator species alone when assessing and monitoring biodiversity and ecosystem
condition. Scientists are finding that natural systems are ‘more than the sum of their
parts, having properties that emerge from the network as a whole’, so a single species
approach may not capture the inherent bio-complexity embedded in natural ecosystems
(Williams and Martinez 2000; Frood 2001). Without this detail, how can scientists
know which human activities are having the greatest detrimental effects on ecosystems?
(Frood 2001). Dale and Beyeler (2001) write that ecological indicators used to measure
condition should ‘capture the complexities of the ecosystem yet remain simple enough
to be easily and routinely monitored’ and should include compositional, structural and
functional elements of biodiversity (Noss 1990, 1999; Dale and Beyeler 2001; Oliver
2002). Farina (2000b) provides a set of indicators to measure ecosystem integrity:
species composition and diversity; trophic composition; population density, and
tolerance to human impact. Groves (1998) suggests degradation from disturbance is
indicated by decline in litter accumulation rates, erosion, invasion by weedy plants,
decreased perennial cover and increased annuals, and an increase in resprouter species.
The choice of indicators will depend on the vegetation type and the aims of the
assessment (Oliver et al. 2002). Other studies have assessed the condition of remnant
vegetation by comparison to ‘benchmark’ sites, which closely represent original,
undisturbed vegetation of the same community type (Parkes et al. 2003). While this
28
Chapter One
approach has value in avoiding subjective, judgement-based assessments of condition it
may not be applicable in an urban setting where every vegetation fragment has been
influenced by human activities to some extent. In this regard, Oliver et al. (2002)
promote the ‘need to assess the value, for biodiversity conservation, of what we have
rather than what we once had’. As well as these methodological complexities there can
be difficulty in determining what causes differences in vegetation condition among
different areas, and in separating the effects of management, disturbance or site
attributes (e.g. Gilfedder and Kirkpatrick 1998; Eldridge and Koen 2003). Condition
may also be a factor of time; affected by historical conditions and events or even lag
effects, and place; and affected by landscape heterogeneity (Dale et al. 2000).
Condition assessments have been used to investigate the effects of disturbance in
agricultural settings (e.g. Jansen and Robertson 2001) and in aquatic ecosystems (see
Rapport et al. 1998). However, there is a lack of research into the effects of
anthropogenic disturbance on the condition of bushlands in urban areas – where
disturbances are likely to be numerous and intense. Information on which disturbances
are affecting the vegetation, or which elements of the vegetation are most susceptible to
damage from disturbance, and even whether anthropogenic disturbances are impacting
bushlands, may assist bushland managers to prioritise which disturbances to minimise,
and how to retain high-quality vegetation condition.
This review of anthropogenic disturbance and vegetation condition, and the complexity
involved in assessing vegetation condition leads to a second objective of the thesis.
Objective Two is to test the hypothesis that within bushland patches, localised areas
of high disturbance have poor vegetation condition, and to compare a qualitative
and a quantitative assessment of vegetation condition.
1.3.3
Local-level Environmental Management and Conservation
Environmental and natural resource management is taking place across Australia, and
internationally, in an effort to minimise harmful effects on the environment and to
protect biodiversity and ecosystem processes. Conservation and management are also
critical in order to maintain the values of urban bushlands. While national parks in
Introduction
29
Australia are managed by Federal and State government agencies, urban bushlands
generally fall under the care of local government and local communities.
Australia is a participant of a number of international conservation conventions, treaties
and agreements that relate to biodiversity conservation, and these have in turn led to
national policies and strategies for nature conservation (Conacher and Conacher 2000,
Chapter 6). One of the principles of The National Strategy for the Conservation of
Australia’s Biological Diversity (Commonwealth of Australia 1996) is to maintain the
wealth of biodiversity, and one strategy towards achieving this is to maintain and
protect natural ecosystems through a national system of protected areas. The
biodiversity ‘between’ protected areas is also important, such as locally significant
nature reserves and privately owned nature areas. Managing nature areas and ensuring
that people behave in a way that is consistent with conservation objectives is a
particularly challenging task (Furze et al. 1996). This has relevance in the urban
environment, where use of nature reserves can be heavy and result in disturbance (Table
1.1). To achieve ecological sustainability of vegetation fragments, the ecological
principles and guidelines stemming from landscape ecology must be incorporated into
planning (Taylor 1987; Bastin and Thomas 1999; Dale et al. 2000). In the highly
urbanised metropolitan regions, the ecological integrity of bushlands may need to be
maintained by management intervention. Thus, the development of urban ecology
principles, part of the aim of this thesis, will contribute to planning and management
strategies for urban bushlands.
In a human-dominated environment, it is not always realistic to retain bushlands solely
for conservation purposes to the point of exclusion of humans. Protection and
management of bushlands in the urban environment is usually for a dual purpose; 1)
biodiversity and ecosystem conservation, and 2) human use. Management for human
use often involves providing recreation opportunities and also requires management of
inappropriate activities in urban reserves, such as rubbish dumping or trail bike riding.
Evidence suggests that multipurpose sites (i.e. for nature and recreation) help divert
vandalism and promote community ownership of the reserve as they allow for complete
involvement with the environment (Gilbert 1989).
Society has become disenchanted with the traditional top-down approach to
environmental management, which is exclusionary, reductionist and provides inflexible
30
Chapter One
and unsuccessful results in addressing current environmental issues (Grumbine 1994;
Cortner 2000; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Likewise, recent decades have seen
increased community expectations for greater community involvement in biodiversity
conservation (Australian National Audit Office 1997). New forms of management,
including Integrated Resource Management (Bellamy et al. 1999; Bellamy and Johnson
2000; Chenoweth et al. 2002); Ecosystem Management (Grumbine 1994, 1997; Holling
1996; Stanford and Poole 1996) and Adaptive Management (Allan 2003; Hobbs 2003)
advocate: a decentralised, proactive, flexible, holistic and multidisciplinary approach to
management; consideration of uncertainty and risk, and a commitment to
understanding, support and inclusion of local communities. Indeed, environmental
management has seen a trend towards devolution of roles and responsibilities from
Federal and State governments to local levels in Australia (Australian National Audit
Office 1997) and worldwide (Gibbs and Jonas 2000; Lane 2003; Lane et al. in press).
Decentralisation of environmental management should improve resource allocation,
efficiency, accountability and equity (Larson 2002; Lane 2003). While much has been
written on decentralised management of natural resources, it mainly concerns
community management rather than local government management (Larson 2002).
Integrative and inclusive approaches have been embraced by the Australian
Government: a key objective of The Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 is to promote cooperative approaches among governments, the
community and landholders to protect and manage the environment. Management of
bushlands in urban Australia has been subject to government decentralisation and
community inclusion. However, there has been little academic analysis of bushland
management by local governments and communities for the Australian cities (as
discussed in Section 1.1).
1.3.3.1
Local Government Urban Bushland Protection and Management
In Australia, the Federal government has little direct influence in the protection and
management of urban bushlands, while a strong case can be made for the importance of
local government’s role in biodiversity protection and management. Local government
has extended its role from being ‘essentially road-making agencies’ (Purdie 1976, p. 16)
and has taken on environmental management and sustainable development in the last
two decades (Conacher and Conacher 2000, p. 320). Local government is the
government level closest to the community and should know the community’s needs. At
Introduction
31
the same time, it is easier for the community to hold its local government accountable
than higher levels of government (Larson 2002). Local government expenditure in
Australia is significantly higher than the other governmental spheres, in both
comparative and absolute terms (Binning et al. 1999; Wild River 2003). For example, in
2000, local government expenditure on natural resource and environmental
management totalled $3400 million (27% of their total spending) compared with
$2400 million by state governments (2% of their total expenditures) and $650 million
by the Federal government (0.4% of their total expenditure). Local government is a key
player in environmental management in Australia (Woodhill 1996), yet little
independent research has been undertaken in the area of local government management
of urban bushlands.
1.3.3.2
Local Government Role: the Rhetoric
The role of local government in biodiversity conservation is recognised internationally
(for example in Agenda 21: UNCED 1992), and at all levels of government in
Australia. Both the National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia’s Biological
Diversity (Commonwealth of Australia 1996) and Australia’s National Report to the
Fourth Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity
(Commonwealth of Australia 1998) recognise that biological diversity conservation
should be an important goal of local government. However, in Australia, local
government responsibilities have not had constitutional recognition and the Federal
government has no direct powers over local government (Wild River 2003). The main
area of influence from the Federal government has been through the Bushcare program,
established in the 1990s and administrated by the Natural Heritage Trust. Bushcare
aims to ‘… help build the capacity of communities and organisations to manage native
vegetation better’ (Environment Australia 2002). Bushcare provides local governments
with technical assistance and funding to develop and implement on-ground projects
through a) devolved grant schemes, b) Resource Officers within the Local Government
Association of each State and Territory and c) Bushcare Regional Facilitators and
Support Staff (Environment Australia 2002; Natural Heritage Trust and Environment
Australia n.d.). Local government also has a united voice in negotiations with State and
Federal governments, through the Australian Local Government Association and
Statewide associations (Wild River 2003).
32
Chapter One
Local government ‘has evolved as the creature of State governments’ (Purdie 1976, p.
ix), with the role of local government defined in the legislation of each state. The
adoption of new Local Government Acts since 1989 in all States resulted in increased
responsibilities, accountability and competitive efficiency imposed on local
governments (Wild River 2003). However, there has not been matching financial
support from the States (Wild River 2003). The Local Government Acts of Western
Australia, Queensland, South Australia and Victoria provide for local government roles
and powers to be broad and relatively undefined, which allows for a role in vegetation
conservation (Cripps et al. 1999). For example, in Western Australian legislation ‘there
are no specific regulations in the Local Government Act 1995 that require action from
Local Governments in relation to bushland management. … however, there are
provisions that enable action’ (Western Australian Municipal Association nd, p. 10).
This broad grant of power is limited by other state legislation (Cripps et al. 1999).
Legislative requirements of local government are greatest in New South Wales. The
NSW Local Government Act 1993, unlike the Acts of the other States, is prescriptive
and outlines specific powers granted to local government. The Act requires NSW local
governments to: produce a State of the Environment Report yearly; report on
environmental programs undertaken, and prepare a yearly, publicly displayed plan of
management for community land, which includes bushlands. NSW local governments
are also usually the consent authority for development applications under the NSW
Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 and the NSW Threatened Species
Conservation Act 1995.
In 2000, the Government of Western Australia endorsed Bush Forever; a strategic plan
aiming to protect 287 ‘regionally significant’ bushland sites in the Perth metropolitan
area. Local governments have been implicated in the process as many of the Bush
Forever sites are vested in them. The Perth Biodiversity Project (2002) found that 37%
of bushland managed by local government was ‘regionally significant,’ yet no special
funding from State government was provided for this. Furthermore, Bush Forever does
not include ‘locally significant’ bushland, and the onus for locally significant bushland
protection and management falls on local government, again with neither funding nor
promises of legislative assistance from the State government. Regarding responsibility
for locally significant bushland, ‘Local government is concerned about its ability to
Introduction
33
actively take on this responsibility due to limited resources and technical expertise’
(Western Australian Municipal Association n.d., p. 10).
With the release of the National Local Government Biodiversity Strategy, local
government itself has also recognised that it has a role in biodiversity management
(Australian Local Government Association & Biological Diversity Advisory Council
1999). The National General Assembly of Local Governments unanimously endorsed
the Strategy in 1998. The Australian Local Government Association (2003) asserts that
‘all local governments in Australia … make a significant contribution to the
management and protection of Australia’s natural resources.’
1.3.3.3
Local Government: Potential Actions in Biodiversity Management and
Conservation
There is a number of ways in which local governments have become involved in
environmental management. In relation to natural lands planning and management,
local governments can (or do):

set the development criteria of land, or directly protect remnant vegetation,
via zoning (Dale et al. 2000; Western Australian Municipal Association
n.d.);

undertake land use planning, policy development and development control
(Australian Local Government Association & Biological Diversity Advisory
Council 1999; Binning et al. 1999);

manage native vegetation vested in them (Binning et al. 1999; Ruliffson et
al. 2003; Wild River 2003);

acquire natural lands for biodiversity protection (Press et al. 1996);

control weeds, feral animals and fires (Wild River 2003);

make by-laws to prevent people from undertaking actions that would harm
bushlands (e.g. to prevent rubbish dumping or four wheel driving in
reserves);

raise revenue for bushland acquisition or management, with special levies
(although in most states this requires permission from the State government)
or developer contributions (Cripps et al. 1999; Bateson 2000);
34
Chapter One

liaise with environmental planning and management departments in State
and Federal government, as well as with other individual local governments
and
local
government
associations
(Australian
Local
Government
Association & Biological Diversity Advisory Council 1999; Wild River
2003);

encourage voluntary conservation by private landholders through incentive
and education programs, such as covenanting, grants, or rate rebates
(Binning et al. 1999; Cripps et al. 1999; Bateson 2000; Loew 2000), and

foster and nurture local sympathies for nature, work face to face with the
community in environmental management, and facilitate community group
management through grants, devolved funds and in-kind support (Press et al.
1996; Cripps et al. 1999; Wild River 2003).
Despite the great potential and rhetoric regarding local government’s role in
biodiversity management, some concerns have been raised. This includes chronic
resource shortages (Wild River 2003). Local governments may have less technical
capacity and understanding of natural resource management than higher-level
government agencies (Woodhill 1996; Larson 2002). Woodhill (1996) raises the
concern that many local governments cover too small an area to deal with wider
environmental issues. Larson (2002) has analysed local government environmental
management in a number of developing countries, and has identified three key factors
for local governments to be good natural resource managers: capacity (financial and
human resources); incentive (pressure from society and other parties or financial
incentive), and interest (for instance in certain projects). Concerning urban local
governments in the U.S.A., Press et al. (1996) found that local government capacity is
related to: policies; administrative capacity; political culture and demographics, and
sources of funding. Similar research is required to understand what planning and
management is being undertaken by local government in Australia for urban bushlands,
and to identify the capacity for urban local governments’ involvement in bushland
conservation.
Approximately 170 of Australia’s 638 local governments are in metropolitan regions
(Australian Local Government Association 2000) - yet there has not been a substantive
discussion in the literature pertaining specifically to local government planning,
protection and management of urban bushlands. Issues relating to local government
Introduction
35
bushland management in urban Australia have been reported on by some nongovernment groups (Mather and Laurence 1993; Webb 1996; Gray 1999) and
government organisations (Australian Local Government Association 2000; Perth
Biodiversity Project 2002). Issues identified include funding, staff expertise, policy, and
implementation of plans. A comparison of different local authorities in Australian cities
is required to determine whether local government actions in biodiversity conservation
match the rhetoric, and to provide a stronger understanding of the process of
decentralisation. This thesis looks to fill this research need. There is great variation in
area, population, finances and roles of local governments in Australia, both among
cities and urban and rural regions (Bowman 1976; Wild River 2003). It is expected that
local government capacity and roles in bushland management will also vary among and
within cities.
The third objective of the thesis stems from the gaps in the literature that have been
outlined above. To reiterate, there is strong potential and rhetoric regarding the role of
local governments in bushland management, in this time of decentralised natural
resource management, however, it is thought that local governments have low financial
and technical capacity to undertake such a role. There is a lack of research into bushland
protection and management by local governments in the Australian cities. This leads to
the third thesis objective, to test the hypothesis that local government does not have
sufficient capacity to manage and conserve local bushlands, in major Australian
cities.
1.3.3.4
Community Participation in Environmental and Natural Resource
Management
In the words of Press et al. (1996), ‘… habitat conservation is always, in the end, a local
land-use matter and thus requires local support’. Decentralisation goes further than
devolution of roles and responsibilities to the local government sphere. It includes
mobilisation and partnerships with local communities (Dahiya and Pugh 2000; Lane
2003).
Community participation in environmental management and conservation comes under
different names; ‘community natural resource management’ (Kellert et al. 2000),
‘participatory conservation’ (Utting 2000), ‘participatory environmental management’
36
Chapter One
(Kapoor 2001) or ‘community-based conservation’ (Stoll-Kleemann and O’Riordan
2001). All of these terms describe environmental management that combines local
and/or traditional values and knowledge with State or national interests, as well as
reconciling multiple, and often conflicting, points of view (Kellert et al. 2000).
Community participation requires sharing of power and responsibility among
government authorities, community groups and the wider community (Chenoweth et al.
2002). The literature debates what is meant by ‘community’ (Brown 2002; Lenaghan
1999) and in many case studies on community participation the term is ill-defined. Ross
et al. (2002, p. 207) provide a useful description of what community is in relation to
community participation:
[the term community] encompasses the public in general, identified
spatial communities (people of a particular locality or region), and
‘communities of interest’, such as conservationists.
‘Community’, in relation to community participation in urban bushland management,
refers to ‘communities of interest’, inclusive of local residents, conservationists,
scientists and any other people who actively seek to influence bushland management. It
generally refers to the involvement of people outside of government bodies involved in
management, such as a local government or state agency, but may include government
staff, as these individuals are members of the community as well as members of
governmental structures.
Community participation aims to combine local, traditional and ecological knowledge
and values with scientific management, to produce more environmentally sustainable
endeavours. Sustainable development and environmental sustainability are widely
discussed concepts in international research and policy literature. Regarding the theme
of urban ecology, sustainable development refers to the addition of ecological and
social-cultural factors to the traditional economic focus in planning and development in
the city (Yli-Pelkonen and Nimelä in press). Environmental sustainability, in regard to
native vegetation fragments in the urban environment, refers to both managing the
impacts from the surrounding urban matrix and human use of bushlands, and planning
to legally protect bushlands, increase connectivity and decrease fragmentation effects,
with the aim of achieving long-term viability of bushland ecosystems.
Introduction
37
Community-level management is appropriate given that the community is in close
proximity to environmental problems (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Community
participation allows for incorporation of local knowledge and integration of multiple
interests and values (Glicken 2000; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Involving the
community builds local ownership of and commitment to environmentally sustainable
practices, and the community is more likely to support management decisions and
actions when they have been a part of the process (Bamberger 1986; Lenaghan 1999;
Kapoor 2001; Stoll-Kleeman and O’Riordon 2002). Participation increases community
trust in the responsible authority and bridges the gap between community and
government (Kasperson 1974; Lenaghan 1999). It is also a democratic necessity:
citizens have a right to be included in the decisions and actions that affect the
environment in which they live (Lenaghan 1999; Stoll-Kleeman and O’Riordon 2002).
Furthermore, the environmental issues and problems evident today are too great to be
resolved by governments alone (Safstrom and O’Byrne 2001).
This illustrates the value of community participation to environmental quality,
management bodies and society. However, what motivates individuals to participate?
O’Riordan (1976, Chapter 7) theorises that given a particular environmental issue, there
will be (i) some people who are not aware of the issue, others who resign themselves to
the outcome as they are either (ii) ‘political fatalists’, or (iii) lazy, and (iv) people who
will seek to do something about the issue. The active person may be driven by personal
and selfish reasons (a vested interest) and their participation is specific to that issue.
These ‘private actors’, writes O’Riordan (1976), form ‘expressive (or goal achieving)
groups’ who aim to remove the threat. Alternatively, ‘ideological actors’ become active
participators because of their intellectual and moral motives. They focus on broader and
less immediate issues than the ‘private actor’ and form ‘instrumental (means orientated)
groups’ with the objective of improving the decision-making or management process.
They fight to change the system. In between these two extremes is the ‘civic actor’ who
is motivated by a more altruistic concern for the community, although their own selfinterest is also a motivator. They may be found in an expressive or instrumental group.
Community participation has been found to benefit the participants (Kasperson 1974).
As well as satisfaction in environmental results, volunteers are rewarded with higher
self-esteem and confidence, increased learning and skill development, bonding and
camaraderie with group members, and a stronger feeling of connection with their
38
Chapter One
community (Argyle 1996; Arai and Pedlar 1997; Miles et al. 1998; Curtis 2000; Ryan et
al. 2001).
Community-based groups have been active in urban bushlands since the 1960s when the
Bradley sisters began bush regeneration in Sydney (Buchanan 1989, p. 7; Bridgman et
al. 1995, p. 121). Rees and Smith (1996) estimate that in 1994/5 there were 4790
volunteers in 468 groups working in Sydney’s bushlands. O’Byrne (pers. comm. 2003)
estimates that there were around 300 such groups in Perth in 2003. The total number of
volunteers and community-based groups active in urban bushlands Australia-wide is not
recorded in the literature, but is likely to be in the range of thousands. Groups are
commonly called Friends Groups or Bushcare groups, but the less exclusionary term
‘community bushland care group’ is used in this thesis. For the purposes of this thesis,
the working definition of a community bushland care group is: a community-based
group of volunteers, usually formed spontaneously and autonomously, usually working
at a local and small scale (such as one bushland remnant), and often with on-ground
action. On-ground works include weeding, rubbish removal, tree planting and erosion
control (Rees and Smith 1996; Stenhouse 2001). Groups generally work on public land,
which in many cases is vested in local government.
Community bushland care groups may be considered ‘volunteer environmental
stewardship groups’, defined by Donald (1997) as ‘groups who participate in activities
that contribute to the protection or restoration of a special area or feature of the natural
environment by people who give their time and effort on a voluntary basis’. They also
fit to Bamberger’s (1986) description of community groups that form independently of
outside assistance (with the exception of some groups which are formed by local
government initiative). In the ‘lateral ladder’ of community participation in Australian
natural resource management, provided by Ross et al. (2002), community bushland care
groups, like Landcare groups, come under the category of ‘community collective
activity’, which describes groups as self-selected volunteers, managing land not
necessarily owned by the group members, and frequently with on-ground strategies.
The Australian Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 states
the importance of community inclusion in environmental management, and
governments alone clearly do not have the resources to tackle environmental problems
(Safstrom and O’Byrne 2001). The community has an expectation of involvement in
Introduction
39
environmental issues (Australian National Audit Office 1997) and community
participation has many societal and environmental values. For these and other reasons,
it is important to foster and support community-based urban bushland management.
Fostering community groups requires an understanding of why people are willing to
contribute their time to conservation and what factors support or discourage continued
volunteering.
This section has outlined the importance of community participation in natural resource
management, and has discussed the benefits of volunteering. Community participation
is especially important in conserving and managing urban bushlands. The fourth aim of
this thesis is to test concepts related to community participation and volunteering,
for the urban bushland context.
1.3.3.5
Community-Government Partnerships in Environmental and Natural
Resource Management
Local government is the level of governance closest to the community, and has a ‘vital
role in educating and mobilising the public towards biodiversity conservation and
protection’ (Commonwealth of Australia 1998, p. 50). Local government has been
drawn into collaboration with community groups because groups looked to their local
council for guidance and resource, or due to the local government’s legal concerns over
having volunteers on land vested in them, or from actively seeking bushland care
volunteers as a way of embracing community participation or obtaining additional
labour. Community bushland care groups may be similar to the description provided by
Thomas (1999, p. 544) of community-based catchment groups that rely on state/federal
agencies for support, and are ‘neither completely independent of these agencies nor
created and controlled by them’. Carr (2002) terms this meeting of ‘top-down’ efforts to
promote ‘bottom-up’ development the ‘middle ground approach’. This involves a
meeting of the ‘best of community and government approaches to environmental
management’ (Carr 2002, p. 220).
The community-local government relationship may be an example of what is termed
‘environmental partnerships’ or ‘collaborative partnerships’. After reviewing a number
of environmental partnership arrangements, Long and Arnold (1994, p. 6) used the
working definition:
40
Chapter One
… partnerships are voluntary collaborations between two or more
organisations with a jointly-defined agenda focused on a discrete,
attainable, and potentially measurable goal.
They further identify characteristics that distinguish ‘serious efforts’ from ‘window
dressing’:
1. seriousness of purpose on the part of all participants. Partners need to be willing
to change their behaviour if the outcomes of the partnership require it;
2. common goals between partners;
3. joint and full participation by each organisation in the partnership activities. This
does not mean equal resource inputs, but would exclude one-sided efforts;
4. a sustained level of mutual effort. Each partner should be willing to engage in
the learning process involved, and
5. action, rather than just information exchange (Long and Arnold 1994).
Moore and Koontz (2003) note that in collaborative partnership research there are many
unique cases and, given this and the newness of the phenomenon, theories about
partnerships cannot be definitive.
Partnerships are promoted for many reasons, all of which relate back to the values of
decentralised management and community participation. Partnerships also benefit the
government agencies involved, by boosting their public image (Long and Arnold 1994),
providing an enthusiastic, unpaid labour force (Timmins 1995), and providing staff with
new perspectives from community input (Moore and Koontz 2003). The community
should benefit from increased power in the issue at stake.
A number of studies has investigated the success or failure of community-agency
partnerships, with much of the literature focusing on partnerships between communitybased watershed or catchment organisations and State and/or Federal agencies (e.g.
Thomas 1999; Leach and Pelkey 2001; Moore and Koontz 2003) and in Australia, on
partnerships between State government agencies and Landcare groups (Curtis and
DeLacy 1995; Curtis 1998; Ewing 1999; Curtis 2000; Curtis and Lockwood 2000; Carr
2002) and catchment management groups (Bellamy et al. 1999; Bellamy and Johnson
Introduction
41
2000). Partnership success or failure tends to be defined by outcomes (was consensus
reached, was the environment improved?) or by process (was the participation process
fair and representative?) (Chess and Purcell 1999; Leach and Pelkey 2001).
Leach and Pelkey (2001) reviewed forty studies published since 1990 and come to
conclusions on what makes watershed (catchment) partnerships work. Over one third of
the reviewed studies found the ‘keys to success’ were: funding; an effective coordinator
or facilitator; engagement in a limited scope of activities (although some studies found a
broad scope was important); diverse membership (although others found this was
problematic); cooperative and committed participants; mutual trust; participation by
skilled agency staff; well defined process rules, and adequate technical and scientific
information and understanding (Leach and Pelkey 2001). These factors have also been
identified in literature focusing on other types of community-government partnerships,
which has additionally identified the importance of: an empathetic management style
and strong, credible leadership by the management authority (Stoll-Kleeman and
O’Riordon 2002); time and energy to build strong relationships between the partners;
ability to manage turnover of people involved (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000); ‘careful
listening and clear communication’ (Carr 2002, p. 221); deep levels of commitment to
both outcomes and the partnership itself, and power sharing (Moore et al. 2001).
Kellert et al. (2000) write that the ‘reality often falls short of the rhetoric and promise of
community natural resource management’ due to the complexity of goals, interests and
organisational features involved. Drawbacks and reasons for failure in community
participation and collaborative partnerships have been comprehensively identified in the
literature. A number of the issues and problems identified could potentially relate to
community participation in urban local bushland management (Table 1.2).
The Australian literature on community-government partnerships in natural resource
management has focused on Landcare and catchment management groups. The
community-local government partnership in urban bushland care remains unexplored in
the research literature. Thus, the fifth and final objective of the thesis is to explore
community–government environmental management partnerships in relation to
local level bushland management in urban Australia.
42
Chapter One
Table 1.2. Problems and causes of failure in community-government partnerships and
community-based natural resource management, identified in Australian and
international literature
Problem
Causes of Problem
References
Demanding
process
Institutional
reticence


Intensive labour and time requirements
Continuous process
Participation is outside normal operating
procedures
Agency staff required to devote time outside of
office hours
Centralised, unresponsive organisations
Organisations threatened by idea of cooperation
Eloquently spoken or persuasive participants
become more influential
Rates of community participation are not uniform
across a given population
Politically active people are more likely to be
from the middle to upper socio-economic classes
Shared decisions can be compromises, and no
party is entirely satisfied
Authorities unwilling to share power
1, 2,
Conflict may be intensified rather than resolved
Pre-history of negative experiences among the
stakeholders
Mistrust among stakeholders
Flow of information is only top-down
Planners and scientists tend to talk in their own
jargon
Individuals involved do not like each other
Community group can become bogged down in
bureaucratic procedures
Too much is expected of group, government
abdicates their own responsibilities to group
without resourcing them
Unclear which party should lead, government
official, staff, community or independent
individual
8, 9, 10


Lack of
representativeness





Compromised end
points
No/uneven
devolution of
power
Lack of
cooperation





Poor
communictaion



Participation
fatigue/ burnout


Lack of or
innapropriate
leadership

3, 4, 5
4, 6, 7
2, 5
5, 8
5, 9, 11
5, 7, 11,
12, 13
3
Key to References: 1 - Iyer-Raniga & Treloar 2000; 2 - Leskinen in press; 3 - Thomas 1999; 4 - Kapoor
2001; 5 - Stoll-Kleemann & O’Riordon 2002; 6 - Lane et al. in press; 7 - O’Riordan 1976; 8 - Kellert et
al. 2000; 9 - Luz 2000; 10 - Wondolleck & Yaffee 2000; 11 - Mahanty & Russell 2002; 12 - Curtis 2003;
13 - Ross et al. 2002.
Introduction
1.4
43
RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
Literature relevant to the ecology and management of bushland fragments was reviewed
in the previous section. The main concepts reviewed were patch ecology, disturbance
and condition in ecosystems, decentralisation and local government management,
community-based natural resource management and environmental volunteerism. Little
of the literature is based on native vegetation fragments within urban environments.
Therefore, this thesis aims to test principles, theories and concepts relating to the
ecology and management of bushland fragments in Australian cities. Five specific
objectives towards achieving this aim were outlined throughout the preceding literature
review. To re-iterate, the objectives are to:
1. test principles and theories of fragmentation and patch ecology for the urban
bushland context;
2. test the hypothesis that within bushland patches, localised areas of high
disturbance have poor vegetation condition, and to compare a qualitative and a
quantitative assessment of vegetation condition;
3. test the hypothesis that local government does not have sufficient capacity to
manage and conserve local bushlands, in major Australian cities;
4. test concepts related to community participation and volunteering, for the urban
bushland context, and
5. explore community–government environmental management partnerships in
relation to local level bushland management in urban Australia.
Some qualifying statements must be made at this point to indicate the scope of the
research undertaken for each objective. The first two objectives were researched in the
metropolitan region of Perth. A city of 1.34 million residents (in 2003), Perth has,
according to government figures, approximately 260 000 hectares of remnant native
vegetation in the 530 000 hectare metropolitan region (Dixon et al. 1995; Perth
Biodiversity Project 2003 - note that the same figure is quoted in both 1995 and 2003).
The high proportion of remnant vegetation distributed across the metropolitan region in
patches of varying sizes provides an ideal opportunity to investigate relationships
among urban density (for instance population density and land use types), patch
attributes (including size, shape and connectivity to other bushland areas), humancaused disturbances and bushland condition at a regional scale. The ecological research
44
Chapter One
was not repeated in other cities’ metropolitan regions due to time restrictions, and also
because metropolitan patterns of bushland fragmentation, disturbance and condition
would possibly not be comparable due to differences in metropolitan size, layout,
geomorphology, climate and vegetation types.
The literature review identified local government as having a potentially strong role in
biodiversity conservation and management in Australia. Thus, the research for the third
objective focuses on analysing the capacity of local government in bushland
conservation management, for four of the five largest Australian cities. Brisbane was
excluded from the research into local government bushland conservation and
management, as it has a very different local government structure. Numerous local
governments exist in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide (15-40 individual
authorities in each). In contrast, most of the Brisbane metropolitan region is governed
by one large local government body, which has a huge operational budget and staff
numbers, making it difficult to compare with the smaller local governments in the other
cities.
Decentralisation also extends to the community being involved in natural resource
management. In Australian cities, many community groups are involved in managing
local bushlands (Rees and Smith 1996; Stenhouse 2001). Thus, research towards the
fourth objective, to test concepts related to community participation and volunteering,
for the urban bushland context, examined concepts such as motivation for volunteering,
benefits and frustrations involved in volunteering and organisation of volunteer
programs. Development of such theory lends itself to an understanding of how to foster
community involvement in urban bushland management.
The final section of the literature review dealt with the partnerships that are inherent in
local-level natural resource management. Many factors have been indentified in the
literature as creating successful or unsuccessful environmental partnerships, and the
research aimed to investigate these factors for urban bushland community-local
government partnerships. With the current worldwide trend towards increasing local
government responsibility in environmental management, and increasing community
input, such research is relevant and timely. Thus, the final objective of the thesis aims to
explore community-government environmental partnerships in relation to local level
bushland management in urban Australia. The research was restricted to exploring
Introduction
45
partnerships from the volunteers’ perspective. The research for objectives four and five
was undertaken in the five largest Australian cities; Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth
and Adelaide.
1.5
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH AND CRITIQUE
A number of different methodological approaches could have been taken to achieve the
objectives of this thesis, and this section provides a discussion of the various options
and justification for the research techniques adopted.
The first important consideration in choosing a methodological approach towards
achieving these aims is the question of scale. To examine the effects of fragmentation
and human-caused disturbance on bushland ecosystems, a number of approaches could
have been taken. The effects of fragmentation could have been investigated using a
‘focal species approach’ (e.g. Henle et al. 2004). This involves identification of native
plant species most sensitive to fragmentation and disturbance effects, and conducting
research to test these effects in urban bushlands. Similarly, research could have been
undertaken to examine the effects of fragmentation and anthropogenic disturbance on a
suite of sensitive native species, generalist/opportunistic native species and aggressive
weed species. A methodology based in meta-population theory or population viability
analysis (e.g. Melbourne et al. 2004) could have been implemented to test the effects of
fragmentation and disturbance on selected species. However, the research interest in
this case was of a broader scale – at the ecosystem level and on a regional and sitebased scale. While species-specific approaches are important, they would not allow for
wider generalisations on the effects of urbanisation, fragmentation and disturbance on
bushlands in cities, which is the research question being asked here.
To test the theories and principles of fragmentation and patch ecology in the urban
bushland context, a broad regional study was undertaken in the Perth metropolitan
region. To investigate the effects of fragmentation and anthropogenic disturbance on
bushlands at a regional-scale, a combination of GIS, desktop research and on-site
surveying provided data on patch attributes, external urban influences, internal
anthropogenic disturbances and vegetation condition for 71 bushlands located across the
Perth metropolitan region. Relationships among the data were explored with principal
components analysis and Pearson correlations.
46
Chapter One
Current concepts in vegetation condition assessments were applied to investigate the
effects of anthropogenic disturbance on bushlands, in three bushland sites in the Perth
Metropolitan Area. This involved field surveys of disturbances and vegetation
parameters. A Vegetation Condition Index was developed as a surrogate measure of
condition, based on a number of vegetation parameters measured by vegetation
surveying, and this quantitative index was compared to a qualitative scale that is
commonly used, especially by community groups, to assess vegetation condition in
Perth bushlands. Principal components analysis was used to explore the vegetation data
generally, discriminant function analysis identified the main drivers of the Vegetation
Condition Index, and Pearson correlations were calculated to test for significant
relationships between disturbance and vegetation parameters and condition.
To examine the societal organisations involved in urban bushland management and
protection, the question of scale again comes under consideration. Having identified in
the previous section that local governments and local community groups are the most
involved organisations in on-ground management and protection of urban bushlands,
these two groups were focussed on in the research. Analysis of their involvement in
bushland management could have been researched through case-study analysis. This
would have provided information on a limited number of local governments and
community groups, and while this information would have been thorough, it would be
difficult to make generalisations and develop theories about local level urban bushland
management. Thus a broader-scale approach was taken, using questionnaires and
interviews to extract information on numerous local governments and community
groups in multiple cities. A multi-city scale was employed, to elucidate differences that
may arise from the influence of different State governments and other inter-city
variations, and also to provide a larger sample group given that many of the issues in
bushland management and protection are relevant nation-wide.
To examine local government and community group involvement in urban bushland
management, three main areas were explored. First, local government actions in
bushland management and protection were documented for Sydney, Melbourne, Perth
and Adelaide. Second, community bushland care groups were examined, and third, the
interactive relationship between community groups and local governments was
explored for Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide.
Introduction
47
It was expected that local government bushland management issues of funding, staffing,
management actions, planning, and community partnerships would in some ways be
comparable among the cities, but would also reveal interesting differences among the
cities, which are influenced by the legislation of their respective States. By ascertaining
the similarities and difference in bushland conservation both among individual local
governments, and among cities, it was expected that progressive initiatives would be
highlighted, as well as documenting the general level of action. Information was
collected from local government bushland managers via a questionnaire that was
completed by 63 local governments, and interviews with 22 local governments, from
Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide. Community bushland volunteers’ perspectives
were accessed by a questionnaire, completed by 76 individuals, from the same four
cities and also Brisbane. Answers to the open-ended questions of the volunteers’
questionnaire were analysed by coding (following Kitchin and Tate 2000). This
facilitated an examination of the aspects that led community members to become
volunteers, and what benefits and frustrations are experienced from involvement in
community-based urban bushland management. The two questionnaires provided
information for the analysis of the relationship between local government and
community groups in the urban bushland management process.
1.6 REMNANT VEGETATION IN THE STUDY CITIES
Even with two hundred years of clearing and settlement since European occupation,
substantial amounts of native vegetation, with high floral diversity, remain throughout
Australian city regions. The current distribution and condition of remnant bushland has
been influenced by past land utilisation, landscape characteristics and recent urban
densities. This section briefly describes vegetation clearance following European
settlement and distribution patterns of remnant vegetation, and the plant diversity of the
five largest capital cities, which are the subject of this thesis: Sydney (New South
Wales), Brisbane (Queensland), Perth (Western Australia), Melbourne (Victoria) and
Adelaide (South Australia) (Figure 1.1).
1.6.1 Loss of Native Vegetation in Australian Cities
European utilisation of the Australian landscape has occurred over a short time span
(since 1788), compared to use of the land by indigenous people (estimated 40 000
48
Chapter One
years), yet has had a profound effect on the native vegetation. The early European
settlers brought with them an ethic of domination over nature (Bolton 1981; Frawley
1994; Papadakis 1993). Benson and Howell (1990a) believe that many settlers were
overzealous in clearing in the Sydney region, and as early as 1856 the naturalist Rev.
William Wools felt that the native flora were in danger of disappearing (Benson and
Howell 1990b). Likewise in Brisbane, by 1900, just 60 years after European settlement,
the landscape had been transformed and degraded, such that Red Cedar lowland
rainforest had been almost totally cleared, overgrazing had occurred and the fire regime
had been changed (Catterall and Kingston 1997). As early as 1850, European weeds
were established in the landscape in the Swan River colony in Perth (Cameron 1979). In
1855 botanist Dr von Muller wrote of Adelaide, ‘the vegetation appeared more
European than Australian’ (cited in Kraehenbuehl 1996, p. 4).
While European settlers rapidly transformed the landscapes of the now capital cities,
urbanisation (or perhaps more accurately, suburbanisation) has been the main cause of
loss of native vegetation in the cities. In 1999, 64% of Australians lived in the capital
cities (Australian Bureau of Statistics 2000); however, the rate and extent of bushland
clearing varies from city to city. For example, in Sydney, the spread of suburbs became
an important cause of loss of bushland from as early as the second half of the 19th
century (Benson and Howell 1990b, 1998), In Brisbane, 70% of the original vegetation
had been cleared by the late 1990s. In Perth, the metropolitan area’s spatial extent
increased by 50% from 1971 to 1991, and in a two year period in the mid 1990s, over
6000 hectares of bushland were cleared. The destruction of plant communities by urban
development has been almost complete in Melbourne and in many suburbs none
remains. Until the Second World War, in Adelaide, large vegetation remnants still
occurred in the city outskirts. However, these were destroyed in the following 30 years
due to a population and housing boom (Kraehenbuehl 1996). Vegetation loss to housing
continued into the 1990s.
1.6.2
Distribution of Remnant Vegetation in the Study Cities
Despite the history of urban vegetation clearing in Australia, original natural vegetation
remains throughout each of the Australian Capital cities (Table 1.3). The original
vegetation has, to an extent, remained in places where soils were deemed unsuitable for
agriculture or topography was incompatible to housing construction. For example, the
Introduction
49
dry sclerophyll forest and woodlands with heath of the Hawkesbury sandstone in
Sydney have infertile soils and terrain too rugged to be easily cleared and developed
(Burrell 1972; Benson and Howell 1990a). For this reason, those vegetation types have
survived better than any others in the Sydney region. In South East Queensland, peaks
and ridges have been left vegetated (Catterall and Kingston 1997). The most heavily
urbanised area of Brisbane is the lowlands, and now only 8% remains as native
vegetation (Plant 1996). As such, vegetation on sub-coastal ranges is well preserved and
less fragmented and the largest bushlands remain in the mountain ranges. The onceabundant grasslands of the Melbourne region were recognised as good grazing land, so
after 150 years of grazing only 1% of the original cover now remains and only one
quarter of this is reserved. Vegetation on rocky outcrops survived better, as it occurs on
steep slopes unsuitable for stock grazing or housing (Jones et al. 1986). In Perth, the
major area of remnant vegetation is on the Darling Scarp and Plateau, which have not
been settled as densely as the Swan Coastal Plain, being further from the coast and city
centre, as well as having undulating to hilly topography and thin, infertile soils
overlying granite or lateritic duricrusts. High proportions of vegetation remain in the
Darling Scarp and Plateau, having been protected for State forest and public water
supply catchments. The most threatened vegetation complexes occur on the coastal
plain, where there has been the longest history of European settlement and agriculture
(Government of Western Australia 2000). Likewise, little vegetation remains on the
Adelaide Plains, where development has been most intense. The majority of remnant
vegetation is in the Adelaide Hills (Turner 2000). Thus, settlement history and people’s
location and landscape preferences have caused some vegetation types to be better
retained and conserved than others in each of the cities.
In most cases remnant patches are small in size, and more vegetation remains in the
outer metropolitan area than in inner and middle city areas. In Brisbane, there are about
164 areas that are bushland reserves, and nearly 80% of these are under 10 hectares in
area, along with one national park and several large natural parkland areas (Bridgman et
al. 1995, Chapter 7). In mapping the remnant vegetation of Perth, Dixon et al. (1995)
found that most bushland remnants are small in size (Table 1.4).
Chapter One
50
Table 1.3. Percent of Each Study City Area as Remnant Vegetation
City
a
Sydney
Brisbane b
Melbourne c
Perth - SCP d
Perth – metro e
Adelaidef
Total Land Area (ha)
% Land Area as Remnant Vegetation
370 000
122 000
93 000
290 300
530 000
185 000
33
22
3
28
49
12
a: County of Cumberland area, which accounts for most of Sydney metropolitan area. Source of data is
Benson and Howell 1990a. Burrell (1972) states that 23% of the Sydney area remains as native
vegetation.
b: This figure is for the Brisbane City Council area only – which takes up most of the Brisbane
metropolitan area. Source of data is Catterall and Kingston 1997.
c: Source of data is Woodgate and Black, 1988 cited in Biodiversity Unit, 1995.
d: This figure is for the Swan Coastal Plain region of the metropolitan area, excluding the hills region.
This accounts for 55% of the 530 000 ha metropolitan region. The figure is from Bush Forever
(Government of Western Australia 2000). Beard (1990) has stated that 22% of the Swan Coastal Plain
metropolitan area remains as native vegetation.
e: This figure is for the whole metropolitan area of Perth, quoted by Dixon et al. 1995 and also by the
Perth Biodiversity Project 2003.
f: Data sourced from Turner 2000.
Table 1.4. Size of Remnants in the Perth Metropolitan Region
Size Class
(ha)
Number of
Remnants
<1
1–2
2–4
4 – 10
10 – 50
50 – 100
>100
TOTAL
974
680
692
690
528
103
114
3 781
Area in Size Class
(ha)
493
985
1 998
4 367
11 660
7 127
235 442
262 072
Source: Dixon et al. 1995
1.6.3
Plant Diversity in the Study Cities
The cities of Australia have largely been centred in areas of high biological diversity.
These areas of original European settlement, mainly at river mouths on coastal plains,
were viewed as being well watered and having a high productivity potential and were
thus settled by the first explorers. Benson and Howell (1990, 1998) have identified 31
Introduction
51
plant communities, in eight major vegetation types that originally covered the County of
Cumberland, which extends over an area of 370 000 hectares and now contains most of
the Sydney population. These vegetation types ranged from heath, coastal scrub,
woodlands and forests, each associated with certain soils and climate conditions.
Brisbane also contains high biodiversity and high numbers of unique species. The area
supports rainforests, various types of eucalypt forests and woodlands, melaleuca forests,
heathlands and mangroves (Catterall and Kingston 1997). The Melbourne area has a
diverse suite of plant communities, owing to the metropolitan area occurring at the
junction of three major geological formations. Vegetation types include subalpine
vegetation, cool temperate rainforests, grasslands, grassy woodlands and coastal
heathlands (Beardsell et al. 2001; Taylor 1999). It is estimated that 1150 species of flora
occur in the greater Melbourne Region (Jones and Jones 1999). Perth is located within
the South West Botanical District, which is recognised as a globally significant
biodiversity hotspot (Biodiversity Unit 1995). Twenty-six vegetation complexes have
been identified in the Swan Coastal Plain part of the Perth Metropolitan area (Heddle et
al. 1980). Approximately 1500 species of native plants remain in the Perth region, and
the most species-diverse plant families are Proteaceae, Myrtaceae and Papilionaceae
(Harris and Scheltema 1995, p. 3; Marchant 1984). The Adelaide Region has high
biological diversity compared to other regions of South Australia, supporting 30% of
the State’s floral species, 58% of the State’s bird species and 32% of the State’s
terrestrial mammal species, in just 0.15% of the State’s total land area. There have been
825 plant species recorded in the Adelaide Plains area (Kraehenbuehl 1996).
Biodiversity is high as many habitats occur as a result of having both coastal and
interior environments and a high rainfall gradient between the sea and the Mount Lofty
Ranges (Turner 2000).
The vegetation remaining in the five largest Australian cities provides great research
opportunities to investigate the interactions between people and nature. The high
biodiversity values of the vegetation highlights the necessity of such a study. As
Australian cities grow in population and area, conflict between nature and people will
increase, and an understanding of the interactions among patch ecology, urban intensity,
anthropogenic disturbances, bushland condition, and government and community
management will be critical to maintain the ecological and social values of urban
bushlands.
52
Chapter One
1.7 THESIS STRUCTURE
The research presented in this thesis is driven by a number of concepts central to the
ecology and management of urban bushlands; most broadly, patch ecology and local
level management (Figure 1.16). The original vegetation has been fragmented by
urbanisation and other land uses in the Perth metropolitan region. As such remnant
vegetation exists as small, irregularly shaped, isolated patches, surrounded by urban
land uses. The research presented in Chapter Two examines patterns of urban density,
fragmentation, anthropogenic disturbances and vegetation condition at a metropolitan
scale.
Having examined the relationships among fragmentation, condition and disturbance at a
regional scale, the research for Chapter Three investigated the relationship between
levels of anthropogenic disturbance and condition in more detail, by applying current
concepts in vegetation condition assessments. Chapter Three presents a quantitative
assessment of disturbance and condition for three bushland reserves in Perth. A
secondary aim was to compare the quantitative assessment with a commonly used
qualitative method of assessing vegetation condition.
The human use and disturbance of urban bushlands necessitates management
intervention to maintain ecological condition. Local government is said to be an
important manager of bushlands in urban Australia. Chapter Four discusses local
governments’ actions in managing disturbances, conserving native vegetation and
coordinating with the community in urban Australia.
The community has also become involved in caring for urban bushlands, and numerous
community-based groups operate on-ground in the bushlands of the five largest
Australian cities. The aim of the research presented in Chapter Five was to test
concepts related to community participation and volunteering, for the urban bushland
context. Specifically, the research ascertained what motivates individuals to volunteer in
community bushland care, and what fosters or hinders continued volunteering.
Chapters Four and Five establish that both local government and community-based
groups are involved in urban bushland management, and that they coordinate their
activities. The research then aimed to explore this community-local government
partnership, and to determine what factors contribute to a positive partnership, from the
Introduction
53
volunteers’ perspective. The results of this part of the research are presented in Chapter
Six.
Chapter Seven summarises and discusses the key findings of the research in relation to
the stated aim and objectives of the thesis. The discussion chapter critiques the research
methods, and concludes the thesis.
Regional scale
Patch scale
Urban intensity
Fragmentation
effects
Vegetation
Condition
Anthropogenic
disturbance
Anthropogenic
Disturbance
Patch condition
Ch 2
Ch 3
Disturbance
management
Local
Government
Ch 4
interactions
Community
groups
Ch 6
Ch 5
Figure 1.16. Flow diagram representing the concepts central to the thesis, and how
these concepts drive the research presented in each chapter. Dark arrows refer to
relationships under investigation in the research presented in this thesis. Block arrows
represent expected relationships among variables under investigation.
54
Chapter One
This thesis is based on published papers, and these papers are presented, in the form in
which they have been published or submitted, in chapters Two through to Six. The
references cited in each paper are listed at the end of each chapter. The references cited
in this Introduction chapter, in the sections linking the chapters, and in Chapter Seven
are listed in the References section at the end of the thesis.
The publication status of each chapter, current for January 2005, is as follows:

Chapter Two is published as:
Stenhouse, R.N. 2004. Fragmentation and internal disturbance of native vegetation
reserves in the Perth metropolitan area, Western Australia, Landscape and Urban
Planning, 68(4):389-401.

Chapter Three has been accepted for publication in the March 2005 edition of
Australasian Journal of Environmental Management.

Chapter Four has been published as:
Stenhouse, R.N. 2004. Local government conservation and management of native
vegetation in urban Australia. Environmental Management, 34(2):209-22.

Chapter Five is under review with the Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management.

Chapter Six has been submitted to Australian Geographer.
Chapter Two
Fragmentation and Internal Disturbance of
Native Vegetation Reserves in the Perth
Metropolitan Area, Western Australia
Dumped rubbish, vehicle tracks, weeds and fire impacts in Perth bushlands
Fragmentation and Disturbance
2.0
57
ABSTRACT
Remnant vegetation in metropolitan areas tends to be highly fragmented and affected by
disturbances from the urban environment. A rapid survey in 71 nature reserves in the
metropolitan of Perth noted surrounding land uses, types of disturbances, rated the level
of weeds, rubbish, formal and informal walking paths and fire influence, and estimated
vegetation condition. These data were analysed against information on reserve area and
shape, connectivity to other native vegetation, period of patch encapsulation, distance
from the city centre and local population density to reveal patterns of fragmentation and
disturbance in the metropolitan area.
Smaller reserves occurred in the highly populated inner metropolitan area, and these
reserves displayed high levels of fragmentation, higher levels of weed infestation and
path density and low vegetation condition. Reserves were larger, with high levels of
connectivity and with less weed cover and higher vegetation condition in the outer
metropolitan area. The research highlighted that whilst reserve attributes are largely set
in inner urban areas, planning is required in outer metropolitan areas to ensure patches
remain well connected and of optimal size and shape. Inner metropolitan reserves
should also be preserved and managed, as they are highly valuable for representing the
vegetation types that once occurred there, and for providing natural areas for inner city
residents.
Keywords: Fragmentation, Urban bushlands, Patch ecology, Disturbance
58
2.1
Chapter Two
INTRODUCTION
Remnant vegetation in urban areas has many biological and social values. It harbours
native animals and represents the natural communities that used to cover the landscape
(Buchanan, 1989). Remnant vegetation dilutes the cluttered urban landscape of cities
and provides areas for passive recreation where urban residents can be close to nature.
Patches of the original vegetation remain in urban, suburban and peripheral areas in
metropolitan regions in Australia, including Perth (Government of Western Australia,
2000), Adelaide (Kraehenbuehl, 1996), Melbourne (De Gryse, 1994), Hobart
(Kirkpatrick, 1986), Sydney (Benson and Howell, 1990; Howell and Benson, 2000) and
Brisbane (Catterall and Kingston, 1997; Brisbane City Council, 1998). These patches of
native vegetation remain scattered and isolated in the landscape, often having survived
as the soil or topography was inferior for agriculture or housing development (Saunders
et al., 1991).
Literature on fragmentation ecology, or patch ecology, has reported relationships
between the ecological condition of a patch (e.g. biological diversity, habitat
heterogeneity and levels of disturbance at the edge and internally) and patch attributes,
such as size, shape, time since isolation and connectivity to other remnants (Bastin and
Thomas, 1999; Saunders et al., 1991; Laurance and Yensen, 1991; Farina, 2000). As
well, direct human influence, by way of the surrounding urban matrix or from human
activity in the remnant, also affects the condition of the patch (Matlack, 1993;
Hitchmough, 1994; Buchanan, 1979). In Australian cities, remnant bushland is in
highest proportions in the outer-metropolitan areas, with fewer patches in the more
populated inner city areas. For the purposes of research, city planning and bushland
management, it is important to define the patterns of fragmentation and disturbance
across the metropolitan region. Are the reserves close to the city centre suffering more
intensely the effects of fragmentation and disturbance? If so, do they require more
management input to aid their survival, or should resources be directed away from
degraded reserves?
The research presented in this paper aimed to describe the levels of fragmentation and
internal disturbance and general vegetation condition of native vegetation reserves in
the metropolitan area of Perth, Australia. A number of variables, drawn from theory in
fragmentation ecology, were utilised in this study to investigate patterns of
Fragmentation and Disturbance
59
fragmentation (size, shape, connectivity to other bushlands), influence of urban
surroundings (adjacent land use types and density of urbanisation) and level of
disturbance and condition of bushland patches across the metropolitan region.
2.2
METHODS
2.2.1 Study Area and Study Sites
The Perth Metropolitan Region covers an area of 530 000 hectares and has a population
of 1.37 million people. Perth occurs in the South West Botanical District, which is
recognised as a globally significant biodiversity hotspot (Biodiversity Unit, 1995).
Studies of the Perth Metropolitan flora on the Swan Coastal Plain estimate the total
flora to be over 1 200 vascular plant taxa (Government of Western Australia, 2000).
The vegetation is dry sclerophyll, and ranges from heathlands, wetlands and open
woodlands on the Swan Coastal Plain to tall eucalypt woodlands in the hills to the east.
Remnant vegetation occurs in highest proportions in the metropolitan fringe, though it
is scattered throughout the metropolitan area. In 1995, Dixon et al. estimated that in the
Perth Metropolitan region, there were 3 780 reserves totalling an area of 260 000
hectares, and most of the reserves were under 50 hectares in size.
Seventy-one separate bushland patches were included in the research (Figure 2.1).
Fifty-three of the study sites were chosen from data provided in the planning document
for remnant vegetation in Perth; Bush Forever (Government of Western Australia,
2000). This is a ten-year strategic plan which will protect 51 200 hectares of regionally
significant bushland on the Swan Coastal Plain portion of the Perth Metropolitan
Region by protecting 287 bushland remnants, or Bush Forever sites. The document
provides maps and skeletal information on each Bush Forever site. The further eighteen
study sites occur in the Darling Range, or hills area, of Metropolitan Perth, and were
chosen with assistance from the Mundaring Shire’s Ecologist. The reserves were chosen
to represent a variety of reserve sizes, vegetation communities, geomorphology units,
urban densities, surrounding land uses and management bodies, and to be spatially
distributed north-south and east-west across the Metropolitan area. Wetland areas were
avoided, as additional issues such as water quality affect wetlands.
60
Chapter Two
Perth
Metropolitan
Area
q
N
10°S
20°S
q
sp
A U S T R A L I A
30°S
Perth
Sydney
Melbourne
b
40°S
d
400 km
120°E
140°E
Indian
f/p
sp
q
Legend
river
metropolitan boundary
geomorphic boundaries
study sites
CBD
Ocean
Geomorphology units:
q Quindalup Dune System: series of
aeolian dunes running parallel to coast
b
sp Spearwood Dune System: aeolian
dunes
b Bassendean Dune System: oldest
aeolian dune system
f/p Foothills/Pinjarra Plain Unit: fertile
soils at the foothills of the Darling Range
d Darling Range Unit: part of a laterite
capped plateau
f/p
q
sp
b
0
d
10
kilometres
Figure 2.1. Map of study sites and geomorphic units in the Perth Metropolitan Region.
Five study sites have been marked as open symbols (Δ) as these are mapped in different geomorphic units
than they are categorised in for the study, due the generalised nature of the geomorphic map which does
not show localised variations.
2.2.2
Methodological Approach
Both a desktop study and a rapid field survey were undertaken to achieve the objectives
of the study. Patch attributes and external influences on reserves were largely
determined from GIS analysis of reserves and from various maps. A rapid survey
provided information on direct human influence (disturbances) in reserves and other
variables. Each reserve was surveyed, by the same researcher, with approximately one
to two hours spent at each reserve. As much as possible of the reserve was covered by
foot, and also by car in larger reserves. All reserves were surveyed in the three months
leading up to winter, between May 23rd and August 20th 2000. The rapid survey was
Fragmentation and Disturbance
61
trialed by the researcher a number of times before a final survey was constructed and
utilised. The research combined ecological theory and empirical knowledge in choosing
fifteen variables to study, and this is outlined in the following sections.
2.2.3
Patch Attributes
2.2.3.1 Patch Area
Smaller remnants face greater influence from edge effects, whereas larger patches will
have a larger ‘core’ area protected from such disturbance (Saunders et al. 1991). Edge
effects can include higher solar radiation and wind exposure, increased levels of
invasion by exotic species and increased predation as a result of sharing an edge with
urban or agricultural land uses. Larger patches are also expected to have greater habitat
heterogeneity and support larger populations of plant and animal species (Saunders et
al. 1991). Patch area and perimeter were calculated using GIS for the Bush Forever
sites. For this research an individual patch was defined as a patch of bushland bounded
by primary, secondary or minor roads or a different land use (e.g. an industrial or
residential border). Patches with internal roads were still considered as one patch, even
if they were fragmented internally, as were seven bushlands. In this case, the outer
boundary was measured for patch perimeter. For Darling Range sites, area and
perimeter were measured manually from maps.
2.2.3.2 Patch Shape
The amount of reserve exposed to possible edge effects increases when the edge-area
ratio of a patch increases. For instance, small patches with an irregular shape will have
a large perimeter compared to its area, and will thus have a large proportion of the patch
exposed to edge effects, and a small core area (Buchanan 1979). The proportion of edge
can be expressed as an edge-area ratio, as edge (m) divided by patch area (hectares). A
problem with the edge-area ratio as a shape index is that it varies with the size of the
patch. For example, holding shape constant, an increase in patch size will cause a
decrease in the perimeter-area ratio. Patton’s (1975) Shape index (SI) has been used by
multiple researchers (e.g. Laurence and Yenson 1991; Bastin and Thomas 1999) as it
corrects this by adjusting for a perfect circle standard. The SI indicates patch shape
irregularity, and thus edge to interior area. The index is the measured perimeter divided
by the circumference of a perfect circle of the same area: Perimeter Length/ 200[(π
Total Area (ha))0.5]. The SI for a perfect circle is 1. Long narrow patches will have
62
Chapter Two
higher SI values than more circular patches, and following patch theory, patches with
high SI values will accrue edge effects more rapidly.
2.2.3.3 Connectivity
Connectivity refers to the connectedness of a patch to adjacent native vegetation.
Connectivity is important for ecological integrity of patches as it defines the level of
biotic movement between patches, which influences the resiliency of populations of
species within patches (Saunder et al. 1991). It was hypothesised that there would be
low connectivity in the densely urbanised inner metropolitan areas. Reserves that had
any native vegetation within ten metres of their edge were considered to have the
highest level of connectivity (i.e. there was a patch of bushland on the other side of the
road). Otherwise, distance to the nearest patch was measured, from closest edge to
closest edge.
2.2.3.4 Geomorphic Unit
The Geomorphic Unit of each reserve was determined from the Bush Forever data and
Darling Range sites were all classed as Darling Range Geomorphic Unit. In Perth, there
is a general belief that levels of weed infestation are influenced by soil type, which is
dependant on geomorphic unit.
2.2.3.5 Number of Floristic Community Types
Honnay et al. (1999) and Zacharias and Brandes (1990) have shown that number of
habitats and number of species increases with remnant size. The number of floristic
communities was included in the data set, as a proxy indicator of species richness and
habitat heterogeneity. The floristic communities of each reserve are presented in Bush
Forever, and have been drawn from previous flora survey works (Government of
Western Australia, 2000). A total of 66 floristic types have been identified for the Perth
Metropolitan Region, and are based on species composition. However, the reliability of
the data from Bush Forever is uncertain, as information on floristic communities has
been inferred from previous studies.
Fragmentation and Disturbance
2.2.4
63
External Influences
Buchanan (1979, p 39) writes that “all external factors will have an impact on natural
areas but their effect will be more serious where intensive land use surrounds the
reserve”. To test this, a number of parameters were used.
2.2.4.1 Local Population Density
To determine whether anthropogenic disturbance is greater in areas of higher human
inhabitation, local population density was included as a variable in analysis. The local
government area in which each reserve was located was identified (there are 30 local
government areas in the Perth Metropolitan Area). The population density (people/km2)
for each local government area was calculated from the council area and population
estimates provided on each local government’s website.
2.2.4.2 Surrounding Land Use Matrix Compatibility
This study rated the surrounding land use as compatible (low intensity land uses, such as
bushland and rural lands) to incompatible (high intensity land use such as residential and
industrial) in a similar way to the study by Bastin and Thomas (1999). It is hypothesised
that there is less chance of anthropogenic disturbance in the reserve when there is a
compatible surrounding land use. The land uses immediately bordering the bushland site
were noted during the field survey, generally described as residential, rural or semi-rural,
bushland, industry, roads, grassed parks and schools. A compatibility rating was devised
with a value of one corresponding to highest compatibility (1= bushland and residential
or rural, 2= semi-rural or grassed parks, 3= urban and grassed parks or urban and semirural, 4 = urban, industrial).
2.2.4.3 Distance from the CBD
More bushland has been lost closer to the city centre, and it is hypothesised that
bushland remnants closer to the Central Business District (CBD) will display higher
levels of fragmentation. Distance from the Perth CBD was calculated using Bush
Forever GIS data, and measured from maps for Darling Range sites.
2.2.4.4 Encapsulation Period
Encapsulation period is the length of time since the existing patch was surrounded by
non-bushland land uses (e.g. housing, roads, semi-rural). Research has shown that
64
Chapter Two
populations in long-encapsulated patches may be more likely to become extinct than
populations that were recently part of a larger area (Bastin and Thomas 1999, after
Diamond 1972 and Soulé et al., 1992). It was expected that the levels of disturbance
would be higher, and vegetation condition lower, in reserves that had been encapsulated
longer, as the urban surroundings have potentially been affecting these reserves over a
longer time span than recently fragmented reserves. The encapsulation period was
determined from a map of metropolitan development (Jarvis, 1986), which outlines
suburban areas that were present at 1916, or that developed during the periods 1916 –
1943, 1944 – 1953, 1954 – 1963, 1964 – 1973 and 1974 – 1984. Areas left blank in the
1984 map were considered to have developed between 1984 and 2000. Some error may
be present in the dataset on encapsulation, given that it is based on a secondary source.
2.2.5
Disturbances (Direct Human Influence) and Vegetation Condition
A rapid survey was undertaken in each reserve, to rate disturbances and vegetation
condition. Highly visible disturbances that could be assessed quickly (paths, rubbish and
fire) were rated using a descriptive scale. All other disturbances were noted, such as
evidence of feral animals, erosion, evidence of plant or wood removal, children’s cubby
houses and bicycle ramps. As well, it was noted whether fencing was present, as it was
expected that fencing would limit direct human influence in reserves. The presence or
absence of vehicle access tracks entering the reserve was noted at each reserve and
special note was made of any reserves fragmented by sealed roads.
2.2.5.1 Walking Paths
The proportion of walking paths in relation to the size of the reserve was rated, from 0 =
none present to 3 = proliferation of paths, and the type of path was noted (e.g. sand or
limestone and how wide).
2.2.5.2 Goat Paths
“Goat paths”, informal tracks made by repeated trampling, were separately noted, and
were scored from 0 (none) to 3 (prolific). The proportion of goat paths would indicate
whether trampling was an issue at the reserve.
Fragmentation and Disturbance
65
2.2.5.3 Rubbish
The type of rubbish present was noted (vegetative, litter or heavy rubbish, such as cars,
metal, bricks), and the amount of rubbish present in the reserve was rated (0= none to 3=
high levels of rubbish present). Rubbish detracts from the visual amenity of a reserve,
can crush vegetation and may introduce nutrients and weed material.
2.2.5.4 Time Since Fire
At each reserve an estimate was made of year since last fire, based on burnt tree trunks
and canopies. Time since fire may influence the levels of weed cover, as weed
establishment and growth is encouraged by the nutrients and open space released by fire.
2.2.5.5 Weed Infestation
The level of weed infestation was rated, as it indicates habitat modification and loss of
native biodiversity. Weed cover, as a percent of the understorey vegetation biomass, was
used to rate weed infestation as low (<25%), moderate (26-50%) high (51-75%) or very
high (>76%). When weed cover varied across the reserve, an average value was
estimated. As weed cover varies with the time of year, fieldwork was carried out in a
three-month period to minimise temporal variation in the data set.
2.2.5.6 Condition
The overall vegetation condition was estimated at each reserve, using the methodology
of Keighery’s Vegetation Condition Scale, a scale commonly used in the Perth
Metropolitan area (1994). This evaluates the vegetation community to be 1: Pristine, 2:
Excellent, 3: Very Good, 4: Good, 5: Degraded or 6: Completely Degraded, using a
descriptive scale (Table 2.1). If the vegetation condition varied across the reserve the
percentage area of reserve was noted for the different condition values and an average
value was used in analysis.
It is recognised that management plays a role in the level of disturbance (especially for
weeds and rubbish) and condition of a reserve. However, in Perth there are many groups
involved in bushland management, including a number of state organisations, each local
government, community groups and schools, and usually multiple groups are involved in
the one reserve. To interview all the groups involved in management at the 71 reserves
was deemed beyond the scope of the research presented.
66
Chapter Two
Table 2.1. Vegetation Condition Scale
1
‘Pristine’
Pristine or nearly so, no obvious signs of disturbance.
2
Excellent
Vegetation structure intact, disturbance affecting individual species
and weeds are non-aggressive species.
3
Very Good
Vegetation structure altered, obvious signs of disturbance.
4
Good
Vegetation structure significantly altered by very obvious signs of
multiple disturbances. Retains basic vegetation structure or ability to
regenerate it.
5
Degraded
Basic vegetation structure severely impacted by disturbance. Scope
for regeneration but not to a state approaching good condition
without intensive management.
6
Completely The structure of the vegetation is no longer intact and the area is
Degraded
completely or almost completely without native species (e.g. cleared
parkland).
Adapted from: Keighery, B., 1994
2.2.6 Data Analysis
Descriptive analysis (mean, median, range) was performed on each patch attribute,
measure of external influence and disturbance type. To explore the data generally,
principal component analysis (PCA) was applied using all variables, in SPSS. For
continuous variables (e.g distance from CBD, population density, area, perimeter)
Pearson correlations were used to determine relationships between variables.
2.3
RESULTS
The results of the study are discussed under the headings Patch Attributes, External
Influences on Patches, and Disturbances in Patches and Factor Analysis.
2.3.1
Patch Attributes
The reserves occurred across the five main geomorphology units in the Perth
Metropolitan Area (Figure 2.1). Patches were between one and 4 000 ha in size, and
50% were smaller than 50 hectares. Shape index (SI) varied from 1.03 (closest to a circle
shape) to 6.35 for a long and narrow roadside reserve. Sixty-four percent of reserves had
high connectivity, with another bushland less than 10 metres away. Eleven reserves had
bushland more than one kilometre away, but all sampled reserves were within two
Fragmentation and Disturbance
67
kilometres of other bushland patches. Patches contained between one and eight different
floristic community types, and three on average.
2.3.2
External Influences
The reserves were situated in areas with population densities between 11 and 1780
people per square kilometre, with half of the reserves in areas of under 100 people/km2.
One inner city reserve was 2.5 kilometres from Perth CBD, and ten bushlands were
within a 10-kilometre radius of the city centre. The time at which full encapsulation of
the bushland occurred was known for 56 of the bushlands, and most were recently
encapsulated (Table 2.2). Land use compatibility was rated, and 40% of reserves had
compatible surroundings (Table 2.3). Thirty reserves were entirely fenced, 12 were
partially fenced (with one or two sides fenced) and 29 reserves were unfenced. Wire
fences were the most commonly used and two reserves had fox-proof fences.
Table 2.2. Encapsulation Period
Category (years)
< 1963
1964 – 1973
1974 – 1984
1984 - 2000
Frequency
6
6
5
39
Table 2.3. Land Use Compatibility
Category
High
Medium
Medium-low
Low
2.3.3
Surrounding Land Use
Bushland and
urban/semi-rural
Semi-rural or grassed
parks
Urban and semi-rural
or grassed parks
Urban, industrial
Frequency
28
12
14
16
Disturbances and Condition within Patches
Across the reserves a total of 26 types of disturbance were noted. Weed invasion was
evident in all 71 bushland reserves. Litter was noted in 61 reserves. Litter was usually
drink bottles and food wrappers. Heavy rubbish was also frequently noted, this included
sightings of cars, metal, bricks and rubble and bags of household rubbish. Other
common disturbances, found in five to 25 of the reserves, were patches of bare ground
68
Chapter Two
where the groundcover was lost; evidence of feral animals, such as rabbit scats and fox
dens; recent fire; numerous tracks; areas of erosion; evidence of horse or dog usage;
planted exotics, and mounds of dumped sand. Other disturbances, noted at least twice,
were: past uses (such as logging); sightings/evidence of vehicle entry; sewerage outlets;
horse or bike jumps; graffiti; drains; wood collection; grazing; plant disease;
encroachment from adjacent grassed areas; gravel pits, and current development
activity.
Thirty-seven reserves had low levels of weed cover (ie, weed cover under 25% of the
ground cover vegetation), and of these, 24 reserves had 5% weed cover or less. Four
reserves had high levels of weed cover (over 76% of the understorey). Weed species
assemblages differed across the geomorphic units. Coastal weeds, escaped garden
plants and lawn species were found on the Coastal Plain, whereas agricultural weeds,
such as Tagasaste (Chamaecytisus palmensus) and Paterson’s curse (Echium
plantagineum) were common in the Foothills and Darling Range. Weed species
encountered originate mainly from (in order of proportion) South Africa and southern
Africa, the Mediterranean, Europe and elsewhere in Australia.
Most reserves (62%) had low levels of rubbish, i.e. minimal amounts of litter and no
heavy rubbish. The most common types of litter were plastic or glass bottles and
aluminium cans, followed by plastic bags and cigarette butts. Only four reserves were
rated as having high levels of rubbish and these contained litter and heavy rubbish. All
four reserves lacked fencing and had vehicle access roads leading into the bushland.
Across all 71 reserves, 40% contained heavy rubbish, which might include car bodies
and car parts, building materials, furniture, old white goods and garbage bags thrown
over the fence from housing estates. An example of such a reserve is given in Figure
2.2. Dumped cars were found in six reserves, and five of these reserves were unfenced.
A seventh bushland reserve had just had 200 car bodies removed from it. Vegetative
rubbish was found in six bushlands, mainly mounds of dumped weeds or lawn from
gardens. In one reserve many lawn weeds and cacti were growing in an area that was an
informal local ‘tip’.
Walking paths were most commonly made of sand, limestone or gravel. Four reserves
had no paths, 17 had few paths, 26 had moderate path density and 17 reserves had high
numbers of paths. Most reserves (58%) had no goat paths, compared to the number of
Fragmentation and Disturbance
69
reserves with low, moderate or high densities of goat paths (each 14%). Vehicle access
tracks (usually limestone or sealed) entered 17 reserves and occurred at the perimeter of
a further six reserves.
Figure 2.2. Dumped rubbish in a reserve in outer Perth metropolitan area.
Fifteen reserves had been recently burnt (in the five years or less before the survey). Of
these, the burns were estimated to be of high intensity for eight reserves, but were
usually in a contained area. Twenty-four reserves had not been burnt in over 16 years,
and of these 17 showed even less signs of past fires.
Vegetation condition was visually assessed at each reserve, and reserves were most
commonly rated as having Excellent vegetation condition. None were rated as 6 –
Completely Degraded (Table 2.4).
Table 2.4. Vegetation Condition
Category
Pristine-Excellent
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Degraded
Completely Degraded
Frequency
8
30
19
10
4
0
70
2.3.4
Chapter Two
Factor Analysis
The 15 variables of patch attributes, external influences, disturbance and condition, as
well as fencing (fenced, partially fenced, unfenced) and vehicle access tracks
(present/absent) were subjected to principal component analysis using SPSS. In the
correlation matrix, there were many coefficients of 0.3 and above and the Barlett’s Test
of Sphericity reached statistical significance.
The correlation matrix revealed that reserves in areas of high population were close to
the city centre in geomorphic units closest to the coast, were small in size with long
encapsulation periods, low connectivity, low land use compatibility, recent fire, high
levels of weeds, high proportions of walking paths, low vegetation condition, and a low
number of vegetation communities. Alternatively, with distance from the CBD, there
were low population densities and reserves were well connected, recently encapsulated
and with compatible surrounding land uses, with low proportions of tracks and long
periods of time since last fire and a higher number of vegetation units. Additionally, low
vegetation condition occurred with high levels of weed infestation, small reserves and
coastal geomorphic units. High numbers of vegetation communities occurred with large
sized reserves and also with high shape indices. High levels of rubbish was correlated
with a lack of fencing and presence of vehicle access tracks in reserves. Also, high
walking path density occurred with high numbers of goat paths. Correlations among
continuous variables are consistent with Pearson correlation analysis, presented in Table
2.5.
The first four components of PCA explained 21.5%, 14%, 10% and 9% of the variance,
respectively. After inspection of a scree plot, a rotated solution was conducted for the
first two components. These two components explained a total of 35% of the variance.
The variables that loaded strongly on Component 1 were local population density,
geomorphic unit, encapsulation period, surrounding land use compatibility and distance
from the CBD. The variables of number of vegetation communities, goat path density,
density of walking paths, patch size and patch shape loaded strongly on Component 2
(Figure 2.3).
Fragmentation and Disturbance
71
Table 2.5. Correlations between Continuous Variables
Area
Shape Connect- Floristic Population Distance Time
Index
ivity Comm.s Density to CBD Since Fire
Area of patch Pearson Correlation 1
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Shape Index Pearson Correlation 0.207
(SI)
Sig. (2-tailed)
0.083
N
71
1
Connectivity Pearson Correlation -0.132
Sig. (2-tailed)
0.272
N
71
0.188
0.116
71
# Floristic
Pearson Correlation
Communities Sig. (2-tailed)
N
1
0.376** 0.432** -0.342*
1
0.005
53
0.001
53
0.012
53
Population
Pearson Correlation -0.091
-0.066
0.185
-0.166
Density
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
0.448
71
0.585
71
0.121
71
0.236
53
Distance
Pearson Correlation
0.148
0.189
-0.268* 0.393**
to CBD
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Time Since
Pearson Correlation
Fire
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
0.219
71
1
-0.545**
0.115 0.024
71
71
0.004
53
0.000
71
0.210
0.107
0.083
0.016
-0.268*
0.079
71
0.372
71
0.489
71
0.909
53
0.024
71
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
1
0.134
0.264
71
1
72
Chapter Two
1
FloristicCom
Area
SI
DistCBD
Encaps
Vehicle
Rubbish
Fenced
Fire
Axis 1
0
-1
Weeds
0
Connect
Condition
LandCom
1
PopDens
GeoUnit
WalkPaths
GoatPath
-1
Axis 2
Figure 2.3. Scatter Plot of Varimax Rotation of Two Factor Solution for Variables of
Fragmentation, Urban Influence, Disturbance and Condition.
Key:
PopDens: local population density; LandCom: surrounding land use matrix compatibility; Connect:
connectivity (distance to nearest bushland); Condition: vegetation condition; Weeds: level of weed
infestation; Area: area of patch; SI: Shape Index; Fire: time since last lire; FloristicCom: number of
floristic community types; DistCBD: distance from the patch to the Perth Central Business District;
Encaps: encapsulation period; WalkPaths: proportion of walking paths in the patch; GeoUnit: geomorphic
unit; Vehicle: vehicle access tracks in patch; Fenced: patch fenced/partially fenced/unfenced; GoatPath:
density of goat paths (informal paths) in the patch.
Fragmentation and Disturbance
2.4
DISCUSSION
2.4.1
Patterns of Fragmentation, Disturbance and Condition
73
Principal component analysis revealed that small reserves occurred closer to the city
centre and displayed effects of fragmentation at the high end of the scale of results
reported for this study: long periods of encapsulation, low connectivity to other remnant
vegetation, and low numbers of floristic communities. Likewise, the small inner
metropolitan reserves displayed higher levels of disturbance, with recent fire, high weed
infestation, many walking paths and a low vegetation condition. Conversely, further
from the city centre reserves had higher connectivity and vegetation heterogeneity and
were surrounded by more compatible land uses, such as bushland and semi-rural.
Floristic community heterogeneity was associated with reserve size (p<0.005), with a
high number of floristic communities present in the larger reserves. However, for the
case of Perth, this cannot be used in an argument to preserve large reserves and lose
small inner metropolitan reserves to the increasing demand for urban land. In the Perth
region, vegetation communities are highly variable, even within kilometres. Thus a
large amount of biodiversity would be lost if only outer metropolitan reserves were
preserved and inner city bushlands were developed. As well as being important in
helping to represent and preserve the vegetation communities that once existed in that
area, the small inner city reserves are valuable to inner city residents as areas of natural
beauty and for recreation.
Bastin and Thomas (1999) used the same shape index (SI) in their study of vegetation
fragments in the UK, and found SI values of up to 18, for a long narrow reserve. In this
study, the highest SI value was 6.35, for a linear roadside reserve. All other values were
below 2.8. Shape irregularity may be less of a factor for Perth reserves than in the
European context. It is generally cautioned that future development around reserves
should ensure that reserve shape remains regular, to minimise the amount of edge
exposed to the surrounding urban land use matrix. However, this research showed that
higher numbers of vegetation communities occurred with high shape indices –
suggesting that irregularly shaped reserves, such as long linear reserves, may cover
more of the floral diversity of the landscape. As Saunders et al. (1991) suggests, a linear
reserve may cover more environmental gradients than a square reserve of the same size.
74
Chapter Two
The question is: can species survive in these smaller or linear reserves, or are they just
“hanging on” as museum pieces?
Across the data set, there was a high level of patch connectivity, with over half of the
reserves having bushland adjacent. However, this seemingly positive statistic disguises
a real problem in the network of bushlands in the Perth area. Thirty-five of the sites are
separated from adjacent bushland by roads, often main roads. There is a tendency in
Perth to construct freeways and highways through regionally significant bushlands
(including Regional Parks and National Parks) rather than around them. Additionally,
minor roads internally fragmented seven sites. Many of these sites could have remained
as larger patches if planning had been more pro-active and sympathetic to bushland
conservation. Road networks have played a major role in causing fragmentation of
bushland in the Perth Region.
2.4.2
Anthropogenic Disturbances in Perth Bushland Reserves
Similarly to elsewhere in the world (e.g. Swenson and Franklin, 2000; Bagnall, 1979;
Matlack, 1993; Florgård, 2000), urbanisation has brought disturbances to the remnant
bushlands in Perth. Main disturbances were an influx of exotic plant species, especially
in the understorey vegetation, dumped rubbish, paths from trampling through the
vegetation, bare patches of ground where vegetation cover has been destroyed, feral
animals, erosion and domestic animals. Evidence of increased run-off entering the
bushlands, as reported for Sydney bushlands (see Leishman, 1990; Clements, 1983) was
rarely observed in this study, perhaps due to the near-flat, sandy terrain of most of the
Perth metropolitan area. Trampling was deemed to be an issue in around 30% of the
reserves, where a moderate or high proportion of informal ‘goat paths’ has indicated
people have trampled through the bushland rather than using walking paths. The density
of goat paths was high where there was also a high density of walking paths. This
suggests that these reserves are being used intensively.
Management input was not included as a variable in this study, and it is likely that
intensive management would affect the levels of weed infestation, rubbish and goat
paths to some extent. For example, one reserve had 200 car bodies removed from it
prior to the survey. This bushland was rated as having ‘moderate’ levels of rubbish, but
the rating would have been ‘high’ if surveyed before removal of the cars.
Fragmentation and Disturbance
2.4.3
75
Management Implications
Reserves closer to the city, in highly populated areas had higher levels of impact and
may have a lower long-term viability, as they will experience greater edge effects,
support smaller populations of plants and animals, be more isolated and have increased
disturbances stemming from the surrounding urban area. Whilst the size and shape of
patches is already established in inner metropolitan areas, management may alleviate
some stresses on the patch ecosystem, and weed management is especially important in
the inner metropolitan reserves. Lessons must be learned and incorporated into planning
for the increase in population and urban density in outer metropolitan areas, where
vegetation reserves are currently higher in number, larger in size, and less isolated. As
outer metropolitan areas infill with development, it is important not only to retain as
many remnants as possible, but to ensure they are not diminished in size. It is not too
late in Perth to plan for the optimal retention of bushland patches in the outer
metropolitan area.
Principal components analysis revealed that high levels of rubbish were associated with
lack of fencing and presence of vehicle access tracks. Field observation also indicated
that dumped cars and informal tips occurred along vehicle access tracks entering
reserves. Matlack (1993) also found that severity of human caused impacts in urban
reserves was linked to access. He found, in the absence of internal roads, the penetration
distance of campsites and rubbish dumping was greatly reduced. Thus, an appropriate
management action would be to close roads leading into bushlands and to externally
fence bushlands. With dumped rubbish occurring in almost half of the bushlands,
including large items such as cars, furniture and whitegoods, some management
response is necessary. As well as fencing and signage at reserves, increasing the
community’s awareness of bushland values and issues would be a suitable action. Local
governments may need to assess whether current access to rubbish tips and frequency of
kerb-side rubbish collection days are sufficient.
Weed presence was deemed to be the most common disturbance factor, with weeds
pervading every study site. Thus, weed management would be an appropriate primary
management focus in Perth bushlands, unless we are content to accept exotic species as
a part of our flora in natural vegetation patches. However, the common grassy weed
species of Perth bushlands die down in summer and greatly add to the fire fuel levels of
the ecosystem. The plants of the Perth region are distinctive, and residents and tourists
76
Chapter Two
appreciate the colourful wildflowers every spring. The native plants have intrinsic
value, and should be preserved for future generations.
2.5
CONCLUSIONS
The native vegetation that remains in the Perth Region has been affected by
fragmentation, urbanisation and disturbances originating from the urban environment. It
was shown that reserves in the more highly urbanised inner metropolitan area are
suffering more from effects of fragmentation and anthropogenic disturbance than outer
metropolitan reserves, which are larger and in better condition. This would imply that in
planning for natural green space in a city, it is best to protect larger bushland reserves in
the less densely populated outer metropolitan areas. However, this would create an
inequality in green space access for inner city residents, and would not be preserving
the very different vegetation communities in this part of the city. The current planning
policy in Perth aims to ensure protection of at least 10% of the original extent of each
vegetation community, which in principle should minimise development of inner city
bushlands. Whilst the distribution of patches and patch attributes has already been
determined in inner urban areas, the theories stemming from patch ecology studies must
be considered when planning for increased urban densities in outer metropolitan areas.
Fragmentation and Disturbance
77
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was conducted during a postgraduate scholarship at the Department of
Geography at the University of Western Australia. Thanks to Associate Professor
Arthur Conacher and Dr Ray Wills for comments on the research design and
manuscript. Thanks to Duanne Salins for assistance with GIS analysis. Thanks to
Bronwen Keighery of the Department of Environmental Protection and Loretta Bean of
the Shire of Mundaring for assistance in selecting study sites. Statistical advice from
Professor John Dodson and Ben Radford was appreciated. I am grateful to the
Australian Research Centre for Urban Ecology, at the University of Melbourne, where
the literature base for this paper was researched. Thank you to the referees for their
comments on the paper.
78
Chapter Two
REFERENCES
Bagnall, R.G., 1979. A Study of human impact on an urban forest remnant: Redwood
Bush, Tawa, near Wellington, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Botany, 17:
117-126.
Bastin, L. and Thomas, C.D., 1999. The distribution of plant species in urban vegetation
fragments. Landscape Ecology, 14: 493 - 507.
Benson, D. and Howell, J., 1990. Taken for Granted: The Bushland of Sydney and its
Suburbs. Kangaroo Press Pty Ltd, New South Wales.
Biodiversity Unit, Department of Environment, Sports and Territories, 1995.
Biodiversity Series, Paper No. 6: Native Vegetation Clearance, Habitat Loss and
Biodiversity Decline, an overview of recent native vegetation clearance in Australia
and its implications for biodiversity. Department of Environment, Sports and
Territories, Canberra.
Brisbane City Council, 1998. Conserving Biodiversity: Brisbane City Biodiversity
Strategy – Actions Today for the 21st Century. Brisbane City Council, Brisbane.
Buchanan, R. 1979. Edge disturbance in natural areas. Australian Parks and Recreation
– August 1979: 39 - 43.
Buchanan, R., 1989. Bush Regeneration: Recovering Australian Landscapes. TAFE
Student Learning Publications and Greening Australia, Sydney.
Catterall, C.P. and Kingston, M., 1997. Remnant Bushland of South East Queesnsland
in the 1990s: its distribution, loss, ecological consequences, and future prospects.
Faculty of Environmental Sciences, Griffith University and Brisbane City Council,
Brisbane.
Clements, A., 1983. Suburban development and resultant changes in the vegetation of
the bushland of the northern Sydney region. Aust. J. Ecol., 8: 307 - 319.
Fragmentation and Disturbance
79
De Gryse, J., 1994. Greening cities too green - the possible conflict between ecological
and urban values. In: Scheltema M.A. (Editor), 1994. 1994 National Greening
Australia Conference: A Vision for a Greener City: The Role of Vegetation in
Urban Environments. Greening Australia Limited, Canberra.
Dixon, J., Connell, S., Bailey, J. and Keenan, C. 1995. The Perth Environment Project
and Inventory of Perth’s Remnant Native Vegetation. In: Scheltema, M. (Ed) 1995.
Proc. 1994 National Greening Australia Conference: A Vision for a Greener City –
The Role of Vegetation in Urban Environments. Greening Australia Limited,
Canberra.
Farina, A., 2000. Principles and Methods in Landscape Ecology. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, The Netherlands.
Florgård, C., 2000. Long-term changes in indigenous vegetation preserved in urban
areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 52: 101 - 116.
Government of Western Australia, 2000. Bush Forever Volume 1: Policies, Principles
and Processes. Western Australian Planning Commission, Perth.
Hitchmough, J.D., 1994. Urban Landscape Management. Reed International Books
Australia Pty Limited, Melbourne.
Honnay, O. Endels, P., Vereecken, H. and Hermy, M., 1999. The role of patch area and
habitat diversity in explaining native plant species richness in disturbed suburban
forest patches in northern Belgium. Diversity and Distributions, 5: 129 - 141.
Howell, J. and Benson, D., 2000. Sydney’s Bushland: More than Meets the Eye. Royal
Botanic Gardens Sydney, Sydney.
Jarvis, N. (Editor), 1986. Western Australia, an Atlas of Human Endeavour, Second
Edition. Department of Lands and Surveys in association with the Education
Department of Western Australia, Perth.
80
Chapter Two
Keighery, B., 1994. Bushland Plant Survey. Wildflower Society of Western Australia,
Perth.
King, P.D. and Wells, M.R., 1990. Darling Range Rural Capability Study. Land
Resource Series No. 3. Western Australian Department of Agriculture.
Kirkpatrick, J. B., 1986. The viability of bush in cities – ten years of change in an urban
grassy woodland. Aust. J. Bot., 34: 691 - 708.
Kraehenbuehl, D.N., 1996. Pre-European Vegetation of Adelaide: A Survey from the
Gawler River to Hallett Cove. Nature Conservation Society of South Australia Inc.,
Adelaide.
Laurance, W.F. and Yenson, E., 1991. Predicting the impacts of edge effects in
fragmented habitats. Biological Conservation, 55: 77 - 92.
Leishman, M.R., 1990. Suburban development and resultant changes in the phosphorus
status of soils in the area of Ku-Ring-Gai, Sydney. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., 112 (1):
15 - 25.
Matlack, G.R., 1993. Environmental auditing sociological edge effects: spatial
distribution of human impacts in suburban forest fragments. Environmental
Management, 17 (6): 829 - 835.
Patton, D.R., 1975. A diversity index for quantifying habitat edge. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 3:
171-173.
Saunders, D.A., Hobbs, R.J. and Margules, C.R., 1991. Biological consequences of
ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology, 5 (1): 18 - 32.
Swensen, J.J. and Franklin, J., 2000. The effects of future urban development on habitat
fragmentation in the Santa Monica Mountains. Landscape Ecology, 15: 713 - 730.
Fragmentation and Disturbance
81
Zacharias, D. and Brandes, D., 1990. Species area-relationships and frequency –
Floristical data analysis of 44 isolated woods in northwestern Germany. Vegetatio,
88: 21 - 29.
82
Chapter Two
Chapter Three
Assessing Disturbance and Vegetation
Condition in Urban Bushlands
Maida Vale Bushland, Perth
Link to Chapter Three 83
LINK TO CHAPTER THREE
The original vegetation of metropolitan regions remains as highly fragmented patches
surrounded by urban land uses. Fragmentation and impacts from the urban environment
may compromise the long-term sustainability and ecological integrity of the remnant
bushlands. The research reported in the previous chapter investigated the patch
attributes, anthropogenic disturbance and vegetation condition of 71 bushlands located
across the metropolitan region of Perth. It was found that the pattern of fragmentation
across the metropolitan region is one of smaller bushland remnants in the inner
metropolitan area, and larger, more regularly shaped remnants in the outer metropolitan
area, which are well connected to other patches of bushland. The results indicated
which reserves are more self-sustaining and which are more vulnerable in the long term,
and this could inform planning and management decisions. Every bushland assessed
had been infiltrated with weed species (i.e. non-indigenous plants) and the bushlands
were also impacted by dumped rubbish, paths from trampling through the vegetation,
bare patches of ground where vegetation cover has been destroyed, feral animals,
erosion and domestic animals (Figures 2.4-2.9).
By assessing each bushland site as a whole, the research described in Chapter Two
provided an indication of human-caused disturbance and vegetation condition in relation
to levels of fragmentation and urban intensity at a metropolitan-wide scale. This
established that low vegetation condition reserves were the smaller, more highly
disturbed reserves in the high-population areas of the inner metropolitan region, and
reserves with high vegetation condition were larger patches in the outer metropolitan
area. Thus it would appear that at the regional scale, low vegetation condition of
bushlands is associated with higher levels of human impacts. The logical question
following these findings is: what is the relationship between disturbance and vegetation
condition within bushlands? Multiple human-caused disturbance factors were observed
in each of the 71 bushland reserves, and Hobbs and Huenneke (1992) suggest that rather
than having an additive effect, multiple disturbances work in synergism. Thus it is
hypothesised that within a bushland, localised areas of higher anthropogenic disturbance
will have lower vegetation condition.
For the rapid survey presented in the previous chapter, vegetation condition was
assessed by referring to the Vegetation Condition Scale developed by Keighery (1994).
84 Link to Chapter Three
It is a qualitative scale with six categories of condition, from Pristine to Completely
Degraded. Keighery’s Scale is commonly used by both ecologists and lay people to
assess and monitor vegetation condition in Perth bushlands. To investigate the
relationship between disturbance and condition at the bushland site scale requires finer
detail than the methods used in Chapter Two. A more comprehensive and quantitative
measurement of vegetation condition, a Vegetation Condition Index, was developed in
the research reported on in Chapter Three, which follows.
The Vegetation Condition Index was derived from a number of vegetation parameters,
including native species diversity, native plant cover, number of weed species and
cover, tree health and attributes of the ground surface layer. Where weeds were assessed
as an indication of level of disturbance in the rapid survey described in the previous
chapter, in the following research, weeds were included in the assessment of vegetation
condition, as an expression of the effects of disturbance. There is an indistinct division
between ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ with weeds, as with some of the other factors affecting
bushlands, such as fire. Weeds are a cause of disturbance: they out-compete and
suppress the native plant species, for example. They are also the result of human impact,
and in the following chapter high levels of weediness (species and cover) are considered
to be an expression of a decline in the integrity and naturalness of the bushland
ecosystem.
Developing the Vegetation Condition Index facilitated a) an investigation of the
relationship between anthropogenic disturbance intensity and vegetation condition, and
b) a comparison of Keighery’s Vegetation Condition Scale with the quantitative
technique. The results of this research are detailed in chapter Three.
Link to Chapter Three 85
Figure 2.4: Effects of fire.
A high intensity but localised fire,
the cause believed to be arson or
accidental, occurred in summer in
Kensington Bushland in inner
metropolitan Perth. Fire, often
caused by arson or accidents, is
common in the bushland reserves
of Perth. This plate shows the
bushland
vegetation
is
regenerating.
Figure 2.5: A quarry.
Most urban bushland remnants
have been impacted by past uses,
such as logging or grazing. This
plate shows an old gravel quarry
in a bushland on Perth’s foothills,
which once had a gravel mine.
The
vegetation
has
not
completely returned in the area
disturbed by quarrying.
Figure 2.6: Rubbish.
A number of the bushland
reserves surveyed in the research
reported on in chapter two have
vehicle tracks, informal or sealed,
leading into the bushland. The
entry to these vehicle access
tracks are often lined with
dumped
rubbish,
such
as
household
rubbish
and
whitegoods, as shown in this
plate.
86 Link to Chapter Three
Figure 2.7: Abandoned cars.
Abandoned cars were observed in six
of the 71 bushlands surveyed in the
research. Another reserve had 200
car bodies removed from it. The cars
can crush the vegetation, and often
are left to burn, which can spread to
the
entire
bushland
reserve.
However, it is possible that the cars
provide habitat for animals in the
bushland.
Figure 2.8: Dumped garden
waste.
Dumped garden waste was noted in
six of the reserves surveyed. Garden
material, as in this plate, adds a
source of weeds and nutrients, which
may encourage weed invasion and
growth.
Figure 2.9: Weeds.
Grassy weeds (the brown
ground-layer
vegetation)
have
taken
over
the
understorey vegetation, and
have died down, creating a
fire hazard.
Disturbance and Condition
3.0
89
ABSTRACT
Response of vegetation condition to severity of anthropogenic disturbance was
investigated in three remnant bushlands, in Perth, Western Australia. Vegetation
condition was estimated using a qualitative scale commonly used by community
bushland care groups, and also by developing a quantitative vegetation condition index
(VCI). There was some evidence of low vegetation condition being related to higher
disturbance, however, disturbance severity and vegetation condition were not
significantly correlated. Weeds are present throughout each bushland and on average
contribute 17 per cent of the ground-layer cover. Higher native ground-layer cover and
understorey cover was strongly correlated with both low weed cover and higher
numbers of native plant species, suggesting that it is important to maintain intact native
vegetation cover. The qualitative and quantitative assessments provided a very similar
indication of vegetation condition. The qualitative method is fast and easy for
community groups and other bushland managers to use when mapping and monitoring
vegetation condition.
90
Chapter Three
3.1
INTRODUCTION
Within metropolitan areas, fragmentation of the original vegetation by urbanisation has
resulted in small, isolated vegetation patches, surrounded by a human-dominated and
manufactured landscape. These fragments, henceforth termed urban bushlands, are
valuable for biodiversity conservation and also have societal value, for instance, in
providing a natural setting for recreation (McNeely et al. 1995; Bolund and
Hunhammar 1999). Urban bushlands suffer from the effects of fragmentation; smaller
patches support smaller populations and tend to have lower habitat diversity, and
isolated patches suffer from reduced genetic flow and dispersal (Farina 2000a; Davis
and Glick 1978). Fragmentation of vegetation by urbanisation also results in urban
bushlands remaining susceptible to disturbances originating from the surrounding
human-dominated landscape. The research reported on in this paper aimed to apply
vegetation condition assessments to investigate the effects of anthropogenic disturbance
on the vegetation component of urban bushlands. The research was undertaken in Perth,
a city of 1.34 million residents (ABS 2004). Approximately
260 000 hectares of the
530 000 ha metropolitan region has some remnant native vegetation cover (Perth
Biodiversity Project 2003; Figure 3.1; Footnote1).
Disturbance is common and widespread in natural ecosystems and can be caused by
abiotic or biotic factors (Farina 2000a). Farina (2000a) suggests that anthropogenic
disturbance differs from natural disturbances in terms of severity, extension and
frequency. Human-caused disturbance includes alteration of natural regimes, such as a
change in fire frequency. In the urban bushland context, anthropogenic disturbance
takes many forms (Table 3.1) and rather than being additive, multiple disturbances are
likely to work in synergism (Hobbs and Huenneke 1992). There is not always a clear
distinction between ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ in relation to disturbance. Weed (nonindigenous plant) establishment can be a response to disturbance (Fox and Fox 1986;
Hobbs 2000; Rose 1997), but weeds are also a disturbance factor, as they impact upon
the native flora and fauna (Carr et al. 1992; Cochrane 2001). In this paper, weeds are
measured as a result of disturbance: an expression of a decline in the condition of
bushland vegetation and an indication of a loss of ‘naturalness’ in the system.
1
The figure given by Dixon et al. in 1995 for the proportion of remnant native vegetation cover in the Perth
metropolitan region is still quoted by government organisations today (e.g. Perth Biodiversity Project 2003, website
accessed 2005), though undoubtedly much native vegetation has been lost in that time frame.
Disturbance and Condition
Perth
Metropolitan
Area and
Study Sites
91
N
10°S
Swan
20°S
A U S T R A L I A
30°S
Perth
Sydney
Melbourne
Indian
W
40°S
400 km
120°E
140°E
Ocean
Legend
Darling
CBD
K
MV
river
Metropolitan boundary
Plateau
Darling Scarp
Indicative inner-mid
metropolitan boundary
Study Sites:
K Kensington Bushland
MV Maida Vale Bushland
W Warwick Bushland
0
10
Coastal
Plain
kilometres
Figure 3.1. Map of the Perth metropolitan area and study sites.
The map shows the three study sites and the major geomorphic units of the metropolitan area: the flat,
sandy Swan Coastal Plain where the majority of Perth’s residents live and around 28% of the area has
native vegetation cover, and the less developed Darling Range where the majority of the metropolitan’s
remnant bushland occurs. The grey circle on the map approximately delineates the inner-mid
metropolitan area, the most densely populated part of Perth and with little native vegetation remaining
(less than 10%). (Data from Government of Western Australia 2000).
92
Chapter Three
It is believed that anthropogenic disturbance will cause a reduction in natural vegetation
condition or ‘ecosystem health’ (Farina 2000b; see Rapport et al. 1998 for discussion on
the ecosystem health concept). For example, an increase in fire frequencies can change
plant species composition, and pedestrian or vehicular traffic will damage plant cover
(Hitchmough 1994; Table 3.1). Human pressures lead to decreased biodiversity,
productivity and resilience, and increased disease in an ecosystem (Rapport et al. 1998).
Early indications of a degrading landscape might include a decline in leaf litter
accumulation rates, erosion, invasion by weedy plants, decreased perennial cover and
increased annuals, an increase in fire-tolerant plants (Groves 1998) and canopy
defoliation. These changes to the vegetation component of the bushland will have
negative flow-on effects to the faunal populations it supports. Declining vegetation
condition may also detract from the bushland’s societal values.
Ecosystem or vegetation condition is a complex state to measure. Literature on
ecosystem condition assessments asserts that to capture the complexities of ecosystems,
condition can not be measured by species diversity or indicator species alone, and
compositional, structural and functional elements of biodiversity should be included in
assessments (Dale and Beyeler 2001; Noss 1990, 1999; Oliver 2002). Yet, indicators
used to measure condition should remain simple enough to be easily monitored (Dale
and Beyeler 2001). An objective of this research was to develop an ecologically based,
quantitative vegetation condition assessment for urban bushlands, to investigate the
relationship between level of disturbance and condition.
The most widely used method for assessing vegetation condition in the Perth region is a
qualitative, descriptive scale developed by Keighery (1994; Table 3.2). Keighery’s short
descriptive scale has been used in the State planning document Bush Forever
(Government of Western Australia 2000), by environmental consultants and by
community-based groups (e.g. Friends groups, Bushcare groups). The scale is based on
simple descriptions of vegetation structure, weed proliferation and disturbances present,
so it does not require expert ecological knowledge on behalf of the user, and as such is a
suitable tool for community groups. The scale allows for rapid visual assessments and
bushland condition mapping. Community groups are possibly the largest user group of
Keighery’s scale. With the high level of community volunteer involvement in bushland
care, which is expected to continue and increase (Safstrom and O’Byrne 2001) it is
important that volunteers can be confident that they are using sound methods in
Disturbance and Condition
93
bushland condition mapping and monitoring. Thus, the research also aimed to test the
robustness of Keighery’s scale, by comparing it to results from the ecologically based,
quantitative scale developed.
Table 3.1. Common Anthropogenic Disturbance Factors in Urban Bushlands in
Australia, their Cause and Effect on the Bushland Ecology.
Factor
Cause
Rubbish
- Garden, household and industrial
rubbish dumped in bushland
- Bushlands sites are seen as a
‘wasteland’
- Lack of tip access
Pedestrian
and vehicular
traffic
Children’s
play
- People straying from paths
- Unauthorised use of cars, bicycles and
motorcycles in bushlands
- Cubby houses, bicycle tracks and
ramps
Removal of
plants or
wood
Stormwater
runoff
- People taking plants (or soil or rocks)
for their gardens, wood collection
Changed fire
regime
- In some areas, fire frequency has
increased, due to control burning and
arson.
- In other areas fire exclusion policies
have reduced frequencies
- Introduced by humans, e.g rabbits,
foxes, European honey-bee
- Neighbourhood pets (cats, dogs)
Feral and
domestic
animals
- Increased proportion and velocity of
run-off and pollutants that enter runoff from roads, often through drains
Effect
- Garden refuse adds weed seeds and stems
and nutrients to facilitate weed invasion
- Can smother and kill native vegetation
- Unsightly
- Encourages further rubbish dumping
- Dumped cars set alight or broken glass
heated by the sun can cause bushland fires
- Erosion, trampling, soil compaction,
formation of unauthorised tracks
- Arson and accidental fire
- Damage to vegetation and soil disturbance
- Young saplings killed to make structures
- Accidental fire
- Damage to vegetation and loss of vegetation
- Loss of wildlife habitat
- Erosion from water’s strong impact
- Dense weed growth by providing seeds,
water and nutrients
- Alters pH and soil temperatures
- Changed fire frequency may change species
abundances and composition and simplify
the understorey
- Repeated burning allows invasion of weeds
due to increased bare soil
- Carnivorous animals can reduce the number
of prey species and may even cause local
extinctions
- Herbivorous animals cause erosion, eat
native vegetation and compete with native
fauna for food
- Compete with native species; e.g. European
honey-bee competes with native bee for
nesting holes
Introduced
plants
- Human introduction of non-local plant
species, which spread via wind,
waterways and runoff, animals or
human intervention.
- Effect capacity of ecosystems to regenerate
- Destroy ecosystem processes
- Replacing native species
- Loss of habitat and food for native fauna
- Grassy weeds provide ‘fuel’ for fires
- Destroys habitat, introduces weeds
- Can kill or damage biota
Past uses
Pesticide
spray drift
- Logging, grazing, mining
- From surrounding gardens or adjacent
grassed parkland
Fertilisers
- From surrounding gardens or adjacent
grassed parkland
- Add nutrients to the ecosystem, which
encourages weed growth
Rising/
falling water
table
- Bore water pumping
- Vegetation defoliation or death
94
Chapter Three
Table 3.2. Vegetation Condition Scale.
1
‘Pristine’
Pristine or nearly so, no obvious signs of disturbance.
2
Excellent
Vegetation structure intact, disturbance affecting individual species
and weeds are non-aggressive species.
For example damage to trees caused by fire, the presence of non-aggressive weeds
and occasional vehicle tracks.
3
Very Good
Vegetation structure altered, obvious signs of disturbance.
For example disturbance to vegetation structure caused by repeated fires, the
presence of some more aggressive weeds, dieback, logging and grazing.
4 Good
Vegetation structure significantly altered by very obvious signs of
multiple disturbances. Retains basic vegetation structure or ability to
regenerate it.
For example disturbance to vegetation structure caused by very frequent fires, the
presence of some very aggressive weeds at high density, partial clearing, dieback
and grazing.
5
Degraded
Basic vegetation structure severely impacted by disturbance. Scope
for regeneration but not to a state approaching good condition without
intensive management.
For example, disturbance to vegetation structure caused by very frequent fires, the
presence of some very aggressive weeds, partial clearing, dieback and grazing.
6
Completely
Degraded
The structure of the vegetation is no longer intact and the area is
completely or almost completely without native species.
These areas are often described as ‘parkland cleared’ with flora composing weed or
crop species with isolated native trees or shrubs.
Reproduced with permission from Keighery, B. 1994. Bushland Plant Survey: A Guide to Plant
Community Survey for the Community. Wildflower Society of WA (Inc.). p27
To reiterate, research aimed to:
1. Investigate the relationship between anthropogenic disturbance and vegetation
condition in urban bushlands, by comparing level of disturbance to:
(a) vegetation condition measured by Keighery’s qualitative scale, and
(b) vegetation
condition
measured
by
developing
a
quantitative,
ecologically-based vegetation condition index (VCI); and
2. investigate the robustness of a commonly used qualitative vegetation condition
scale (Keighery’s scale) by comparing it to the quantitative scale (VCI).
Disturbance and Condition
3.2
95
METHODS
The research was undertaken in three bushland sites, in Perth. The three bushland
reserves (Figure 3.1) were chosen to represent a range in disturbance intensity, from
relatively low (Kensington Bushland) to high disturbance (Warwick Bushland), to test
the hypothesis that vegetation condition declines with increasing disturbance intensity.
Site selection was based on a previous rapid assessment of disturbance and vegetation
condition of 71 bushlands (Chapter 2). The bushlands are regionally-significant A Class
reserves, vested in (three different) local governments. Each is managed by the local
government and a community group. The three bushlands are of different vegetation
complexes; however, each is predominantly open woodland with an overstorey
dominated by Bankisa spp. and Jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata). No undisturbed
reference site was included in this research, as the rapid survey of 71 bushlands found
that disturbance and weeds characterised every bushland (Stenhouse 2004). Fieldwork
was undertaken in the three sites over a period of 38 days in spring (October and
November), 2000.
The research involved three parts: 1) a whole-of-site estimation of disturbance and
qualitative assessment of vegetation condition with Keighery’s scale; 2) developing a
detailed, quantitative assessment of vegetation condition, by measuring, in sample 100
m2 quadrats, a number of vegetation characteristics that contributed to a Vegetation
Condition Index, and 3) comparing the qualitative and quantitative vegetation condition
assessments. The whole-of-site assessment was relatively rapid and allowed for
coverage of a large portion of each reserve, to provide an overview of disturbance and
condition in the reserves. The Vegetation Condition Index was detailed and thus only
sampled a small part of each reserve, however it facilitated a more focused investigation
into disturbance and condition.
3.2.1
Whole-of-Site Rapid Assessment of Disturbance and Qualitative Vegetation
Condition
Each bushland was surveyed for anthropogenic disturbances and vegetation condition
using 75, 50 m by 50 m quadrats across the three bushlands, spaced evenly across each
bushland in a grid fashion (such that roughly one third of the area of each bushland was
surveyed). In each of the each 2500 m2 quadrats the following was assessed:
96
Chapter Three
1. Disturbance. Within each 2500 m2 quadrat every disturbance factor
encountered, or evidence of, was given a rating from one (minimal) to six (severe)
based on a descriptive scale used in the field, developed for this study. Ten disturbance
factors were encountered: fire, tracks, litter (e.g. drink bottles), heavy rubbish (e.g.
building rubble), vegetative rubbish, feral animals, damaged plants, trampling, dumped
sand and dug holes. Each disturbance rating was summed to give an overall
‘disturbance score’ for each quadrat. Each disturbance was equally weighted for the
overall score.
2. Rapid Appraisal of Vegetation Parameters. Vegetation parameters recorded
were: estimates of weed cover (weed cover as a per cent of the ground-layer
vegetation); tallies of the number of weed species present; visual estimates of the per
cent bare ground; understorey and ground-layer native plant cover and canopy cover.
These were recorded for comparison with the survey of disturbance, to investigate
whether any individual disturbances, or disturbance intensity, have impacted on those
vegetation characteristics.
3. Qualitative Assessment of Vegetation Condition: Vegetation condition was
qualitatively estimated using the descriptive Vegetation Condition Scale, developed by
Keighery (1994; Table 3.2).
4. Statistical Analysis. Spearman rank correlations (R) were calculated to test for
relationships among disturbance scores, vegetation parameters and Keighery’s
Vegetation Condition Scale scores for the whole-of-site assessments. Correlation values
are given in the text and tables and significance levels are indicated (* refers to <0.05;
** refers to <0.01, two-tailed).
3.2.2
Quantitative Assessment and Vegetation Condition Index
Following the whole-of-site surveys, a quantitative assessment of vegetation condition
was conducted, sampled with 100 m2 quadrats. This quadrat size is commonly used for
vegetation surveys on the Swan Coastal Plain (e.g. Gibson et al. 1994). Warwick
Bushland is divided by sealed roads into three bushland areas of roughly 15 hectares
each, and five quadrats were sampled in each section (quadrats W1 to W15). Five
quadrats (K1 to K5) were sampled in the 9-hectare Kensington Bushland and eight in
the 14-hectare Maida Vale Bushland (M1 to M8). Quadrats were positioned evenly
across each reserve area. Quadrats were located away from the edge, roads or main
Disturbance and Condition
97
paths, as much as possible, to avoid interference of any edge effects. In each of the 100
m2 quadrats, the following data were recorded:
1. Disturbance. Any evidence of disturbance within the 100 m2 area was noted,
and again disturbance factors were rated from 1 to 6 for severity using the same field
guide. The ratings for each disturbance factor were summed to provide disturbance
scores for individual quadrats (again with each disturbance equally weighted).
2. Measurement of Vegetation Parameters. Numbers of native plant species,
native plant cover, number of weed species, weed cover, bare ground, litter layer depth,
decomposed litter layer depth, tree mortality and canopy health were recorded for each
quadrat (see Table 3.3 for methods).
3. Development of a Vegetation Condition Index (VCI). The vegetation data
above were grouped into the sub-indices of Species Diversity, Native Plant Cover, Tree
Health, Weeds and Soil Surface Layer. These sub-indices provided a quantitatively
derived Vegetation Condition Index score for each quadrat (see Table 3.3 for methods).
Potential scores for the VCI range from 0 (the worst possible condition) to 50 (best
condition) and actual scores for the 100 m2 quadrats range from 14 to 45. Using the
actual range, VCI scores are categorised as:

low condition: <25;

moderate condition: 25–35;

good condition: >35.
4. Statistical Analysis. The sub-indices of the VCI were subjected to
discriminant function analysis in SPSS V8, to indicate which components are driving
the Vegetation Condition Index. Discriminant function analysis is sensitive to outliers,
so the sub-indices data was assessed for outliers using SPSS, and none was identified.
Principle components analysis (PCA) was applied using all vegetation characteristics to
explore the data generally and to compare groupings of quadrats by PCA to groupings
of quadrats by the VCI. Spearman Rank (R) correlations were calculated to test for
significant correlations between (a) the VCI and disturbance score and (b) the
disturbance score and vegetation parameters. Pearson correlations (r) were used to test
for correlations among the vegetation parameters.
98
Chapter Three
Table 3.3. Vegetation Condition Index (VCI): Sub-Indices, Indicators and Observed
Values for Indicators.
Observed Values
SubIndicesa
Species
diversity
Native
Plant
Coverc
Tree
Healthd
b
Indicators
Method of Assessment
Min
Number
of
native species
Number
of
uncommon
species
Ground layer
cover
Understorey
cover
Per cent of
canopy
as
unhealthy
Every native plant species in quadrat was
recorded and identified
Those species which occurred in two or less
of the 28 quadrats
1
56
0
5
0
95
70
0
94
60
0
56
4
0
100
7
2
12
7
100
15
0
59
14
0
1.9
0.6
0
1.1
0.3
Tree mortality
Weedsd
Soil
surface
layer
Number
of
weed species
Weed cover
Bare ground
Litter
depth
layer
Decomposed
litter
layer
depth
Per cent native understorey cover was
estimated visually
Per cent native ground-layer cover was
estimated visually
Number of trees with unhealthy canopy was
recorded, and this was converted to a
percentage. E.g. for a quadrat with ten trees,
40 per cent canopy cover, and two trees with
unhealthy canopy:
2 unhealthy trees/ 10 trees =
20%
20% unhealthy*40% cover/100 = 8%
unhealthy canopy cover for that quadrat.
The number of all standing trees that were
dead, converted to a percentage of total
number of trees
Every non-indigenous plant species in
quadrat was recorded and identified
Weed cover was visually estimated as
percentage of the ground-layer cover
The per cent of the quadrat that was bare
ground was estimated visually
Depth (cm) was measured in the middle and
four corners of the quadrat (i.e. five
replicates).
Depth (cm) was measured in the middle and
four corners of the quadrat (i.e. five
replicates).
0.3
Max
Mean
38
1.2
Notes:
a: Each quadrat was given a score out of ten for each sub-index, where ten would be the highest possible
expression of condition. The scores out of ten for sub-indices were tallied to give a final VCI score out of
50 for each quadrat.
b: For each quadrat, each indicator was assigned a percentage: the actual value for that quadrat divided by
the maximum value of the indicator data set times 100. These indicator percentages were scaled down to
give the score out of ten for each sub-index. So a quadrat with 56 native species and 5 uncommon native
species would receive a score of 10 for the Native Species Diversity sub-index. All indicators were
evenly weighted for all sub-indices, except Species Diversity, where number of uncommon species was
weighted as 2.5 out of 10 as it was considered less important than overall species diversity for vegetation
condition.
c: canopy cover has not been included as trees are naturally patchy in distribution in Perth bushlands,
whereas ground-layer cover (i.e. herb layer) and understorey cover (i.e. shrub layer) are typically
continuous.
d: The scores sub-indices of Tree Health and Weeds were inverted such that low tree mortality and low
unhealthy canopy, and low weed numbers and cover, received high scores, to remain consistent with the
other sub-indices. Thus, higher VCI scores represented better vegetation condition.
Disturbance and Condition
3.2.3
99
Comparison of Qualitative (Keighery’s Scale) and Quantitative (VCI)
Assessments of Vegetation Condition
Spearman Rank correlations were calculated between the VCI scores for the 100 m2
quadrats and Keighery’s Scale scores for the 2500 m2 quadrats in which they were
located, to determine whether the quantitative and qualitative methods provide the same
reading of vegetation condition. To further test the validity and useability of Keighery’s
Scale, eight people, independent of the research, were taken to a number of bushland
sites in the Perth region and asked to rate vegetation condition using the scale. Most
participants had no or limited ecological training.
3.3
RESULTS
3.3.1
Whole-of-Site Rapid Assessment of Disturbance and Qualitative Vegetation
Condition
Ten disturbance factors were evident in the 2500 m2 quadrats (Table 3.4). The total
disturbance score for each quadrat ranged from 1 to 16.5, and was 3.6 on average (out
of a highest possible score of 60 per quadrat).
Weed cover averaged 17 per cent of the ground-layer cover, and 1–16 weed species
(average 8 species) were recorded in each quadrat. No quadrat was free of weeds.
Understorey vegetation (shrub and ground-layer cover) averaged 78 per cent cover and
quadrats had a mean of 15 per cent bare ground. For the vegetation parameters
measured, no strong correlations with disturbance types or severity were found,
although high fire impact (i.e. recent and/or severe fires) correlated with low
understorey plant cover (R = -0.60**) and high disturbance correlated with low
understorey cover (R = -0.55**).
Vegetation condition was qualitatively assessed for each quadrat using Keighery’s
Vegetation Condition Scale and the average rating across quadrats was 3 (Good
Condition). There was a low, significant correlation between the disturbance score and
vegetation condition rating (R=0.32**, keeping in mind high numbers represent low
condition with Keighery’s Scale). No strong correlations between condition and
disturbance or vegetation parameters were found. Fifty-eight percent of the quadrats
were situated at the edges of the reserves. Edge quadrats did not have significantly
100
Chapter Three
lower vegetation condition (R = 0.05, p = 0.68) or significantly higher disturbance
scores (R = -0.06, p = 0.62) than interior quadrats.
Table 3.4. Disturbances Evident in the Whole-of-Site Assessments.
Disturbance
Factor
Evidence/ Examples
Quadrats with
Disturbance
(%)
97
Average
Rating (/6) for
quadrats
2.2
Fire
Charred trees, browned
leaves
Tracks
Quadrat bordered by walking
tracks
90
2.2
Litter
Drink bottles, plastic bags
61
1
Feral animals
Rabbit scats, rabbit diggings,
fox dens
35
1
Household/
industrial rubbish
Bricks, cement, metal scraps
32
0.6
Damaged Plants
Kangaroo paw flowers taken,
Grass tree leaves broken off
28 a
0.7
Repeated
trampling
Dumped sand
Informal paths had developed
19
0.5
Mounds of dumped sand
present
11
0.3
Holes
Large holes dug
8a
0.2
Vegetative
Rubbish
Palm fronds
4
0.1
Notes:
Data has been combined for all three sites and n=75
a: All incidences occurred in Warwick bushland, and mainly in the area adjacent to the high school.
3.3.2
Assessment of Disturbance and Quantitative Vegetation Condition (VCI)
The largest bushland, Warwick, had an average of 44 native plant species per 100 m2
quadrat, and a total of 126 species were identified in the 15 quadrats. At Kensington,
122 native species were counted in five quadrats, and an average of 54 species per
quadrat were identified. A total of 114 native species, and an average of 48 species per
quadrat, were identified at Maida Vale Bushland.
The Vegetation Condition Index grouped four quadrats into the category of low
condition, 14 in moderate condition and ten in good condition. On average, low
Disturbance and Condition
101
condition quadrats were characterised by the lowest number of native species and cover,
most weeds and bare ground, and lowest litter layer depths (Table 3.5). Principle
component analysis of the raw data on vegetation parameters reflected the VCI
groupings of quadrats (Figure 3.2). In the PCA, the high VCI group occurred along the
first component axis, which related to high native vegetation cover and species
diversity, and the low VCI quadrats were grouped along the second component axis,
which related to high weed cover and high numbers of weed species (Figure 3.2).
Table 3.5. Mean and standard deviation (in parentheses) of vegetation characteristics of
low to high categories of vegetation condition.
Characteristic
Native species per quadrat
Percent understorey (shrub) cover
Percent ground-layer cover
Weed species per quadrat
Percent weed cover in ground-layer
Percent bare ground in quadrat
Litter layer depth (cm)
Decomposed litter layer depth (cm)
Vegetation Condition Index score
Disturbance score
VCI Categories
Low
Medium
High
20.0
(13.5)
28.7
(19.5)
16.8
(13.6)
10.0
(1.4)
42.9
(38.2)
36.2
(25.9)
37.5
(4.9)
67.4
(12.8)
56.2
(13.6)
7.7
(2.4)
13.1
(10.7)
16.8
(7.6)
45.0
(6.3)
87.3
(10.6)
79.4
(13.8)
4.8
(2.4)
6.5
(7.0)
3.0
(3.3)
0.1
(0.1)
0.0
(0.0)
9.5
(4.5)
0.4
(0.5)
0.1
(0.2)
31.5
(2.0)
1.1
(0.3)
0.5
(0.3)
39.8
(3.1)
9.3
2.3
2.4
102
Chapter Three
Axis 2
1
W11
0.8
Low VCI
0.6
0.4
Moderate VCI
W3
W13
0.2
W11
W4
M6
W5
W8
M7
W14
0
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
M5
W9
K3
Axis 1
W2 W10 W12
K1
W15
0.2
K2
K5
W7
0.25
W1
High VCI
K4
M2
0.3
M1
M3
M8
M4
-0.2
Figure 3.2. Principle components analysis for vegetation parameters.
PCA for vegetation parameters (native species diversity, number of uncommon species, understorey
cover, ground-layer cover, number of weed species, weed cover, canopy health, tree mortality, percent
bare ground, litter layer depth (cm), decomposed litter layer depth (cm)). Axis 1 relates to native plant
cover and species numbers, and Axis 2 related to weed cover and species. Letters refer to site (W =
Warwick, K = Kensington and M = Maida Vale) and numbers refer to quadrat numbers.
Scores for the sub-indices of ‘native species diversity’, ‘native plant cover’, ‘absence of
weeds’ and ‘soil surface layer’ all increase with increasing vegetation condition (Figure
3.3). However, tree health remained relatively constant across each vegetation condition
category (Figure 3.3). Discriminant function analysis revealed that the sub-indices of
‘native cover’, ‘native species diversity’ and ‘absence of weeds’ contributed 97.2% of
the variance for the categories of low, medium and high vegetation condition (Table
3.6).
Disturbance and Condition
Native Species Diversity
103
Native Plant Cover
10
8
6
4
2
0
10
8
6
4
2
0
Low
Medium
High
Low
Medium
Absence of Weeds
High
Tree Health
10
8
6
4
2
0
10
8
6
4
2
0
Low
Medium
High
Low
Medium
High
Soil Surface Layer
10
8
6
4
2
0
Low
Medium
High
Figure 3.3. Average scores for each sub-index for the categories of low, medium and
high vegetation condition.
Note that weeds and tree health have been inverted for the VCI – so high values indicate high condition
(i.e. high values actually reflect low weed numbers and cover, healthy canopy and low tree mortality).
Table 3.6. Structure Matrix for Discriminant Function Analysis.
Sub-index
Native plant cover
Native species diversity
Absence of weeds
Tree health
Soil surface layer
Percent of variance
Function 1
0.677*
0.454*
0.394*
0.152
0.367
97.2
Function 2
0.246
- 0.026
0.157
0.647*
- 0.396*
2.8
Variables ordered by absolute size of correlation with function.
* Largest absolute correlation between each variable and any function.
104
Chapter Three
On average the 100 m2 quadrats scored 3.7 out of a possible 60 for disturbance score.
All quadrats scored below 6, apart from four quadrats (quadrats W3, W11, M6 and M7)
that had disturbance scores between 8 and 16.5. These same quadrats were classed as
low or medium vegetation condition by the VCI (see Figure 3.2). However, there was
no significant correlation between the VCI and disturbance scores (R= -0.32).
Disturbance scores were not highly correlated with any vegetation parameters (Table
3.7). Pearson correlations revealed a number of significant interactions among the
vegetation parameters, notably that low weed cover was correlated with high numbers
of native species and high native plant cover, and high native plant cover and high
native species diversity were correlated (Table 3.8).
Table 3.7. Spearman Rank Correlations for Disturbance Score, Keighery’s Scale and
Vegetation Parameters as sampled in 100 m2 quadrats in three bushlands.
.
Disturbance
Keighery’s
Score
Scale a
n = 27
n = 28
Disturbance Score
1
-
Vegetation Condition Index (VCI)
-0.32
-
Keighery Scale
0.34
1
Number of native species
-0.08
-0.79**
Native understorey cover
-0.44*
-0.92**
Native ground-layer cover
-0.37*
-0.93**
Number of weed species
0.07
0.69**
Percent weed cover
0.27
0.81**
Unhealthy canopy cover
-0.09
-0.18
Tree mortality
0.34
0.31
Percent bare ground
0.06
0.50**
Litter layer depth
-0.11
-0.59**
Decomposed litter layer depth
-0.12
-0.53**
Notes:
* Correlation is significant at the < 0.05 level (2-tailed)
** Correlation is significant at the < 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Outliers have been removed.
a: For Keighery’s Scale, high scores correspond with low vegetation condition.
Disturbance and Condition
105
Table 3.8. Pearson Correlations among the Vegetation Parameters as sampled in 100 m2
5 Weed cover
6 Canopy cover
7 Tree mortality
1
-0.50**
-0.81**
0.07
-0.44*
-0.71**
0.38
0.24
1
0.28
-0.30
0.09
0.59**
-0.49*
-0.38
1
-0.20
0.17
0.29
-0.01
0.04
1
-0.08
-0.12
0.17
0.12
1
0.57** 1
-0.33 -0.62** 1
-0.26 -0.57** 0.66**
9 Litter layer
4 Weed species
1
0.96**
-0.42*
-0.83**
0.10
-0.41*
-0.67**
0.34
0.32
8 Bare ground
3 Ground-layer cover
1 Number of native species
1
2 Native understorey cover
0.71**
3 Native ground-layer cover
0.73**
4 Number of weed species
-0.47*
5 Percent weed cover
-0.52**
6 Unhealthy canopy cover
0.02
7 Tree mortality
-0.37
8 Percent bare ground
-0.67**
9 Litter layer depth
0.40*
10 Decomposed litter layer depth 0.26
2 Understorey cover
1 Native Species
quadrats in three bushlands.
Notes:
* Correlation is significant at the < 0.05 level (2-tailed)
** Correlation is significant at the < 0.01 level (2-tailed)
n=26
Outliers have been removed.
a: For the Vegetation Condition Index (VCI), high scores correspond to high vegetation condition.
b: For Keighery’s Scale, high scores correspond with low vegetation condition.
3.3.3 Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative Measures of Vegetation
Condition
There was a highly negative, significant correlation between scores from the
quantitative Vegetation Condition Index (where high scores correspond to high
condition) and scores from the qualitative Keighery’s Scale (where high scores
correspond with low condition) (R= -0.86**; Figure 3.4). Four quadrats were rated by
Keighery’s Scale as 5 (degraded) or 6 (completely degraded) and these were the same
quadrats grouped as ‘low condition’ by the VCI scores. Likewise, all quadrats that were
rated as 2 (excellent condition) were grouped as ‘high condition’ by the VCI scores. To
test the objectivity of the Keighery’s Scale, scores from groups of two to five people at
fourteen bushland sites were compared. At seven sites, the estimated scores were the
same for all participants, and at seven sites the scores differed by a magnitude of one
category.
106
Chapter Three
6
Keighery Scale Score
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
Vegetation Condition Index Score
Figure 3.4. Scatter diagram showing relationship between Vegetation Condition Index
scores and Keighery’s Vegetation Condition Scale scores.
Note that for Keighery’s Scale, six is poorest condition, and for the VCI, zero is poorest condition.
3.4
DISCUSSION
3.4.1
Effect of Anthropogenic Disturbance on Vegetation Condition
Ten human-caused impacts were repeatedly observed in the three bushland sites. It was
found that the most prevalent human impacts are fire impacts (usually due to arson or
human-caused accidental fire in the bushlands of Perth), formal walking paths
intersecting the bushland vegetation, and litter. High fire impact was correlated with
low vegetation cover. No such interactions with the vegetation characteristics were
significant for litter or walking tracks (through it was observed on-site that the
immediate edge of tracks are very high in weed cover). Does an anthropogenic
event/object only become a disturbance in a bushland when there is an observable and
measurably significant impact on the ecosystem?
No edge effect was found in the whole-of-site assessment; level of disturbance and
vegetation condition was not correlated with location at edge or interior. The apparent
absence of an edge effect may be due to the small size of the bushland patches (each
bushland patch bounded by roads is under 15 hectares in area). With this small size and
many tracks, the entire bushland area is open to anthropogenic disturbance; the whole
Disturbance and Condition
107
bushland may be edge effected. Alternatively, the large quadrat size used may not have
been a sensitive enough measure to identify an edge effect: transects from edge to
interior with quadrats at one to five metre intervals would be required.
The whole-of-site analysis revealed only a weak correlation between severity of
disturbance and vegetation condition, and the analysis of 100 m2 quadrats revealed no
correlation between disturbance scores and the Vegetation Condition Index (VCI) or
between disturbance scores and the vegetation parameters measured. There are a
number of reasons that might explain this non-correlation. Disturbance was generally
low in all 100 m2 quadrats (an average of 3.7 out of a possible score of 60), and only
one quadrat was particularly high in disturbance (with a score of 16.5 out of 60). This
quadrat was identified as an outlier and excluded from correlations. Low disturbance
severity generally, and the exclusion of the one quadrat with high disturbance, may
explain the lack of correlation between disturbance and condition. The techniques used
in this research to quantify disturbance and assess vegetation condition may not be
sensitive enough to detect a correlation between localised level of human impact and
respondent vegetation condition. Of course, it is possible that there is no relationship
between anthropogenic disturbance and vegetation condition in the bushlands.
However, the low condition quadrats were also the quadrats with highest disturbance.
This indicates some level of relationship between disturbance and condition. It may be
only at higher levels of disturbance that effects on vegetation condition become evident.
3.4.2
Weeds
Community-based bushland care groups (e.g. Friends groups and Bushcare groups)
consider weed infestation to be the most degrading disturbance factor in urban
bushlands, and groups tend to expend more effort on weed removal than any other
management activity (Stenhouse 2001). Weeds are present across all three reserves, at
relatively high proportions (an average of 17 per cent of the ground-layer vegetation).
High vegetation cover, both understorey and ground-layer, was found to be significantly
correlated with low weed cover, low numbers of weed species and low proportions of
bare ground, as well as a higher number of native plant species. Such results indicate
the importance of maintaining intact native understorey and ground-layer cover. Low
proportions of bare ground was significantly correlated to low numbers of weed species,
again suggesting that intact ground-layer vegetation cover minimises the likelihood of
108
Chapter Three
new weed species establishing. Continuous and intact understorey and ground-layer
vegetation cover ensures there are limited ‘gaps’ (i.e. space, nutrients and light) that can
be filled by opportunistic weed species. Farina (2000b) writes that the more complex an
ecosystem, the less probability of adding new species, as new niches are limited. Thus,
attempts should be made to ensure vegetation cover is not reduced by any damage.
3.4.3
Comparison of Qualitative and Quantitative Assessments of Vegetation
Condition
The quantitative and qualitative measures of vegetation condition provided parallel
estimates of vegetation condition. The quantitative approach (the VCI) is laborious – it
requires choosing quadrat locations, setting up quadrats, measuring litter and
decomposed litter depths, counting trees, and identifying all plant species present – and
thus can only sample a very small proportion of the bushland reserve. The 100 m2
quadrats cannot be considered representative of the larger bushland area because
vegetation condition varied within as well as among the three bushlands (see Figure
3.2). Rather, the quadrats provide information on vegetation condition for the localised
area in which they are positioned. The index does not account for natural heterogeneity
in the bushland vegetation. Neither does it indicate whether differences in number of
species and plant cover are due to inherent differences in soil types, aspect and
vegetation type, or an expression of disturbance impacts. Similarly, the technique does
not account for past disturbance events or any management activities that may have
eliminated the evidence of past disturbance. The assessment of disturbance and
condition did not take into consideration any time lag between cause (disturbance) and
effect (condition). The quantitative assessment also requires familiarity with bushland
plant species, and thus is not as widely useable as Keighery’s Scale. Nevertheless, the
approach is useful in indicating how disturbance affects vegetation, and which
vegetation characteristics contribute most strongly to an overall score of vegetation
condition. Native plant cover, species diversity and weeds expressed vegetation
condition more sensitively than soil surface layer or tree health.
The Keighery’s Scale scores were significantly correlated with these same parameters:
numbers of native species, native plant cover, weed cover and weed species (Table 3.7).
Keighery’s Scale is easier and quicker to use, so numerous sites can be included and
whole bushland areas surveyed in reasonable time frames. The qualitative scale also has
Disturbance and Condition
109
the advantage of not requiring expert knowledge. This research found that different
users of the scale all gave similar scores for sites, despite the participants having
different levels of exposure to the field of ecology. Thus Keighery’s Scale appears to be
a sound surrogate measure for the quantitative index, and also has the benefit of high
useability.
One point of consideration is that this study has not indicated how useful Keighery’s
Scale is for fine-scale monitoring of vegetation condition. The scale may not be
sensitive enough to reflect small decreases in weed cover and species, or increases in
native plant diversity over time. Monitoring is a critical component of any restoration
process, as it provides feedback so that techniques and outcomes can be evaluated and
improved upon. If the aim of restoration is to maximise biodiversity and vegetation
condition, monitoring may be more exact if in addition to Keighery’s Scale score,
estimates of weed cover and native vegetation cover, and, where possible, number of
weed and native plant species, be recorded.
3.5
CONCLUSION
This research provided mixed and inconclusive results on whether disturbance is
affecting vegetation condition. There was no correlation between quantitatively
measured levels of disturbance and condition. However, localised areas of particularly
high disturbance were lower in vegetation condition, which provides a tentative
indication of some relationship between disturbance and condition. Another indication
of degradation of the bushlands was the finding that weeds affected the whole area of
each bushland, and on average contributed 17 per cent of the ground-layer cover. The
research highlighted the importance of maintaining an intact native understorey and
ground-layer to minimise weed infiltration and establishment. This may mean
controlling trampling, fencing sensitive areas and educating bushland users to reduce
impacts on the vegetation.
The study compared a quantitative assessment of vegetation condition (the VCI) with
Keighery’s Vegetation Condition Scale, a qualitative assessment widely used by
ecologists and community groups in Perth. While the bio-complexity inherent in natural
ecosystems can not be captured in any scale, the VCI provided a more comprehensive
analysis of vegetation condition than the qualitative scale. Keighery’s Scale appears to
110
Chapter Three
be a sound proxy for the quantitative scale, as it accurately reflected the scores for
condition provided by the quantitative assessment. The quantitative assessment was
largely driven by the characteristics of native species diversity, native plant cover and
weediness, and Keighery’s Scale scores were also strongly correlated with these
vegetation parameters. Keighery’s Scale provided consistent scores for condition when
used by a number of participants and has the advantage of being fast and easy to use,
and does not require expertise in ecology. Thus it remains a useful tool for community
groups to map and monitor vegetation condition in Perth’s urban bushlands.
Disturbance and Condition
111
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was undertaken as part of a PhD candidature at The University of Western
Australia. I wish to thank my supervisors, Associate Professor Arthur Conacher and Dr
Ray Wills, for providing comment on the research and this manuscript. I am grateful for
the fieldwork assistance by Andrew Inglis, and for the time given by the participants in
the qualitative vegetation condition assessment. Thanks is extended F. Hannon and one
anonymous reviewer for their comments on the manuscript.
112
Chapter Three
REFERENCES
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). (2004) 2001 Census Basic Community Profile
and Snapshot, Perth Statistical Division[Online], Available from:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@census [20 January 2005].
Bolund, P. and Hunhammar, S. 1999. Ecosystem Services in Urban Areas. Ecological
Economics. 29: 293-301.
Carr, G.W., Yugovic, J. V. and Robinson, K.E. 1992. Environmental Weed Invasions in
Victoria. Department of Conservation and Environment, Melbourne, Vic.
Cochrane, A. 2001. Alien Invaders: Identification, Contract and Monitoring of the Most
Recognisable Environmental Weeds of Melbourne and Surrounds. Education Service,
Royal Botanic Gardens, Melbourne, Vic.
Dale, V.H. and Beyeler, S.C. 2001. Challenges in the development and use of
ecological indicators. Ecological Indicators. 1: 3-10.
Davis, A.M. and Glick, T.F. 1978. Urban ecosystems and island biogeography.
Environmental Conservation. 5: 299-304.
Dixon, J., Connell, S., Bailey, J. and Keenan, C. 1995. The Perth Environment Project
and Inventory of Perth’s Remnant Native Vegetation. In: Scheltema, M. (ed) Proc. 1994
National Greening Australia Conference: A Vision for a Greener City – The Role of
Vegetation in Urban Environments. pp. 57-67. Greening Australia Limited, Canberra.
Farina, A. 2000a. Principles and Methods in Landscape Ecology. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, The Netherlands.
Farina, A. 2000b. Landscape Ecology in Action. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The
Netherlands.
Fox, M.D. and Fox, B.J. 1986. The susceptibility of natural communities to invasion.
In: Groves, R.H. and Burdon, J. (eds) 1986. Ecology of Biological Invasions.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 57-60.
Disturbance and Condition
113
Gibson, N., Keighery, B.J., Keighery, G.J., Burbidge, A.H. and Lyons, M.N. 1994. A
Floristic Survey of the Southern Swan Coastal Plain. Unpublished Report for the
Australian Heritage Commission prepared by the Department of Conservation and Land
Management and the Conservation Council of Western Australia (Inc.).
Government of Western Australia. 2000. Bush Forever Volume 1: Policies, Principles
and Processes. Western Australian Planning Commission, Perth.
Groves, R.H. 1998. Ecological indicators of landscape degradation. In: Rundel, P.W.
Montenegro, G. and Jaksic, F.M. (eds) Landscape Disturbance and Biodiversity in
Mediterranean-type Ecosystems. pp. 55-62. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Hitchmough, J.D. 1994. Urban Landscape Management. Reed International Books
Australia Pty Limited, Melbourne.
Hobbs, R.J. 2000. Land use changes and invasions. In: Mooney, H.A. and Hobbs, R.J.
(Eds) 2000. Invasive Species in a Changing World. Island Press, Washington D.C. pp
55-64.
Hobbs, R.J. and Huenneke, L.F. 1992. Disturbance, diversity, and invasion:
implications for conservation. Conservation Biology. 6: 324-337.
Keighery, B. 1994. Bushland Plant Survey. Wildflower Society of Western Australia,
Perth.
McNeely, J.A., Gadgil, M., Leveque, C., Padoch, C. and Redford, K. 1995. Human
Influences on Biodiversity. In: Heywood, V.H. (ed) Global Biodiversity Assessment. pp.
711-822. UNEP and Cambridge University Press, New York.
Noss, R.F. 1990. Indictors for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach.
Conservation Biology. 4(4): 355-364.
Noss, R.F. 1999. Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: a suggested framework
and indicators. Forest Ecology and Management. 115: 135-146.
114
Chapter Three
Oliver, I. 2002. An expert panel-based approach to the assessment of vegetation
condition within the context of biodiversity conservation Stage 1: the identification of
condition indicators. Ecological Indicators. 2: 223-237.
Perth Biodiversity Project (2003) Perth Biodiversity Project: Councils Caring for their
Natural Communities [Online], Available from:
http://www.walga.asn.au/projServices/pbp/docs/sheet4-5.pdf [31 January 2005].
Rapport, D.J., Epstein, P.R., Levins, R., Costanza, R. and Gaudet, C. 1998. Ecosystem
Health. Blackwell Science, Inc, Malden, MA.
Rose, S. 1997 a. Influence of suburban edges on invasion of Pittosporum undulatum
into the bushland of northern Sydney, Australia. Australian Journal of Ecology. 22: 8999.
Safstrom, R. and O’Byrne, M. 2001. Community volunteers on public land need
support. Ecological Management and Restoration. 2: 85-86.
Stenhouse, R.N. 2001. Management of urban remnant bushlands by the community and
local government. Australian Journal of Environmental Management. 8: 37-47.
Stenhouse, R.N. 2004. Fragmentation and internal disturbance of native vegetation
reserves in the Perth metropolitan area, Western Australia, Landscape and Urban
Planning. 68(4): 389-401.
Chapter Four
Local Government Conservation and
Management of Native Vegetation in Urban
Australia
Native vegetation in Sydney
Link to Chapter Four
115
LINK TO CHAPTER FOUR
Chapter Two illustrated that in the Perth region, fragmentation of vegetation has created
small, irregularly shaped, isolated bushland patches, particularly in the inner
metropolitan area. Chapters Two and Three established that bushlands in the Perth
metropolitan region contain numerous human-caused disturbances. Seventy-one
bushlands were surveyed for the research reported in Chapter Two, and 26 types of
anthropogenic disturbance were observed. Main disturbances across the bushlands were
litter and dumped rubbish, trampling and feral animals. Additionally, weeds were
present in every bushland. The research in Chapter Three quantified disturbance within
three bushlands, and found that the main disturbances were recent fire, high density of
tracks, litter, feral animals, dumped rubbish and broken plants. Again, weeds were everpresent and contributed, on average, 17% of the ground-layer cover. As dicussed in
Chapter Three, the relationship between disturbance and condition was not as strong as
was anticipated. The research identified a tentative relationship between levels of
disturbance and vegetation condition, finding that the most disturbed areas in the
bushlands also had the lowest level of vegetation condition.
The effects of fragmentation, numerous disturbances, ubiquitous weeds and the link
between high disturbance and reduced vegetation condition point to the need for
management intervention to prevent further degradation of bushlands and to retain their
biodiversity value. The previous chapters indicate that potentially important
management actions would include: preventing disturbances by discouraging
inappropriate activities in bushlands; removing disturbances, and controlling weeds.
Conservation and management of biodiversity has been recognised as an important role
of local government by the Australian Federal government (Commonwealth of
Australia 1996, 1998), by State governments (e.g. in the Local Government Act 1993 in
New South Wales, and in the Government of Western Australia’s Bush Forever
planning document of 2000) and also by the national local government body (Australian
Local Government Association & Biological Diversity Advisory Council 1999). This
reflects an international trend towards devolution of power and responsibilities from
Federal and State governments to local governments and the community (Australian
National Audit Office 1997). The research presented in the following chapter aimed to
test the hypothesis that that local government does not have sufficient capacity to
manage and conserve local bushlands, in major Australian cities. Are local governments
116
Link to Chapter Four
managing disturbances, undertaking weeding and discouraging inappropriate human
activities in bushlands? Larger proportions of bushland remain in outer metropolitan
areas, and the research in Chapter Two found that bushland in the inner metropolitan is
more highly fragmented and disturbed. Does bushland management and conservation
also differ between inner and outer metropolitan local governments? The research is
based in the five largest Australian cities, Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and
Adelaide, to provide a nation-wide analysis of local government bushland management.
Local Government Conservation and Management
4.0
119
ABSTRACT
Reflecting a worldwide trend of devolution of power and responsibilities to local
authorities, metropolitan local governments in Australia now have a role in protecting
and managing native vegetation (bushland). Reporting on questionnaire and interview
results for Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide, this research examines the main
disturbances in local government bushlands, local governments’ efforts in bushland
conservation, and universality of issues and responses among the cities, and between
urban and urban-rural local authorities. A number of disturbances in bushlands are
common among the cities, with weeds, development impacts and urban run-off
perceived to be the most threatening. Management efforts focus on weed control, while
other main disturbances are receiving less attention. Community involvement in
management is prevalent, although regional coordination among local governments is
limited. Local governments are willing to be involved in biodiversity conservation and
their capacity would be enhanced with increased funding, staffing and regional
coordination.
Keywords: local government, disturbance, environmental management, biodiversity
conservation, urban bushland
120
Chapter Four
4.1
INTRODUCTION
Native bushland remains in each of the main Australian cities, in fragmented and
isolated patches. This is despite extensive clearing for agriculture and urban and
industrial development, and in part due to the short history of European utilisation of
the landscape. For the purpose of this paper, bushland refers to areas of remnant native
vegetation and the associated ecosystem. Bushland in urban Australia represents a great
variety of vegetation types, including mangroves, wetlands, heath, grasslands and
grassy woodlands, fire prone dry sclerophyll woodlands, wet sclerophyll forests and
rainforests (Buchanan 1989).
Bushland reserves in cities suffer from many disturbances that originate from the urban
surroundings. The natural species composition of bushlands have been altered by exotic
and non-local plants (weeds), which establish and flourish due, in part, to increased
nutrients and weed material from urban run-off and dumped household, industrial and
garden wastes (Buchanan 1979, Hitchmough 1994). Introduced and domestic animals
hunt native small mammals in urban bushlands (Brunner and others 1991, Fox 1990).
Fire frequency has increased in some remnants due to arson and accidental fire, and has
decreased due to fire exclusion policies in other bushlands. Both changes can alter
species composition and stand structure (Bradstock and others 1995, Rose 1997). Direct
human activity can impact on the native vegetation: children’s play can damage
vegetation; trail bikes and cars destroy vegetation and erode or compact soils; and
walkers can trample vegetation and create a series of informal paths (Bagnall 1979,
Florgård 2000, Hitchmough 1994, Stenhouse 2003). Vandalism of trees and firewood
collection have also been reported (Matlack 1993). Disturbance impacts are greatest
when the reserve is bounded by intensive urban land use (Buchanan 1979).
Environmental management is required to maintain the ecological integrity of
metropolitan bushlands. In Australian cities, one of the main managers of metropolitan
bushlands is local government. As with local governments and municipalities elsewhere
in the world, including Sweden (Emilsson and Hjelm 2002, Jörby 2002), the USA
(Loew 2000, Ruliffson and others 2003), the UK (Bruff and Wood 2000) and China
(Skinner and others 2003), environmental management and sustainable development are
new functions taken on by local governments in Australia in the last two decades
(Conacher and Conacher 2000, p320). The Australian Government and the Australian
Local Government Conservation and Management
121
Local Government Association (ALGA) recognize biodiversity conservation as an
important role for local government (Commonwealth of Australia 1996, p44,
Commonwealth of Australia 1998, p12, ALGA & BDAC 1999, p1). Local government
is the sphere of government closest to the community and ‘plays a vital role in
educating and mobilising the community towards biodiversity conservation and
protection’ (Commonwealth of Australia 1998 p50, UNCED 1992). Local government
responsibilities towards threatened species and communities have increased under
legislation such as the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999 (as well as legislation from each State). Local government also
undertakes a number of core functions that directly impact on native vegetation, such as
land management, land use planning, policy development and development control
(Binning and others 1999, ALGA & BDAC 1999).
With more than 150 local governments in metropolitan Australia, an analysis of local
government urban bushland conservation is required. As such, this paper aims to
investigate bushland protection and management by local government. To achieve this,
the research set out to answer a number of questions. First, what disturbances are
affecting bushlands and are local governments managing such disturbances? Second, do
local governments’ efforts in bushland conservation and management match the
rhetoric, and if not, why not? Federal and State government and the Australian Local
Government Association expect local government to have a role in bushland
conservation, as outlined above. This article seeks to determine whether local
governments are playing a role and what actions they are taking, in bushland protection
and management. However, it is out of the scope of this research to assess the
effectiveness of local government actions in this area. Finally, the research asks, are
issues and responses consistent among cities and between urban and urban-rural
metropolitan local governments?
4.2
METHODS
Although it is likely that most metropolitan areas of Australia contain bushland that is
managed by local governments (LGs), this research was restricted to four cities which
are the capitals of their respective States: Sydney (capital of New South Wales),
Melbourne (Victoria), Perth (Western Australia) and Adelaide (South Australia) (Figure
4.1). Each of these cities has numerous, independent local government bodies (mainly
122
Chapter Four
councils and shires), which vary widely in terms of population, budget and area. LGs
are established by legislation from each State government, but a recent tendency
towards devolution of powers and responsibility to local government has resulted in
increased autonomy and variation in functions (Commonwealth of Australia 2003).
Brisbane, the capital city of Queensland, was not included in the questionnaire. It is
distinctive from the other four cities, as Brisbane City Council governs most of the
metropolitan area and has a large operational budget. The capital city of Tasmania,
Hobart, was not included because of its small size.
N.T.
QLD
W.A.
S.A.
N.S.W.
Sydney
Perth
Adelaide
0
1000 km
VIC.
A.C.T.
Melbourne
TAS.
Figure 4.1. Australia.
Study Cities: Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne and Sydney. States and Territories of Australia: Australian
Capital Territory (A.C.T.), New South Wales (N.S.W.), Northern Territory (N.T.), South Australia (S.A.),
Tasmania (TAS.), Victoria (VIC.) and Western Australia (W.A.).
Information on disturbances in LG bushlands and LG bushland management was
gathered via a postal/e-mail questionnaire and interviews. Initially, every local
government authority in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide was contacted by
telephone by the author to determine which LGs have native vegetation vested in them.
For LGs with native vegetation, the staff member most involved in its management was
requested to complete the questionnaire. The questionnaire included a combination of
quantitative and open-ended questions (see Appendix 4.1). The purpose of the
questionnaire was to obtain an understanding of the scope of disturbances occurring in
bushlands and the biodiversity management and protection actions undertaken by local
governments. As such, the questionnaire did not delve into the specifics of individual
Local Government Conservation and Management
123
disturbances, management actions or bushland sites for each responding LG, due to the
necessary practicality of limiting the questionnaire length. The questionnaire was
administered via mail or e-mail. Seventy percent of returned questionnaires were via email. Non-respondents in each city were given a reminder e-mail or telephone call in an
attempt to increase return rate of the questionnaire. A weakness of the mail-out
approach was that not all LGs answered all questions. The number of respondents (n) is
given in the text and data tables of the results section.
Respondents were asked to rank from one to three the three main disturbance factors
and management actions for their LG bushlands, from a list (Appendix 4.1). Weighted
ranks were calculated for each disturbance and management action. The weighted rank
is the mean of the inverse values of individual rankings from all respondents for each
disturbance/management action, such that the value closest to three indicates the most
highly ranked item. These weighted ranks were subjected to Spearman Rank Coefficient
(R) analysis to compare pairs of cities and urban and urban-rural LGs. Pearson
correlations (r) were performed on continuous data and chi-square analysis was used for
categorical data. T-tests were used to compare data on urban and urban-rural LGs, after
testing the data for normality using SPSS. The normality testing output was interpreted
as reasonably ‘normal’ and not transformed for t-tests. Urban LGs contain only urban
land, whereas the urban-rural LGs were classed as those where the respondent stated
that there was both urban and rural land in their LG. Urban-rural LGs are mainly in
outer-metropolitan areas.
Additionally, bushland management staff were interviewed from 22 local governments
(listed in Appendix 4.2) in the four cities, using semi-structured interviewing, to gather
more detailed information on the issues raised in the questionnaire. Information from
these interviews is used throughout the results and discussion sections of this article.
4.3
RESULTS
4.3.1
The Local Governments
One hundred and eleven LGs were contacted in the four cities and 95 of them had
bushland vested in them (Table 4.1). Sixty-three LGs responded to the questionnaire;
thirty contain rural and urban land, and are referred to as urban-rural LGs (most of the
124
Chapter Four
LG responses from Melbourne and Adelaide were from urban-rural LGs) (Appendix
4.2). The area, population density and vested bushland vary among local governments
(Table 4.2). Between 1.9% and 100% of the total bushland of the LG area (i.e. including
private, State and Commonwealth land) are vested in the LG (n=22). The proportion of
the total bushland vested in LGs is higher for urban LGs than urban-rural LGs (p=0.06,
t-test), with an average of 49% for urban LGs and 21% for urban-rural LGs. Local
governments with the most bushland vested in them are the LGs largest in area (r=0.76,
p<0.001).
Table 4.1. Local Governments in Four Study Cities.
City
LGs
LGs with
Returned
Contacted
Bushland
Questionnaire
Sydney
40
35
28 (79%)
Melbourne
26
25
9 (36%)
Perth
29
24
19 (80%)
Adelaide
16
11
7 (64%)
Total
111
95
63 (66%)
Table 4.2. Local Government Size, Population Density and Bushland.
Local Government Characteristics
Mean
Median
1042
250
96
17
7100
1400
1088
Number of bushland reserves vested to LGb
0c
325
44
17
Bushland area (ha) vested to LGd
1
12150
559
60
LG area (km2) a
5.7
Population density (people/km2)a
A: n=63
4.3.2
B: n=33
Min
Max
C: One local government had bushland but not in reserves. D: n=36
Perceptions of Disturbances in Bushlands
Weed proliferation was noted as a disturbance by every LG bushland manager (Table
4.3). The next most common disturbances are dumped rubbish, followed by urban
runoff and vandalism. Weeds were ranked as the greatest disturbance, followed by
development impacts and urban runoff (Table 4.3).
Local Government Conservation and Management
125
Table 4.3. The Most Common Disturbances and the Greatest Disturbances as Ranked
by LGs.
Disturbance
Weeds
Rubbish dumped by people in reserves
Urban runoff entering the reserves
Vandalism
Domestic animals (most commonly cats and dogs)
Feral animals (most commonly rabbits, foxes, cats)
Development impacts (most commonly residential,
drains, pipelines, roads, rural and powerlines)
Track erosion
Trampling of vegetation by people
Bicycles in bushland reserves
Trail bikes in bushland reserves
Children’s cubby houses
Landfill (past or present)
Frequent burning
Plant disease
People stealing bushland flowers or plants
Firewood collection
Horse activity in reserves
Four-wheel drive vehicle activity in reserves
Quarrying (past or present)
Drift of pesticide or herbicide spray onto reserves
Camping in reserves
Lack of fire in reserves
Shooting or hunting in reserve
Inappropriate activities by council, such as mowing
understorey or inappropriate weed spraying
Other: Animals killed by nearby roads (road kill)
Removal of trees along foreshores
Seed dispersal by birds
Planting exotics
Farmers ploughing roadside vegetation
Percent of
LGs with
Disturbance
100
95
87
87
84
82
82
Greatest
Disturbances (by
Weighted Rank)a
2.58
0.16
0.63
0.13
0.16
0.37
0.90
78
76
70
70
59
51
49
48
48
46
46
43
38
29
21
19
12
0.10
0.16
0.03
8
5
5
5
3
1.5
0.08
0.37
0.08
0.03
0.08
0.05
0.05
Note: each local government identified between three and 27 disturbance factors in the bushland of their
local government area (average: 14 disturbances per LG).
A: All 63 LGs ticked disturbances that occurred in the bushland reserves, however only 38 ranked the top
three disturbances. A weighted ranking has been applied to provide an overall ranking, such that closest
to 3 is the greatest disturbance.
126
Chapter Four
The disturbance types noted by nineteen Perth LGs were compared to a rapid survey
study investigating common disturbances of 71 bushland reserves across Perth by the
author (Stenhouse 2003). Both the Perth LGs and the rapid survey study agree that the
most common disturbances are weeds, followed by dumped rubbish. There is
significant correlation between the two studies when comparing twenty-five
disturbances types ranked from least to most common (R=0.52, p=0.007).
4.3.3
Local Government Management to Mitigate Disturbances in Bushlands
Almost all LGs remove rubbish, control weeds (more commonly by herbicides than
manual methods) and assist community groups or landholders in bushland management
(Table 4.4). Eighty-four percent of the LGs have a management plan or were in the
process of developing one. The correspondence between most common disturbances
and most common management actions is given in Table 4.5. Most local governments
with bushlands impacted by weeds, rubbish, people, unauthorized activities, track
erosion and frequent fire manage these disturbances. Twenty-eight LG respondents
completed both questions asking them to rank the top three disturbances and
management actions. Twenty LGs stated that weeds are the primary disturbance in
bushlands, and fourteen of these LGs also ranked weed management (manual,
herbicidal or regeneration) as the primary management action. Other than weeds, highly
ranked disturbances and highly ranked management actions do not correspond.
4.3.4 Differences Among Cities and Urban and Urban-rural Local Governments
for Disturbances and Management
There is agreement among cities and between urban and urban-rural LGs for the least to
most common disturbances and management actions (Table 4.6). Urban-rural LGs are
more likely than urban LGs to have trail bikes, four-wheel drive vehicles and horses in
reserves (x<0.01, chi-square). Ranking of the greatest disturbances is similar, but not
significantly correlated for the different cities (Tables 4.6 and 4.7). Likewise, weighted
ranks of management actions (i.e. management actions on which most efforts are
expended) are not correlated for Sydney-Perth or Sydney-Adelaide (Table 4.6).
Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide LGs spend the most time and resources on herbicidal
weed management, and Sydney on manual weed management. Following weeding, the
most effort is spent on assisting community groups and landholders to manage bushland
for all four cities.
Local Government Conservation and Management
127
Table 4.4. Most Common Management Actions and Main Management Actions as
Ranked by LG Respondents (n=63).
Management Action
Rubbish removal
Weeding with herbicides
Assisting community groups/landholders in management
Manual weedingb
Planting native species (revegetation)
Writing funding applications
Erecting signs to deter inappropriate activities in reserves
Control of public access
Education of community on bushland issues
Control access of 4WDs, trail bikes, bicycles, horsesc
Flora surveys
Bush regeneration
Writing or updating management plans
Erosion control
Water quality testing
Monitoringd
Fauna surveys
Controlled burninge
Feral animal control
Other types of fire managementf
Removing dead trees/logs
Lobbying against development
Disease control (e.g. control of fungal plant diseases)
Fundraising activities
Other actions mentioned: mulching; stormwater control;
plant donation to rural landholders; staff training
% LGs
Conducting
Action
95
94
94
89
89
87
84
84
81
75
75
71
70
67
65
57
55
48
48
41
36
29
21
16
6
Main
Management
Actionsa
0.25
1.36
1.22
1.08
0.56
0.14
0.17
0.28
Note: each LG conducted between three and 23 management actions (average: 17 actions).
A: Calculated by weighted ranking. Only management actions that had weighted ranks of over 0.1 have
been included.
B: 87% of LGs used both herbicides and manual weeding methods.
C: 4WDs refers to four-wheel drives (off road vehicles).
D: Sixteen types of monitoring methods were listed. More than seven LGs used: photographic points,
reporting or vegetation surveys. Less commonly used were: permanent quadrats, site inspections,
bushland condition mapping, observations, weed mapping, aerial photograph analysis and recording areas
of regeneration works.
E: Controlled burning uses planned fires to remove litter layer so that subsequent unplanned fires will be
of lesser extent and intensity than if litter layer remained. Sixteen LGs conducted only controlled burning,
and a further 14 conducted controlled burning as well as other fire management practises.
F: Other fire management methods included ecological pile burns, where piles of leaf litter are burnt to
reduce leaf mass and promote seed germination; slashing and other manual methods to reduce biomass;
firebreak maintenance; fire buffer zones; contingency planning; spraying grassy weeds with fusillade;
facilitating vehicle access; chemical firebreaks and fuel reduction around significant trees.
128
Chapter Four
Table 4.5. Disturbances and Corresponding Management Actions (n=62).
Disturbance
Weeds
Dumped rubbish
Urban runoff
People impactsb
Trail bikes, 4WDs,
bikes, horses
Feral animals
Development
impacts
Track erosion
Frequent fire
Plant disease
LGs with
Disturbance
62
59
55
59
56
Manual/herbicidal weed control
Rubbish control
Stormwater controla
Signage & public access control
Control access
% LGs with
Disturbance &
Managing it
98
100
2
91
82
51
51
Feral animal control
Lobbying against development
57
29
48
30
Erosion control
Controlled burning/other fire
management
Disease control
81
83
30
Corresponding
Management Action
40
Note: n=62 as one LG respondent did not complete section on management actions
A: Stormwater control was not given as an option in the list of management actions, so it is likely this is
the reason that only one LG noted they are conducting urban runoff management.
B: People impacts included children’s play, camping, trampling, stealing plants or flowers, vandalism,
firewood collection, shooting/hunting.
Table 4.6. Spearman Rank Correlation for Disturbances and Management Actions.
City Pair
Common
Weighted
Disturbance Rank
Common
Weighted Rank
Management Management
Disturbancea Actions
Actionsb
Sydney - Melbourne
0.80**
0.24
0.89**
0.61*
Sydney - Perth
0.88**
0.45
0.89**
0.47
Sydney - Adelaide
0.92**
0.34
0.80**
0.47
Melbourne - Perth
0.76**
0.70**
0.79**
0.73**
Melbourne - Adelaide 0.76**
0.59**
0.72**
0.51*
Perth - Adelaide
0.87**
0.19
0.83**
0.73**
Urban - Urban-rural
0.87**
0.49*
0.87**
0.68**
A: 38 LGs ranked 13 disturbance types
B: 36 LGs ranked 16 management actions
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2 tailed)
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Local Government Conservation and Management
129
Table 4.7. Weighted Ranking of Greatest Disturbances for Each City.
Sydney
Melbourne
Perth
Adelaide
Disturbance
Rank
Disturbance
Rank
Disturbance
Rank
Disturbance
Rank
Weeds
2.6
Weeds
2.75
Weeds
2.4
Weeds
3.0
Urban run-off
1.2
Development
1.25
Frequent fire
0.9
Development
0.8
Development
0.9
Feral animals
0.75
Development
0.7
4.3.5
Local Government Efforts in Bushland Protection and Management
4.3.5.1 Initiation of Bushland Protection and Management
The responding local governments most frequently began managing bushlands in the
1980s (13 LGs) or the 1990s (26 LGs), and at the earliest in the 1950s by one Perth LG.
Respondents were asked what prompted their council to initiate bushland management.
The push for management came from: the community for 86% of LGs; concerned
council staff for 73%; pressure from State or Federal government for 22%; other LGs
for 11%, and concerned councillors for 5% of LG respondents (this totals over 100% as
multiple responses were possible).
4.3.5.2 Bushland Protection
Local government respondents were questioned on zonings used to conserve bushland.
Public Open Space (POS) zoning is used by 89% of LG respondents to reserve
bushland. Approximately 20 other zoning categories to protect bushland via the Town
Planning Scheme (TPS) were listed. Fifty-five percent of the LG respondents use
(usually one) zoning other than POS alone. Developers are required or encouraged to
leave some area of the subdivision as open space (usually 5% in Melbourne, 10% in
Perth, 12.5% in Adelaide) and when bushland is subdivided, local governments often
negotiate with developers to retain bushland as the open space.
In many local government areas, especially urban-rural ones, bushland also remains in
private property, and coordination with landholders provides another means of ensuring
biodiversity protection. Numerous local government respondents stated that they
provide advice and information to landholders. Covenanting agreements with private
130
Chapter Four
landowners were entered into by a limited number of LGs. Two LGs commented that
they have rate rebate schemes (e.g. a 20% rate rebate if landowners control weeds on
their property). Another LG was developing a scheme to provide grants for fencing
native vegetation on private property. Most LGs did not know how much privately
owned bushland occurred within their jurisdiction.
The staff interviewed for this research provided insights into development control by
local government. Most interviewees stated that both legal and illegal clearance of
native vegetation is occurring in their LG area. An Adelaide LG staff member
commented that legislation such as the South Australian Native Vegetation Act 1991 is
not applicable in urban areas, so control of bushland clearing often comes down to local
government. Despite local governments assessing development applications in
Melbourne and in rural zoned areas of metropolitan Sydney, legal and illegal clearing is
still occurring.
4.3.5.3 Resources and Staffing
Local governments spent an average of AUD$280 000 on bushland management from
their total budget (i.e. not including funds from grants) (Table 4.8). Local governments’
budgets for bushland are not correlated with LG area (r=-0.03, p=0.82, n=56) or
population density (r=0.02, p=0.86, n=56) or amount of bushland vested in the LG (r=0.02, p=0.90, n=49). Large bushland budgets are correlated with a high number of
bushland management actions (r=0.33, p=0.02, n=53).
Table 4.8. Local Government Annual Budgets and Bushland Management Expenditure
(n=51).
LG Annual Budgets
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Median
Total budget ($ million)
4
1000
65
40
Bushland budget ($000)
0
1500
280
185
Proportion spent on bushland (%)
0
2.8
0.66
0.43
Local Government Conservation and Management
131
Grants also fund bushland management. Most LGs are involved in applying for or
administering grants from the federally funded environmental grants program, Natural
Heritage Trust (NHT). Four councils have introduced environment levies to assist
funding bushland management. Levies are charges that the LG imposes on every
taxable household, to supplement State and Commonwealth funding (Cripps, Binning
and Young 1999). For example, an inner Sydney LG has instigated an environment levy
of $50 p.a. per household to fund bushland management and other environmental
projects. In Sydney, legislation requires developers to contribute towards creation or
upgrading of services in the area of new development. Three Sydney LGs stated that
they use a small portion of this financial contribution towards bushland management
within the catchment in which the development occurs.
Local governments employ between none and fifteen fulltime staff (with an average of
3 staff) and between none and ten part time staff (average 1.5) in bushland management.
Environment Officers are employed by 35% of LGs, Bushcare or Conservation Officers
are employed by 33% and another 11% employ both. A bushland crew (on-ground staff
trained in bushland regeneration) is employed by 29% of the LGs, mainly in Sydney. At
least twice as many staff from bushland-specific positions (e.g. bushland regenerator)
are involved in bushland management than staff from positions such as Parks,
Horticulture and Planning, except in Perth. Fifty-nine percent of the LG respondents
employ contract staff, usually to undertake bushland regeneration work. This is
especially common in Sydney. For most LGs, there is no Bushland Management
Department, rather, a number of sectors of the LG authority are involved in bushland
issues. For instance, the biodiversity actions implemented by a LG in Adelaide are
undertaken by six different sections (Horticultural Services, Environmental Planning,
Development Services, Corporate Services, Community Services, Environmental
Health) (City of Mitcham 1999).
4.3.5.4 ‘Educating and Mobilising the Community’
Ninety-two percent of the LGs use strategies to educate the community about bushland
issues. This is most commonly via brochures, displays at events or libraries, newspaper
articles and media releases, activities with schools, open days and bushwalks at
bushlands, informative signs at reserves, mail outs about particular management
actions, and environment strategies open to public access. Less common educational
132
Chapter Four
tools include using native plants in street-scaping and landscaping, and establishing an
environment centre. Most LGs implement one to four education strategies.
Most of the LGs (94%) cooperate with groups of community volunteers that care for
local bushland (usually called Bushcare or Friends groups). This commonly involves
supplying tools, materials and plants for volunteers, assisting with bush regeneration
and on-ground work, assistance with seeking grants and grants administration, and
providing technical advice. In Sydney, 33% of LGs supervise on-ground volunteer
operations, and 30% of Sydney LGs provide volunteer training. A number of local
governments (17%) host advisory or consultative committees to access feedback from
the public.
4.3.5.5 Coordination Among Local Government Authorities
Forty percent of the respondents stated that they coordinate with other LGs. In
Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth, coordination is mainly limited to sharing ideas and
some management planning between neighboring local governments. There was limited
mention of coordination with Regional Organizations of Councils (ROCs), of which a
number occur in metropolitan Perth, Melbourne and Sydney. In Sydney coordination is
more advanced, in the form of Noxious Weed Committees, Volunteers Coordinators
Committee and Feral Action Groups, where ideas are shared among numerous LGs and
other representatives, or groups of LGs collaborate to gain grant funding.
4.4
DISCUSSION
4.4.1 Disturbances in Bushlands and Management to Mitigate Disturbances
The local governments recognized all the disturbances identified in the literature (see
introductory section) as well as some additional disturbance factors (Table 4.2). There
was agreement between the lists of most common disturbances from the Perth LGs and
the most common disturbances identified by the author in a field study of Perth
bushlands. Local government staff managing bushlands are well aware of the main
disturbance factors in their area. The disturbances perceived to be causing most
degradation are weed proliferation, development impacts and urban runoff. Dumped
rubbish is also very common.
Local Government Conservation and Management
133
The main management activity is manual and herbicidal weed management. However,
this does not address weed sources. One council noted that nurseries are still selling
exotic plants known to become weeds in bushlands, such as ivy. There is limited
legislative backing to prevent people living adjacent to bushland from planting
inappropriate species in their gardens, and progress on this issue relies on education (of
both residents and nurseries) and stronger legislation. Another council noted that people
dumping vegetative waste into bushlands is a big problem, and has led to the
establishment of garden weeds in bushland reserves. Dumping rubbish in bushlands
may be related to the common trend of local governments reducing residents’ access
rights to landfill sites. Signage is unlikely to prevent rubbish dumping, and LGs lack the
resources to regulate the problem via rangers and infringement fines.
Weed and rubbish control are among the three most common management actions, and
rank highly for efforts expended by LG. For other main disturbances, management
actions were mentioned less frequently, such as stormwater control to mitigate urban
runoff. Feral animals are a common cause of bushland degradation, but are not
commonly managed, as there are issues with using baiting as a control method in
metropolitan areas, and a lack of success when neighboring LGs are not involved in the
eradication program. Development impacts are a common problem. These include land
clearing (legally and illegally) for residential development, and also impacts from
infrastructure built in or near reserves spilling into the bushland. Few local governments
stated that they lobby against development (lobbying is perhaps not seen as a role for
local government), though many engage in assessing development applications. A local
government interviewee noted that priority is given to ‘easier jobs’ such as planting
days with schools, and ‘hard jobs’, such as weed eradication, are neglected. With over
ten years of bushland management experience behind them, it is perhaps time for
metropolitan local governments to develop management actions to mitigate the common
disturbances that rate as highly degrading of the bushland, but are managed minimally.
Just over half of the LGs were conducting monitoring in their bushlands. Monitoring
both the state of the bushland and the success or failure of management techniques is a
crucial component of ‘adaptive management’ or ‘ecosystem management’; management
which allows for continual learning and improvement of procedures (Grumbine 1997).
It is concerning that many local governments have no indication of whether their
management actions are effective in achieving desired outcomes, and therefore have no
134
Chapter Four
information base for continual evaluation of techniques. Lack of funding is often the
greatest barrier to implementing monitoring programs (Grumbine 1997). Partnering
with research institutes may be a way for local governments to obtain cost-effective
research on management effectiveness.
4.4.2
Does Action Match the Rhetoric?
There is strong rhetoric on local government’s role in biological conservation. A
convincing case for the role of local government in biodiversity management can be
made. Of the 111 metropolitan local governments contacted in this study, 86% have
bushland vested in them. Many have over 100 hectares under their authority, and urban
local governments have an average of 50% of the total bushland area in their district
vested in them. With a high proportion of bushland in the hands of metropolitan local
governments, there is opportunity for local government to contribute to biodiversity
conservation and management in urban Australia.
The Australian Constitution does not specify a role for local government in native
vegetation management, and only in New South Wales does the Local Government Act
include provisions for the role of local government in bushland management. Yet, local
governments are ‘voluntarily’ protecting and managing bushland. A high level of
community involvement in bushland care has been the primary push for local
governments to initiate bushland management. A number of interviewees commented
that their local government had a stance of pro-development (to the point of exclusion
of conservation objectives) in the 1970s, underwent a push from the community and
progressive staff for bushland management in the 1980s and 1990s, and progressed to
policies of vegetation protection in the late 1990s and early 2000s. A bushland officer
from a Sydney LG described LG bushland management in that city as being originally
driven by the community, then prompted by professionals (both within councils and the
bushland conservation industry) and now driven by legislation.
4.4.2.1 Bushland Protection
Remnant vegetation is still being cleared at an alarming rate in Australian cities. A
recent newspaper article in Perth (The Sunday Times, August 3rd 2003, p20) stated that
in the Swan Coastal Plain 28% of the original vegetation remains, and 50% of that is
Local Government Conservation and Management
135
zoned for redevelopment. Local governments are not making the most of the
opportunities available to them to protect native vegetation. Local governments need to
assist in reducing the loss of bushland by: implementing tighter zoning of native
vegetation areas under Town Planning Schemes; monitoring clearing; prosecuting
illegal clearing; acquiring bushland, perhaps through programs funded by environment
levies; and facilitating bushland protection by private landholders through covenanting
agreements, rate rebates and other incentives or rewards [see Doremus (2003) for a
discussion on facilitating biodiversity protection on private lands].
4.4.2.2 Resources and Staff
With no benchmarks or comparative studies, it is unreasonable to infer from this study
whether metropolitan local governments are expending a significant amount of time,
budget and staffing on bushland conservation and management. Despite having
bushland affected by numerous disturbances, 19% of the LGs had an annual budget
under AUD$20 000 (approximately US$12 000) in 1999-2000 for bushland
management and conservation. Most LGs apportion less than 1% of the total budget for
bushland management, though this is often supplemented by grants from the Natural
Heritage Trust. This does not match well with the estimate from Binning and others
(1999) that local governments spend 3% on biodiversity protection and 9% on land
management, but does correspond with the findings of the Perth Biodiversity Project
(2002) that Perth local governments spent 0.6% of the total budget on staffing and
activities for biodiversity management. Binning and others (1999) note a number of
options for local governments to increase their funding for bushland management,
including increasing property-based rates (unlikely to be supported by the community),
borrowing funds, re-allocating funds within the existing budget, special environment
levies, or developers’ contributions. The local governments are not exploiting such
options: in just seven cases (11%) levies or financial developers’ contributions are
adding to the bushland budget. A Sydney LG attempted to gain corporate sponsorship
for bushland management, but was unsuccessful. At the time of the questionnaire, in all
States in this research, environment levies could not be imposed at the discretion of the
local government, but have to be passed by the State government (Bateson 2000). A
number of LGs responded that State government had rejected proposals for
environment levies. In one LG the community resisted a 5% environment levy, but at a
later date was agreeable to a 2.5% levy – which was then overturned by the State
136
Chapter Four
minister. This is despite State governments (as well as the community) applying more
and more pressure on local governments for bushland management, without providing
additional funding. With larger budgets correlated with a high number of management
actions, local governments with low bushland budgets may need to consider increasing
budget allocations to bushland management, applying for more grants, or implementing
alternative funding schemes. As one interviewee stated, councillors and the community
are largely supportive of bushland management now; lack of funding is the barrier.
Many of the local governments have created specific staff positions for bushland
conservation and management, such as a Bushcare or Conservation Officer. Such
positions would not have been found on the payroll of local governments fifteen years
ago; progress is being made, largely as a result of community lobbying. The Perth
Biodiversity Project (2002) notes the different, yet complementary roles of
Environment Officers and Bushcare Officers. Environment Officers have a strategic
role in planning for biodiversity protection, whereas Bushcare or Conservation Officers
have a management-focused role. Ideally, local governments would fill both positions,
but in reality, just 11% employ both Environment Officers and Bushcare Officers, while
21% employ neither. The local government staff interviewed were divided over the
issue of whether permanent staff or reliance on contractors is best in bushland
management. One LG believed that permanent staff give the community the message
that ‘bushland is core business’. Permanent staff can ‘develop a sense of ownership’, be
involved in informed planning and site analysis, and are in a better position to carry out
ongoing monitoring in bushlands. Bushland crews in Melbourne and Sydney usually
have a technical college certificate in bushland regeneration or natural resource
management. Other LGs rely on contractors, stating that this is ‘far more cost effective’
than permanent grounds staff and that contractors work more efficiently as they are in
private industry, with a reputation and standards to uphold. Both LGs with contractors
and permanent staff mentioned problems with inappropriate management actions from
staff, such as mowing conservation areas or spraying herbicides on native plants. This is
in part due to the fact that staff involved in bushland management are spread across
numerous sections of the LG authority.
4.4.2.3 Educating and Mobilising the Community
A broad range of community education techniques is employed, although local
governments individually undertake only a few such actions. Education of residents is
Local Government Conservation and Management
137
likely to be the key to minimising common disturbances in bushlands, such as rubbish
dumping, vandalism, arson, impacts from cats and dogs, trampling and damage from
bicycles and vehicles. Education (by information and by example) is also the solution to
preventing people adjacent to reserves from planting known weeds in their gardens,
rather than locally indigenous plants.
Local governments expend much time and resources on coordination with the
community in bushland management. Even so, few of the local governments that
responded in 1999/2000 had a staff member employed to coordinate with community
groups and landholders, such as a facilitator. Community coordination generally
becomes part of the role of Environment Officers and their supporting staff, who often
do not have training or experience in participation and facilitation.
Participation of the community in LG bushland management cannot be seen as
representative – community group volunteers managing bushland with local
government are self-appointed, and hold common views. There is little integration of
the wider community, and the different values held, in bushland conservation and
management issues. Moreover, while local governments assist volunteer bushland care
(which provides the local government with additional labor), they tend not to access
community opinion for bushland planning. Management plans are generally produced
by local governments and then passed on to community bushland management groups
and the public for comment. For instance, a Perth LG produced a draft Green Plan for
the city and rather than undertaking a public scoping process to determine the
community’s values and goals before writing the draft management plan, community
consultation occurred after the draft was created.
4.4.2.4 Regional Coordination
Only 40% of LGs coordinate with other local governments. A regional approach to
bushland management, which must include coordination among local governments, is
desirable, as it: (1) minimizes re-invention of solutions to similar problems; (2) allows
LGs to share resources, staff and knowledge; (3) shares risks taken in new management
approaches; and (4) enables management actions to be undertaken on a larger spatial
scale, as the relevant ecological boundaries (such as vegetation types or bird breeding
districts) tend to be larger than the area of one local government. The Perth Biodiversity
138
Chapter Four
Project (2002, pii) found that 80% of Perth local governments agreed that there is a
need for a Regional Biodiversity Strategy to provide ‘overarching objectives and targets
for the region … ’. Coordination within regions will become even more important as the
distribution of funding from the Natural Heritage Trust (NHT) II becomes regionally
structured.
Since these research data were collated, between 1999 and 2001, local government
efforts in bushland management have undoubtedly increased. For example the Perth
Biodiversity Project was initiated in 2002. The project group, housed at the Western
Australian Local Government Association and funded by NHT, has devolved funding to
biodiversity projects undertaken jointly by LGs and community groups, provided
mapping and information packages on the extent of native vegetation (within
administrative, ownership, zoning and vegetation complex boundaries) to all
metropolitan LGs, and run a workshop on Meeting Local Government’s
Responsibilities for Nature Conservation for councillors and council staff. Initiatives
such as this, and improvements within individual local government authorities, will
have encouraged a higher level of input by metropolitan local governments in
conserving and managing bushlands than has been presented here, and follow up
research is required. Further research could include an investigation into the extent that
science informs and advises local governments in bushland management and whether
the findings from conservation research are incorporated into local government
bushland policy and on-ground management, the effectiveness of strategies employed
by local governments to protect and manage their bushlands, and LG-community
partnerships in bushland management.
4.4.3
Nation-Wide Issues and Responses?
There are similar perceptions among LGs from different cities and urban or urban-rural
areas on common and most degrading disturbances. However, Sydney LGs rank urban
runoff more highly than LGs from other cities. Urban runoff is a major issue in Sydney
as it has steep topography and many bushlands are situated in the valleys, acting as
sinks for urban runoff. Perth LGs rank frequent fire as a major issue, likely to be due to
Perth’s climate of long, hot, dry summers. Management actions undertaken are similar
among LGs from different cities. However, Sydney LGs focus more on manual weeding
whereas the other cities concentrate on herbicidal weeding. Sydney’s focus on manual
Local Government Conservation and Management
139
weeding may be a result of the influential work of two Sydney women, the Bradley
sisters, who are well known as early proponents of bush regeneration by means of
‘minimal disturbance’ manual weeding techniques (described in Bradley 1971). Sydney
LGs are more likely to have bushland crews than the other cities, and therefore have a
larger workforce to undertake the labor-intensive task of manual weeding.
The budget and level of staffing apportioned to bushland management vary greatly
among local governments, both among and within cities. While bushland issues and
responses are generally similar nation-wide, Perth has fewer bushland-focused staff
than the other cities. Sydney has the strongest legislative basis to facilitate local
government bushland conservation and management and, compared with the other
cities, Sydney LGs tend to have more staff for bushland management and are more
advanced in gaining funding additional to the budget for bushland management.
There is an over-representation of urban-rural local governments in this research.
Eighteen percent of LGs in Australia are capital city or metropolitan developed, and 9%
are on the urban-rural fringe (ALGA 2000). This research represents 33 metropolitan
developed (urban) and 30 urban-rural local governments. Over-representation of urbanrural local governments is likely to stem from the higher proportions of bushland in the
metropolitan fringe. However, there are significant correlations between the urban and
urban-rural local governments for disturbance factors and management actions.
More so than differences among the four cities, or between urban and urban-rural areas,
there is no consistent approach to bushland management and protection among
individual local governments, apart from consistent prioritisation of weed control.
4.5
CONCLUSION
Local Agenda 21, an initiative from the 1992 United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development, has given international recognition to the role of local
authorities in working towards sustainable development through local planning, policy
and regulations; and educating, mobilising and responding to the public (UNCED
1992). One facet of sustainable development is biodiversity conservation. This is a
particularly important objective for local governments in urban Australia, where diverse
140
Chapter Four
natural ecosystems remain but are threatened by urban development and anthropogenic
disturbances.
The local governments surveyed in this research showed a high level of willingness to
be involved in biodiversity conservation in urban areas. They are aware of the
disturbance factors affecting bushland condition, and almost all are active in protecting
and managing the native bushlands within their jurisdictions, and educating and
coordinating with the community. Local governments are undertaking a diversity of
actions in bushland management and protection. However, they are constrained by low
budgets for bushland management, a lack of staff employed to specifically address
bushland issues, minimal support from the State governments, and limited coordination
within and among regions.
The role of local authorities in biodiversity conservation and sustainable development is
now well established, and local governments are not only compliant, but also active and
motivated in this role. The important next step is to build on the capacity of local
authorities to conserve local biodiversity.
Local Government Conservation and Management
141
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The hard working local government staff who completed questionnaires and interviews
are greatly appreciated. Thanks to Associate Professor Arthur Conacher for comments
on the research design and manuscript. This research was conducted during a
postgraduate candidature in the Discipline of Geography at the University of Western
Australia. The comments from the reviewers, Jane Tarran and H. Regan, are greatly
appreciated.
142
Chapter Four
REFERENCES
Australian Local Government Association (ALGA). 2000. National Local Government
Biodiversity: Executive Summary. Australian Local Government Association,
Canberra, 12 pp.
Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) and Biological Diversity Advisory
Council (BDAC). 1999. National Local Government Biodiversity Strategy.
Australian Local Government Association, Canberra, 40 pp.
Bagnall, R.G. 1979. A Study of human impact on an urban forest remnant: Redwood
Bush, Tawa, near Wellington, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Botany
17:117-126.
Bateson, P. 2000. Incentives for Sustainable Land Management: Community cost
sharing to conserve biodiversity on private lands. A guide for local government.
Environment Australia, Canberra and Environs Australia, Melbourne, 63 pp.
Binning, C., M. Young, and E. Cripps. 1999. Beyond Roads, Rates and Rubbish:
Opportunities for Local Government to Conserve Native Vegetation. National R&D
Program on Rehabilitation, Management and Conservation of Remnant Vegetation,
Research Report 1/99. Environment Australia, Canberra, 147 pp.
Bradley, J. 1971. Bush Regeneration. Mosman Parklands and Ashton Park Association,
Sydney, NSW, 15 pp.
Bradstock, R.A., D.A. Keith, and T.D. Auld. 1995. Fire and conservation: imperatives
and constraints on managing for diversity. Pages 323-334 in R.A. Bradstock, T.D.
Auld, D.A. Keith, R.T. Kingsford, D. Lunney and D.P. Sivertsen (eds.) Conserving
Biodiversity: Threats and Solutions. Surrey Beatty & Sons in association with the
NSW National Parks & Wildlife Service, Sydney.
Bruff, G.E. and A.P. Wood. 2000. Local sustainable development: Land-use planning’s
contribution to modern local government. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management 43(4):519-540.
Local Government Conservation and Management
143
Brunner, H., D. Moro, R. Wallis, and A. Andrasek. 1991. Comparison of the diets of
foxes, dogs and cats in an urban park. The Victorian Naturalist 108(2):34-37.
Buchanan, R.A. 1979. Edge Disturbance in Natural Areas. Australian Parks and
Recreation August:39-43.
Buchanan, R.A. 1989. Bush Regeneration. Open Training and Education Network,
TAFE NSW, Strathfield, NSW, 259 pp.
Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Commonwealth of Australia (3 September 2003), Australia's report to the UNCSD on
the implementation of Agenda 21 1995 – Local Government [Online], Available
from: http://www.deh.gov.au/commitments/uncsd/csd1995/lgov.html [3 December
2003].
Commonwealth of Australia. 1996. National Strategy for the Conservation of
Australia's Biological Diversity. Department of the Environment, Sport and
Territories, Canberra, 54 pp.
Commonwealth of Australia. 1998. Australia's National Report to the Fourth
Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Environment
Australia, Canberra, 91 pp.
Conacher, A. and J. Conacher. 2000. Environmental Planning and Management in
Australia. Oxford University Press, Victoria, 460 pp.
Cripps, E., C. Binning and M. Young. 1999. Opportunity Denied: Review of the
legislative ability of local governments to conserve native vegetation. National
R&D Program on Rehabilitation, Management and Conservation of Remnant
Vegetation, Research Report 2/99. Environment Australia, Canberra, 135 pp.
Doremus, H. 2003. A policy portfolio approach to biodiversity protection on private
lands. Environmental Science and Policy 6:217-232.
144
Chapter Four
Emilsson, S. and O. Hjelm. 2002. Implementation of standardized environmental
management systems in Swedish local authorities: reasons, expectations and some
outcomes. Environmental Science and Policy 5:443-448.
Florgård, C. 2000. Long-term changes in indigenous vegetation preserved in urban
areas. Landscape and Urban Planning 52:101-116.
Fox, M.D. 1990. Interactions of native and introduced species in new habitats.
Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia 1990 16:141-147.
Grumbine, R.E. 1997. Reflections on “What is Ecosystem Management?”.
Conservation Biology 11(1):41-47.
Hitchmough, J. 1994. The management of semi-natural and natural vegetation. Pages
391-422 in J.D. Hitchmough. Urban Landscape Management. Reed International
Books Australia Pty Limited, Melbourne.
Jörby, S.A. 2002. Local agenda 21 in four Swedish municipalities: a tool towards
sustainability? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 45(2):219244.
Loew, B. 2000. Multiple species habitat conservation planning: goals and strategies of
local governments. Environmental Management 26, Supplement 1, pp. S15-S21.
Matlack, G.R. 1993. Sociological edge effects: spatial distribution of human impacts in
suburban forest fragments. Environmental Management 17(6):829-835.
Perth Biodiversity Project. 2002. Capacity of Perth’s Local Governments to Conserve
Biodiversity: Survey Analysis Report. Perth Biodiversity Project, West Perth, 16
pp.
Rose, S. 1997. Integrating management of Pittosporum undulatum with other
environmental weeds in Sydney’s urban bushland. Pacific Conservation Biology
3:350-365.
Local Government Conservation and Management
145
Ruliffson, J.A., R.G. Haight, P.H. Gobster, and F.R. Homans. 2003. Metropolitan
natural area protection to maximize public access and species representation.
Environmental Science and Policy 6:291-299.
Skinner, M.W., A.E. Joseph, and R.G. Kuhn. 2003. Social and environmental regulation
in rural China: bringing the changing role of local government into focus.
Geoforum 34:267-281.
South Australian Native Vegetation Act 1991.
Stenhouse, R.N. 2003. Fragmentation and internal disturbance of native vegetation
reserves in the Perth Metropolitan Area, Western Australia. Landscape and Urban
Planning in press.
The Sunday Times, August 3rd 2003, Bushland at Risk by Fiona Adolph, p20.
UNCED. 1992. Agenda 21: UN conference on environment and development. United
Nations Commission on Environment and Development Secretariat, Geneva.
146
Chapter Four
Appendix 4.1. Local Government Bushland Management Questionnaire.
1) Your Name: ………....................................................………..…..................
Your Job Position: ………........................................................…..................
Your Local Government: ………........................................................…..........
Contact Details: ………........................................................…............…......
2) Does your LG area contain rural land as well as urban?
Y N
3) What is the area covered by your LG?
……square km
4) What is the population size of your Local Government area?
……residents
5) What was the total 99/00 annual budget of your LG?
$ ……........p.a.
6) What was your LG’s total 99/00 annual budget for native vegetation
management (excluding staff time & excluding budget for grassed reserves)?
$ .........p.a.
7) What number of staff was involved in native vegetation management for 1999/00 in your LG?
LG Staff: Full-time ……..............
Contracted Staff: Full-time ……..............
Part-time ……..............
Part-time
……..............
8) Please list the positions of the staff involved in native vegetation management (both on ground and
office related) in your LG?
Position:
Number of Staff holding this position:
……...……………………………………….
……..............
9) What area of native vegetation occurs within your LG area?
….........hectares
How much of this native vegetation is on private land?
……..ha private
How many native vegetation reserves are vested in your LG?
… # of reserves
10) What kind of zoning is used to protect native vegetation within your LG area?
Y N None
Y N Public Open Space
Y N Others (please state) ………………………………….………………………………….
11) Please show whether the following disturbance factors occur in native vegetation in your LG area, by
selecting Y or N.
Please label from 1 to 3 the greatest disturbances (3 only) in native vegetation in your LG area.
LABEL
YES/NO
DISTURBANCE
Y
N
Weeds
Y
N
Feral animals - which ones?
…………………………………
Local Government Conservation and Management
Y
N
Domestic animals - which ones? …………………………………
Y
N
4WD (off-road vehicle) activity in reserves
Y
N
Trail bike activity in reserves
Y
N
Horse activity in reserves
Y
N
Bicycles in reserves
Y
N
Development – what kind? ……………………………………….
147
(e.g. road, urban, rural, powerlines, pipelines, drains, dams)
Y
N
Track erosion
Y
N
Vandalism
Y
N
Dumped rubbish
Y
N
Cubbyhouses
Y
N
Camping
Y
N
Trampling of vegetation by people
Y
N
Stealing wildflowers/plants
Y
N
Firewood collection
Y
N
Shooting/hunting
Y
N
Drift of pesticide/herbicide sprays onto reserves
Y
N
Frequent burning (e.g. from controlled burning, wildfire, arson)
Y
N
Lack of fire
Y
N
Urban run-off entering the native vegetation
Y
N
Plant disease (e.g. dieback disease, Armillaria - Honey fungus)
Y
N
Quarrying/mining (past or present)
Y
N
Landfill (past or present)
Y
N
Others (please state) …………………………………………….…
12) Does your LG manage native vegetation within your LG area?
If Yes, since what year?
13) What prompted your LG to initiate native vegetation management?
Y N Community driven
Y N Pressure from other LGs
Y N Pressure from State/Federal government
Y N Concerned staff within your local government
Y N
…………year
148
Chapter Four
Y N Other (please state) ………........................................................…..................
14) Does your LG have a bushland Management Plan, or similar?
Y N
15) Does your LG use special levies or other such methods to fund native vegetation management? Y N
If Yes, please explain briefly ………......................................................……….…..................
16) With what other groups do you coordinate native vegetation management in the LG area?
Y N Other local governments - which ones? ……............……………………………………
Y N Community groups (e.g. Friends of Reserve Groups/Bushcare Groups)
Y N State Government Agencies - which ones? ……............…………………………………
Y N Other (please state) ……............…………………………………………………………
17) For the following management activities, please show whether your LG Staff (including contractors)
conducts them at least yearly, by selecting Y or N.
Please also label from 1 to 3 the three activities that take up most of the LG’s efforts (time and
finance) in native vegetation management.
LABEL
YES/NO
MANAGEMENT ACTION
Y
N
Manual weeding
Y
N
Weeding with herbicides
Y
N
Planting
Y
N
Regeneration
Y
N
Controlled burning
Y
N
Other fire management (please state) ..............................................……
Y
N
Removal of rubbish
Y
N
Removal of dead trees/ logs
Y
N
Control of access of 4WD, trail bikes, bikes, horses
Y
N
Signage to deter inappropriate activities
Y
N
Erosion control on paths
Y
N
Feral animal control
Y
N
Public access control (e.g. path or fencing construction or upkeep)
Y
N
Disease control (e.g. dieback control)
Y
N
Monitoring - how? ………..…………………………..…………………
Y
N
Water quality testing
Y
N
Write/update management plan
Local Government Conservation and Management
Y
N
Lobbying/campaigning against development
Y
N
Fundraising
Y
N
Education
Y
N
Fauna surveys
Y
N
Flora surveys
Y
N
Assisting community groups and landowners in bushland management
Y
N
Funding applications
Y
N
Bushcare Program
Y
N
Other management (please state) ..…………………………..…………
149
18) Briefly, how does your LG coordinate with and assist community groups and private landowners that
are managing native vegetation within the LG area?
19) Briefly, How does your LG promote native vegetation management to the community?
150
Chapter Four
Appendix 4.2. List of Local Governments that Responded to Questionnaire.
City
Urban Local Governments
Urban-Rural Local Governments
Sydney
Auburn, Bankstowna, Botany
Baulkham Hills, Blacktown,
Bay, Concord, Holroyd, Hunters
Campbelltown, Fairfield,
Hill, Hurstville, Kogarah, Lane
Hornsbya, Liverpool, Warringah
Cove, Leichhardt, Manly,
Marrickville, Mosmana, North
Sydneya, Parramatta, Randwick,
Ryde, Strathfield, Sutherlanda,
Waverley, Willoughby
Perth
Bassendean, Belmont, Canninga,
Armadale, Cockburn, Gosnells,
East Fremantle, Fremantle,
Kalamunda,
Joondalup, Melville, Nedlandsa,
Mundaring, Rockingham,
South Perth, Victoria Park
Serpentine-Jarrahdale, Stirling,
Swan
Melbourne Banyulea
Brimbank, Casey, Frankstona,
Humea, Melton, Nillumbika,
Wyndhama, Yarra Rangesa
Adelaide
Port Adelaide-Enfielda
Adelaide Hills, Burnsidea, Marion
Onkaparingaa, Playford, Tea Tree
Gullya
A: LGs where staff returned the questionnaire and were interviewed.
A further five LGs were interviewed but no questionnaire was returned.
Chapter Five
Community-based Bushland Care in
Urban Australia
Volunteers in a community group, at a weeding day for their bushland, in Perth
Link to Chapter Five
151
LINK TO CHAPTER FIVE
Chapters Two and Three established that urban bushlands are being impacted by a
number of human-caused disturbances and that the condition of urban bushlands is
compromised by ever-present, and sometimes profuse, weed species. The research
detailed in Chapter Four found that local governments are allocating staff and resources
towards minimising disturbances in urban bushlands, and are more active in weed
removal than any other management activity. However, the disturbances affecting urban
bushlands are numerous, and local government resources for bushland management are
limited. At current levels of staffing and finances, local governments alone do not have
the resources to tackle urban bushland degradation.
Decentralisation goes further than devolution of environmental management
responsibilities from Federal and State governments to the local government level; it
also includes mobilisation of local communities (Lane 2003). Additionally, there has
been an increased expectation from the community for a higher level of involvement in
local natural resource management (Australian National Audit Office 1997). The
community has taken an interest in the management of local bushlands since the 1960s
when the Bradley sisters pioneered bushland regeneration techniques in Sydney
bushlands (Bridgman et al. 1995, p. 121). Since this time many community-based
groups have formed, of their own initiative, to help care for local bushlands in
Australian cities. Despite their potential to contribute to local biodiversity management
in urban areas, community bushland care groups remain largely unstudied. Chapter Five
describes research that aimed to test concepts related to community participation and
volunteering, for the urban bushland context. Specifically, it aimed to characterise
community-based groups caring for urban bushlands and to ascertain what motivates
individuals to volunteer, and what factors might foster their continued involvement in
bushland care. The research is based on a questionnaire (Appendix A) completed by
community bushland care volunteers.
152
Link to Chapter Five
Community-based Bushland Care
5.0
155
ABSTRACT
Community groups have been involved in conservation and restoration of bushlands in
urban areas of Australia since the early 1970s. This research aimed to determine why
people volunteer in bushland conservation, and what they gain from this experience, so
that these groups may be better fostered. A questionnaire was answered by bushland
care volunteers in the five largest Australian cities. Respondents were motivated to
volunteer for altruistic reasons (a genuine concern for the bushland), and gained
numerous positive experiences from volunteering, including increased skills and
knowledge, visible environmental results, social interaction, personal development,
sense of achievement and purpose and community involvement. Negative experiences
involved issues with people external to the group, intra-group problems, personal
difficulties and lack of environmental results. Volunteers programs could assist groups
with such problems and provide further opportunities for social interactions and skills
and knowledge building, to ensure volunteering remains an enjoyable experience.
Keywords: community-based conservation, volunteers, urban bushland, community
participation, Bushcare, Friends groups, Landcare
156
5.1
Chapter Five
INTRODUCTION
Volunteers are being increasingly relied on to conduct natural resource management onground. Volunteers provide an important resource, as the scale of environmental
problems is now so great that government lacks the resources to tackle problems alone
(Safstrom and O’Byrne 2001). Local-scale achievements in environmental conservation
and restoration are being made through the efforts of volunteers, in programs such as
ecological restoration (Donaldson 1997; Ryan et al. 2001; Miles et al. 1998), watershed
management (Curtis et al. 2002; Moore and Koontz 2003), grass-roots ecosystem
management (Weber 2000) and Australian Landcare (Lockie and Vanclay 1997). As
well as contributing to on-ground work, community-based conservation has ‘been able
to reflect and affect community attitudes on biodiversity and to translate these into
policies and programs’ and provide an avenue for members of the public to have an
input into the management of the natural environment (Nias 1995, P 375). Citizen
participation in environmental management has many community-wide benefits, such
as assistance to management authorities, community learning and awareness of issues,
greater social cohesion and improved environmental outcomes (Lenaghan 1999; Curtis
2000; Ross et al. 2002). Participation in community-based environmental management
increases participants’ appreciation and attachment to local areas, and given they are
often overlooked for their biodiversity values, urban local areas need advocates (Ryan
et al. 2001).
Safstrom and O’Byrne (2001), writing from a practitioner’s viewpoint, believe that
there will be a continuing, ongoing and increasing need for the involvement of
community volunteers to manage public lands, and as such, there is an urgent need to
understand what motivates volunteers, what sustains their involvement, and how
community efforts can be fostered and supported by government. This paper presents
research into community-based groups that care for publicly-owned bushlands in
Australian cities. There is little academic research literature on these groups, and it is
time to start asking: who are urban bushland care groups; what motivates people to join,
and what are the benefits and difficulties volunteers face in bushland care? An
understanding of how community-based bushland care groups can be better fostered
will be useful to practitioners who increasingly rely on volunteer efforts in biodiversity
conservation.
Community-based Bushland Care
157
5.1.1 Community Bushland Care Groups
Community bushland care groups consist of self-appointed volunteers who care for a
local patch of native vegetation (bushland) on public land, often conducting weed
management and other ecological restoration works. Volunteers have been caring for
urban bushlands since the 1960s, when the Bradley sisters pioneered bushland
regeneration techniques in Sydney bushlands (Buchanan 1989, P 7; Bridgman et al.
1995, P 121). Rees and Smith (1996) estimated that in 1994/5 there were over 400
groups working in Sydney’s bushlands, and O’Byrne (pers. comm. 2003) has estimated
that there are around 300 groups in Perth. Thus, there are likely to be thousands of
bushland care groups operating in the cities of Australia. These groups have various
names, mainly Bushcare and Friends groups, and in this paper the less-exclusionary
term ‘community bushland care groups’ is used.
Usually, a community bushland care group will have a committee as well as a
fluctuating membership base, including volunteers who regularly join in activities, and
others who support the group but are less demonstrative. A typical group would have
paid memberships and member newsletters, monthly committee meetings, hold planting
or weeding days in the bushland once or twice a month on weekends, apply for grant
funding, liaise with the local government or agency in whom the bushland is vested and
be involved in associated organisations, such as local environmental advisory
committees or bushland advocacy umbrella groups. Many groups are legally
incorporated for funding and insurance purposes. Actions focus on on-ground work –
mainly weed control, rubbish removal, revegetation and regeneration – with the aim of
improving the habitat and aesthetics of the bushland (Rees and Smith 1996; Stenhouse
2001). The complexity of the bushland care group varies from small informal groups of
a few neighbours or friends who weed in the bushland, to large, highly organised groups
such as the Friends of Merri Creek in Melbourne, which spans eight local government
areas, has around 500 members, multiple management goals and a lobbying role.
At a federal level, volunteer bushland management was formally recognised in 1996,
when the Bushcare Program was initiated through the Natural Heritage Trust (Hill
1999). Bushcare provides a grants scheme and some staff to facilitate on-ground
community-based projects. Many community bushland care groups are given assistance
by their local government. Community bushland care fits with Uphoff’s (1991, quoted
158
Chapter Five
in Curtis and Lockwood 2000) description of a ‘paradox of participation’ – ‘top-down’
efforts to promote ‘bottom-up’ development.
Ross et al. (2002) have updated Arnstein’s (1969) classic ‘ladder of citizen
participation’ in an Australian context. Where Arnstein’s (1969) typology is defined by
level of citizen empowerment, Ross et al. (2002) group participatory approaches by
factors such as the stakeholders involved, tenure of the resource managed, tasks
involved and duration of the participatory process. Community bushland care groups
fall into the category of ‘community collective activity’, characterised as on-going
stewardship groups, with voluntary membership, activity-based (often on-ground),
working on public or private land, often with government financial or in-kind support
(Ross et al. 2002, P 208). Landcare groups are also classed as stewardship groups under
‘community collective activity’. Landcare groups generally consist of rural landholders
working together to tackle land degradation and achieve ecologically sustainable land
use, usually on private land, owned or leased by members (Campbell 1997; Cary and
Webb 2001). Groups are self-run, while government provides funding and state-wide
coordination of groups (Curtis and Van Nouhuys 1999). Landcare groups have been
extensively studied in the Australian literature (e.g. Chamala and Keith 1995; Lockie
and Vanclay 1997) and many lessons about facilitating and supporting groups have
been identified in the Landcare literature (e.g. in Bailey 1996; Byron and Curtis 2002;
Curtis 2000; Curtis and Van Nouhuys 1999). Given the apparent similarities of the two
community-based groups (Ross et al. 2002), can the lessons on fostering and supporting
community groups derived from the Landcare experience be transferred to community
bushland care groups? A secondary aim of this paper is therefore to compare the
characteristics of the two types of groups.
5.1.2
Why Volunteer?
Stern et al. (1993) wrote that motivation for pro-environmental behaviour can be due to
one or a combination of three value orientations: social-altruistic, when a person acts
out of concern for the welfare of other humans; biospheric, when a person acts out of
ethical concern for all living creatures; and egoistic, where an individual is motivated
out of self interest. More tangibly, Webler et al. (2003) found that some people were
prompted to volunteer after seeing that others’ actions are having a positive impact on
the issue at hand, or conversely, being pessimistic about others’ actions. In his
Community-based Bushland Care
159
experience with Landcare groups, Lockie (2001) believes the most important reason to
join a group was the realisation of the threat of land degradation. Investigating
ecological restoration groups, Donald (1997) found that people became involved to
learn new skills, use existing skills, and for social interaction, and Ryan et al. (2001)
found people joined to help the environment and for learning.
5.1.3
Incentives and Disincentives for Continued Volunteering
Arai and Pedlar (1997) noted five main ways in which volunteers participating in an
environmental and community sustainability initiative benefited: learning and
developing new skills, becoming more vocal and confident, gaining fun and balance in
their lives, affecting change through group accomplishments, and a sense of community
and camaraderie. Similar benefits from environmental volunteering have been noted by
other researchers (Miles et al. 1998; Curtis 2000; Ryan et al. 2001). Donaldson (1997)
found volunteers continued in environmental stewardship groups due to friendships
developed in the group and the work of the groups being successful. Ryan et al. (2001)
suggested that community environmental conservation projects, in particular, provide
volunteers with the opportunity to see improvements to the environment as a direct
result of their work – tangible results make efforts worthwhile. Positive outcomes foster
continued commitment to volunteering (Ryan et al. 2001).
There are also complications inherent in community conservation. Ross et al. (2002)
write that environmental stewardship groups are frustrated that no one will resource
their efforts, except on a short-term basis through federal programs, and are susceptible
to burnout. There is also unease that governments may be devolving their own
responsibilities to these groups (Ross et al. 2002). The Landcare experience has
highlighted intra-group problems, including inadequate group leadership, high
administrative workloads, burnout (when volunteers are so overwhelmed or exhausted
by the tasks that they become less effective or drop out), over-commitment, time
constraints, and high turnover or loss of members (Curtis and Van Nouhuys 1999;
Curtis 2000; Byron et al. 2001). These negative experiences are may lead to
discontinuation in environmental stewardship groups.
160
5.2
Chapter Five
METHODS
A questionnaire was used to determine the characteristics of volunteers and their
groups, volunteers’ motivations in joining a group and benefits and frustrations
experienced by volunteers. As there is no register for community bushland care groups,
distribution of the questionnaire had to rely on advertising and mail outs in newsletters
with the hope that relevant bushland care volunteers would participate. The
questionnaire was widely advertised and circulated in Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne,
Sydney and Brisbane, the five largest cities in Australia. For each city, the questionnaire
was advertised in local community newspapers and in the newsletters or list-servers of
non-government, bushland advocacy organizations, asking bushland volunteers to
contact the researcher for a questionnaire to be posted or email to them. Additionally,
the questionnaire was distributed by two local governments, and sent out with
newsletters of the Perth based bushland advocacy group, the Urban Bushland Council,
and with newsletters of the Australian Network for Plant Conservation.
Any member of a community-based bushland care group was eligible to complete the
questionnaire, providing they were an active member, managed native vegetation in the
metropolitan region of one of the cities studied, and coordinated with a local
government authority (the latter relates to a second paper based on the questionnaire).
Multiple questionnaires from the same bushland group were included. In total, 76
questionnaires from community bushland care volunteers were analysed in this
research. Due to the method of questionnaire distribution and unknown numbers of
photocopies and email questionnaires passed around, no return rate can be provided. As
an indication, in metropolitan Perth alone, there are over 300 bushland care groups
(O’Byrne, pers. comm. 2003) and the questionnaire was returned by approximately 15%
of them.
Respondents were asked their age, gender, city, local government area and name of
bushland care group, as well as quantitative questions on the number of total and active
members in their group, the length of time the group had been operational, their own
length of involvement and how much time per month and money per year they spend on
bushland care. Spearman rank correlation was performed to indicate significant
relationships among volunteer characteristics, and Mann Whitney U Test was applied to
assess the significance of difference between urban and urban-rural based groups.
Community-based Bushland Care
161
Open-ended questions asked: ‘why did you join the bushland care group?’ and ‘what
have you got out of volunteering: both benefits and negative experiences?’. Open-ended
questions were used so the respondent could answer as they wished, rather than being
restricted to pre-determined responses drawn from literature on different communitybased groups. For the purposes of data presentation and interpretation, answers to the
open-ended questions were coded. That is, from a verbatim listing of all written
responses to questions, each response was broken down into discrete parts, or ‘databits’,
which were then analysed for similarities and differences. Similar databits were then
grouped into sub-categories for each of the following master categories: motivation to
join; benefits; frustrations (following Kitchin and Tate 2000). A matrix was developed,
which denotes all the sub-categories that each respondent has databits assigned to. This
facilitated comparison of individual responses and identification of any connections
among sub-categories (following Kitchin and Tate 2000). While every reason given by
respondents for joining and continuing volunteering is important, and has been reported
on in this paper, numbers of responses for each category are also given, as this provides
information on common attributes of the individuals, which helps to build a better
picture of community bushland care groups. Direct quotes from respondents are used in
the text, given in quotation marks.
5.3
RESULTS
5.3.1
Characteristics of Volunteers and their Groups
The 76 respondents to the questionnaire came from 70 different bushland care groups,
of which 44 were Friends of Reserve groups, 10 were Bushcare groups and the
remaining 16 groups came under a variety of names. This represented a total of 3630
members (i.e. signed up members) including 948 active members (i.e. join in group
activities). There was a high response rate from Perth, accounting for just over half of
the respondents. On average 52% of the total members were active members (Table
5.1). Groups with high membership numbers had a large number of active members
(R=0.76, p<0.000) but small proportions of active members (R= -0.71, p<0.000). Thirty
percent of the respondents were from inner-middle metropolitan areas, and their groups
had larger total membership size than outer metropolitan (rural-urban fringe) groups
(Mann-Whitney Z = -2.718, P = 0.007). Groups had existed for eight years on average
162
Chapter Five
and 76% had been operational for 10 years or less. Respondents were likely to have
been involved with their group since it was established (R=0.86, p<0.01). Individuals
who were spending the most hours in volunteering also spent the greatest personal
finances on the group (R=0.48, p<0.000). Over half of the respondents were in the 40 to
60 age group (54%), 28% were over 61, 16% were 25 to 39, and just two people under
25 years of age responded. Females constituted 66% of the respondents.
5.Years with
group
1
0
2
100
100
30
24
5000
130
14
52
8
7
178
22
50
6
6
50
11
1
1
Maximum
1000
49
Average
Median
25
7. Hrs/month
on group activities
4.Years
group operational
1
Minimum
10
6. $/year spent
on group
3.Percent of
members active
4
2.Active
membership1
1.Total
membeship1
Table 5.1. Characteristics of Urban Bushland Care Groups.
1: there was one ‘group’ of one person, included in analysis
Columns 1 to 4 are data per group; columns 5 to 7 are data per respondent.
$ (Dollars) are Australian.
5.3.2
Volunteers’ Motivations
A number of respondents stated that they joined a group because they had been asked to
by a friend or local councillor, or because they saw a need for initiating or leading a
community bushland care group. Respondents joined a group to ‘contribute something
to the community’ and to help create ‘something for all the community to be proud of’.
Volunteers joined to gain skills and knowledge or utilise skills that had previously been
gained in employment. Respondents were motivated to act on specific issues, most
commonly a ‘profusion of weeds’, or an ‘appalling rubbish problem’. Individuals joined
a group to provide conservation input, in the form of ‘habitat restoration’, ‘maintenance
of bushland’, ‘bush regeneration’, ‘revegetating degraded land’ or ‘love and care’.
Seven respondents linked locality with conservation; motivated ‘to help conserve and
maintain the bushland close to where I live’. A number of people became volunteers in
Community-based Bushland Care
163
response to threat of development of a bushland close to them: ‘to campaign to save the
bushland from destruction – an industrial estate was planned for the area’. Concern over
‘lack of care’ of the bushland, or feeling the bushland was ‘not being properly
managed’ (by landholders) motivated people to volunteer. An interest in ‘the bush and
gardening and plants in general’ provided impetus to join a group.
5.3.3
Benefits Gained from Volunteering
The most commonly cited benefit was gaining knowledge and skills in bushland
management and people skills (Table 5.2). Knowledge and skills were developed from
training courses, learning on the job and from other members sharing knowledge and
experience. Also frequently mentioned was visible environmental results as a positive
outcome: ‘regrowth of native plants’, ‘inroads made into weed control’, ‘returning flora
and fauna’ and ‘great improvement in quality of bushland’. Social interactions were a
benefit, including forming ‘good friendships’, ‘socialising’ and meeting ‘like-minded
people’. Respondents noted a feeling of achievement and a ‘soul satisfaction’ from
volunteering, and gained a ‘a great sense of purpose’. In all, seventy-one respondents
gave 162 positive statements regarding their volunteer experience (categorised in Table
5.2), with 27 respondents mentioning one benefit, and 44 respondents noting two to five
different benefits.
5.3.4
Frustrations Experienced by Volunteers
Only one respondent gave a sense of overall frustration with volunteering, citing ‘grey
hairs, frustration, anger and anguish!’. Thirty-one negative comments on the urban
bushland care volunteer experience were identified, provided by twenty-one
respondents. These can be grouped into four, often overlapping, categories: issues with
people external to the group (16 responses); intra-group issues (11 responses); personal
issues (3 responses), and frustrations at a lack of environmental results (3 responses).
Conflict and frustrations with external groups included ‘community ignorance’ of their
impacts on the bushland, being ‘fed up with residents who won’t cooperate’ or object to
the group’s efforts, a view that ‘if we don’t do it, nobody else will’, conflict with local
government and conflict with potential developers. Intra-group issues involved
difficulties in maintaining membership, members ‘getting older and … not have[ing]
164
Chapter Five
enough time or energy’, over-high demands on key members, obtaining funds, and
members ‘having very different ideas about what our limited resources should be used
for’. One volunteer stated: ‘after four years I need a break, but it all hangs on one or two
people’. Another personal issue was ‘perpetual conflict’ in finding a balance for all
one’s commitments. Volunteers were frustrated when weed proliferation and other
disturbances worsened, rather than improved.
Table 5.2. Benefits gained from Volunteering in Bushland Management.
Benefit
Number of
Responses
Increased knowledge and skills in bushland ecology and management
30
Visible improvements in the bushland
28
A feeling of achievement and ‘soul satisfaction’
16
Friendships, enjoy the people, socialising
16
A sense of purpose and empowerment from ‘making a difference’
12
Meeting like minded people (solidarity and validation)
11
Community involvement and contribution, a greater sense of community 10
Experience in group management and people skills
6
Enjoying the work and being outdoors
6
Enjoying nature and being in the bushland
6
Recognition and appreciation of efforts from community or government
5
Personal development and increase self-confidence
4
A sense of community
4
An opportunity to further develop skills already held
3
Greater appreciation of bushland
2
Seeing the group develop
2
A ‘real sense of ownership’ of ‘our local area’
1
Note: Question was open-ended so answers have been coded. n = 162 responses (from 71 persons).
Community-based Bushland Care
5.4
DISCUSSION
5.4.1
Characteristics of Volunteers and Volunteer Groups
165
The volunteers who responded to the questionnaire were most likely to be female and in
the 40-60 age cohort. On average, 52% of the total members of a group were active
members. Individuals spent on average 22 hours per month on bushland care, which is
high in comparison to the national average of 5.6 hours per month per volunteer
(Australian Bureau of Statistics 2001). Groups from the inner-middle metropolitan area
were larger in membership than outer metropolitan groups, which is indicative of a high
population from which to recruit volunteers in the more densely urban area. However,
there were far more questionnaire responses from groups in outer metropolitan areas
(70% of respondents), which is expected, given that more bushland remains in outer
metropolitan than inner metropolitan areas. It appears urban bushland care is strong in
both the inner metropolitan and rural-urban fringe regions.
5.4.2
Motivations for becoming a Volunteer and Continuing Volunteering
The reasons given for joining a bushland care group can be broadly categorised into the
three motivations for pro-environmental behaviour of Stern et al. (1993) (Figure 5.1).
Most respondents joined their bushland care group for environmentally driven altruistic
(biospheric) reasons, to help conserve the bushland, manage problems, or save a
bushland from development. Contributing to the community and volunteering when
asked by others were social-altruistic motivations of some respondents. Just three
respondents gave only an egoistic reason for joining: wanting to learn skills or to make
use of skills and expertise already held in bushland conservation and management. The
respondents in this survey strongly driven by altruism; more so than the general
volunteer, as the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001) noted that 43% of volunteers are
driven by egoistic value orientation, as opposed to altruism.
Notably, most of the reasons for joining a group were tangible: volunteers saw a need,
whether for weed management, restoration or activism to save a threatened bushland.
This implies that bushland management by the reserve landholders (local government in
this study) is lacking, and volunteers have stepped in to fill this gap. In some cases, this
is true, as one respondent stated: ‘… many, possibly most people involved in this area
only do it due to local government neglect.’ Research has shown that metropolitan local
166
Chapter Five
governments are investing time, staff and funds towards bushland management
(Chapter Four) but urban bushlands are highly impacted by weeds, rubbish and other
disturbances (Chapter Three), and local government efforts alone are not enough to
diminish these disturbances.
To make use of expertise/skills obtained in study/employment (3)
Egoistic
To gain skills/knowledge in plants/bushland management (2)
To meet people (1)
Matched interest (in bush plants or gardening) (4)
To help manage a specific problem, such as weeds, rubbish (16)
To help conserve and restore the bushland (16)
To save the bushland from development (14)
Biospheric
Fostering: to care for bushland near my house (7)
To conserve bushland as there is lack of/inappropriate care (4)
Because I care for the environment (1)
Asked to, by local council or friends (6)
Socialaltruistic
To establish a group or to provide leadership (5)
To contribute to the community (3)
Figure 5.1. Respondents’ Motivations for Joining a Bushland Care Group.
82 ‘databits’ (from 72 persons) have been categorised into 13 subcategories, further classed into Stern et
al. (1993)’s three main categories of motivation: egoistic (self interests); biospheric (environmental
ethics) and social altruistic (concern for other people/society).
Note ‘matched interests’ is placed between egoistic and biospheric, as the motivation is partly selfish, as
it matches activity with personal interest, but also of biospheric orientation, given the interest is in nature.
Of the six egoistic motivations cited, two of these respondents also gave biospheric motivations.
Numbers given in parentheses refer to number of respondents who provided ‘databits’ in each
subcategory.
Community-based Bushland Care
167
Two thirds of the bushland care volunteers who responded to the questionnaire are
female. The data collection method used does not allow for differentiation of whether
this indicates that a) more females than males participate in volunteer bushland care or
b) female bushland care volunteers are more likely than male volunteers to answer a
questionnaire. The former is likely, based on literature that indicates that females are
more likely to volunteer than males (Argyle 1996) and that females are more proenvironment than males (Millbrath 1982; Stern et al. 1993; Steel 1996). Research by
Stern et al. (1993) suggested that women and men do not have different values towards
the environment, but that socialisation and social structure shape women such that they
are more attentive to messages that link environmental conditions to potential harm to
themselves, other people, other species or the biosphere, and it is because of this
connection that women are more active on environmental issues. In this study, chi
square analysis (of gender versus the subcategories of Figure 5.1) revealed no
significant differences between male and females in motivations to volunteer. However,
the most common reason given by males to join a group was to save a bushland from
development. Threat of development forced an obvious link between the environment
and personal values.
Volunteers noted many positive experiences gained from urban bushland care
volunteering, which might be summarised as: skills and knowledge development,
visible environmental improvements, personal development, a feeling of achievement, a
sense of purpose, social interactions, recognition and appreciation, lifestyle benefits and
community involvement. This is comparable to the findings from research into other
environmental stewardship volunteers (Donaldson 1997; Miles et al. 1998; Ryan et al.
2002). Volunteers generally gained more from volunteering than they hoped for. To
elaborate: almost all respondents gave a single response on why they volunteered; yet
most respondents noted multiple benefits gained from the experience. Only one person
joined to meet people, yet social interaction elicited 27 responses as a benefit. Likewise,
two people joined to gain skills and knowledge, and as well as these individuals, thirtythree respondents expressed knowledge or skills acquisition as a positive outcome from
volunteering. The many positive experiences gained from volunteering are likely to
encourage continuation of involvement, and may account for the fact that most
respondents had been with their group since its establishment. In this research, only
active group members completed the questionnaires, and the work of Arai and Pedlar
168
Chapter Five
(1997) would suggest that the findings with regard to benefits gained from volunteering
cannot be extrapolated to non-active members.
Concern over members getting older was noted by two respondents. Unless young
people are recruited, this is likely to remain an issue in the coming decades if the
respondents to this questionnaire are representative, as 54% of respondents are in the 40
to 60 age cohort and only two respondents are under 25. Groups will need to attract
more young people to bushland care, so that skills and commitment to the local
bushland can continue over time. However, it must be noted that there is certainly a role
for retirees in bushland care:
Some of our members cannot do any bending or lifting … These
wonderful people deliver the snail mail [conventional mail] letter drops,
provide support for the Environment Stall to make the community aware
of environmental issues [and] they provide … cooking for morning teas
and coffee.
As a whole, respondents were gaining more benefit than frustration from volunteering,
illustrated by the much higher number of positive than negative comments on the
bushland care experience. However, respondents were frustrated with uncooperative
members of the community, conflicts with the bushland landholders or developers, a
feeling that no-one else was managing the bushland, intra-group problems, the demands
of volunteering and lack of results. The intra-group problems are similar to those found
in Landcare groups, but were not apparent to the same extent (Byron et al. 2000; Curtis
2000). It is likely that volunteers who experienced high levels of frustration have left
groups, and as group leavers were not interviewed, the intense frustration levels that
lead to burnout have not been uncovered in this research. Case study analysis would be
more effective in understanding the group dynamics of community bushland care
groups.
5.4.3
Implications
Ross et al. (2002) have stated that an advantage of stewardship groups is the ‘free
labour’ provided. However, groups are currently receiving support from local
government, state agencies or non-government organisations such as Greening Australia
Community-based Bushland Care
169
in the form of tools and equipment at a minimum, and grant funding for on-ground
work from the Federal government Bushcare Program. Resources are being directed to
stewardship groups. Ideally, to help volunteer groups to work most effectively, as well
as funding on-ground work, funding should be directed into volunteer programs that
provide Volunteers Coordinators and training for volunteers. Volunteers Coordinators,
similar to government agency extension officers that assist Landcare and catchment
groups, can help the group with obtaining and managing funds, attracting more
members (including more young people), retaining members, sharing workloads and
resolving conflicts. Such programs do exist in Australian cities, largely run by nongovernment organisations such the Environmental Weeds Action Network in Perth (see
Safstrom and O’Byrne 2001) and Bush for Life in Adelaide. However, not all bushland
care groups are receiving this help.
Conservation volunteers programs should maximise volunteers’ exposure to the positive
experiences described in this study, by encouraging more social events, increasing
opportunities for learning and highlighting the tangible achievements of the group, for
instance by recording their progress with a photographic time series of the project. A
volunteers program, with funding assistance from the Bushcare Program, whether run
by local governments, regional organisations of councils, or non-government groups,
would make volunteering even more effective and enjoyable for the volunteers, and
would better recognise the efforts of bushland care groups. At the same time, such
programs should be careful not to impose government objectives onto groups, as cooption detracts from the contribution that community participation makes to society and
environmental outcomes.
This study has indicated that bushland care volunteers choose bushlands to work in that
are close to home, under development threat, or being degraded by weeds or other
disturbances. Alternatively, local government staff usually prioritise bushland
management with more scientific and objective criteria, such that most resources are
expended on managing highest quality bushlands. Volunteer groups are motivated to act
when they see bushlands degraded by weeds and other disturbances. This difference in
prioritisation by community and government may be advantageous – both the degraded
and high quality bushland reserves are being managed. The converse view: community
prioritisation of reserves is directing resources away from reserves deemed by scientists
170
Chapter Five
to be of high quality. Dialogue among the community, researchers and environmental
managers is required to discuss this issue, in a social, scientific and ethical context.
5.4.4
Comparison with Landcare
Are Landcare and community bushland care groups similar, such that the lessons from
the much larger body of literature on Landcare may be transferred, to improve the
community bushland care process? The findings from this research, other research on
community bushland care groups (Rees and Smith 1996; Stenhouse 2001) and general
knowledge of the groups over the course of a number of years of research allows for a
comparison with the literature on Landcare groups (Table 5.3). The main similarities
between the two groups include their means of obtaining funding, volunteer basis, onground focus and age-cohort of members. However, there are key differences: Landcare
groups are working on private lands to achieve land sustainability, for economic and
environmental reasons, whereas community bushland care groups are working on
public lands and for the purpose of biodiversity conservation, driven mainly by
environmental altruism. The groups also work at different scales, in rural versus urban
regions, and in association with different levels of government (usually state agencies
for Landcare groups and local government for bushland care groups).
Based on this assessment, it would appear that although both groups fit to the typology
of public participation provided by Ross et al. (2002) (being voluntary, with
government support, activity based and ongoing groups) the differences between the
two groups is such that lessons from Landcare may be useful, especially those relating
to managing intra-group issues, but are unlikely to be directly transferable to urban
community bushland care groups. It should be noted that urban community bushland
care groups are likely to be very similar to urban-based Landcare groups, who work on
public land for conservation purposes. The comparisons made above and in Table 5.3
are with rural Landcare groups, which have been the focus of the literature on Landcare.
Community-based Bushland Care
171
Table 5.3. General Characteristics of Landcare and Community Bushland Care Groups.
Landcare Groups
Community Bushland Care Groups
Community-based participatory program
established by government1, groups not
spontaneously and autonomously
formed2
Community-based groups, most formed
spontaneously and autonomously (grassroots groups)
Predominantly rural based3
Urban based
Catchment or sub-catchment scale2
Local scale, usually one small remnant
Work mainly on land owned or leased
by members, sometimes on public land2
Work on public land
Receive federal NHT funding, through
Landcare Program2
Receive federal NHT funding through
Bushcare Program
Voluntary membership, open to any
local person2
Voluntary membership, open to any
local person
Groups have no legislative backing2
Groups have no legislative backing
Usually involves partnership with
government, via funding and agency
extension staff or coordinators3
Association with local government has
developed ad-hoc and on a case-by-case
basis. Support varies widely.
Rural land sustainability focus4
Biodiversity conservation focus
Activities: meetings, develop strategies,
field days, demonstration sites,
education, tree planting, salinity and
erosion control, fencing2 6
Activities: mainly on-ground work,
especially weed removal. Also
educational activities.5
Motivated by: task orientation/solve
problems, desire to learn, social
interaction, awareness raising,
economical concern 2 7 8
Motivated by: desire to conserve and
help manage bushlands
More likely to be in 40-60 age group
than non-members2
54% of respondents in 40-60 age group
Predominantly male membership9
66% of respondents female
50% of members highly active and
attend each group activity2 7
52% of members are active (attend work
days)
1: Ewing 1999
2: Curtis and Van Nouhuys 1999
3: Bailey 1996. Estimates that of the 1000 Landcare Groups in New South Wales, around three quarters
are in rural areas and one quarter in urban areas.
4: Campbell 1997
5: Rees and Smith 1996; Stenhouse 2001
6: Cary and Web 2001
7: Carr 1993
8: Baker 1997
9: Curtis and DeLacy 1995. In a survey of 117 groups in Victoria, it was found that women make up 34%
of all members.
172
5.4.5
Chapter Five
Limitations of the Research
The limitation of this study is the small sample size of community volunteers who
responded to the questionnaire. While it is estimated that thousands of urban
community-based bushland care groups exist in Australia, this research has drawn on
the experiences of only 76 individuals. This was to an extent unavoidable, as there is no
list of community groups available from which to contact potential research
participants. The research was widely advertised and circulated in appropriate mediums,
but the onus was on the volunteer to a) return the questionnaire included in a newsletter
they received, or b) contact the researcher to obtain and questionnaire, and return it. The
implications of this is firstly, a small sample of respondents, and secondly a nonrandom and biased sample. It is likely that enthusiastic volunteers responded to the
questionnaire, rather than volunteers who have been ‘burnt’ by participation in bushland
care. As such, the findings of this research should be taken as indicative rather than
definitive.
The use of open-ended questions rather than closed questions is likely to have
influenced the results of this research. As an example, only one person stated that they
joined a bushland care group because they ‘care for the environment’. Probably most of
the respondents care for the environment, but the majority of responses regarding
motivation to join a group were tangible; such as seeing a need for disturbance
management, or a need for restoration, or to save the bushland from development. A
closed question on motivations with ‘I care for the environment’ as a choice would have
elicited many more responses.
5.5
CONCLUSION
Community bushland care volunteers, who are predominantly females in the 40-60 year
group, are driven by altruistic value orientations; mainly out of concern for bushland
conservation. At the same time, volunteers were motivated by seeing a need for
bushland care, when the bushland was overrun by weeds and rubbish or in need of
restoration work. Metropolitan local governments are active in bushland management,
but the disturbances and degradation in urban reserves are too large and too numerous
to be tackled by local governments alone. Given this, community volunteers should be
supported as a welcome, and necessary, partner in urban bushland management.
Community-based Bushland Care
173
Benefits gained from volunteering, which are likely to motivate individuals to continue
with volunteering, included learning bushland management skills and people skills,
seeing the visible results of their work, social interaction, personal development, a
feeling of achievement, a sense of purpose, recognition of their work and community
involvement. Environmental practitioners involved in community-based management
should attempt to maximise volunteers’ exposure to these positive experiences.
Deterrents to continuation of volunteering were recognised as intra-group problems,
frustration at non-sympathetic members of the community, a feeling that they were
managing the bushland alone, and frustration at the lack of visible results. These issues
threaten the effectiveness of the community bushland management process and detract
from the joy of volunteering. Some of these issues may be assisted by external
coordination, or higher levels of assistance to community bushland care groups. There
is the potential for local and state governments or non-government organisations to play
a strong facilitation or coordination role – providing training in both bushland
management and group skills, providing funding, and assisting groups on the ground so
that volunteers do not feel that they ‘do all the work’.
It is likely that numbers of volunteers involved in bushland care and similar community
conservation initiatives will increase, due to factors such as a shift in belief systems
from one of ‘man’s superiority in nature’ to a ‘new environmental paradigm’ (Cotgrove
1982; Millbrath 1984), increasing community expectations for greater participation in
environmental conservation (Australian National Audit Office 1997), increasing levels
of environmental education of school children, and an aging population in Australia
who will have time for volunteering. Policies and strategies to facilitate effective (and
fun) conservation volunteer programs will be needed, as well as strategies to encourage
a more diverse and representative body of bushland care volunteers (more young people
and males for instance). It is of advantage to both the community and government to
encourage conservation volunteers as the process benefits volunteers personally, adds to
community cohesion and environmental awareness, and enables stronger efforts on
biodiversity conservation than governments could achieve alone.
There is a strong body of literature on conservation volunteerism; for Australia this
mostly relates to Landcare. However, urban-based community bushland care groups
have been largely under-studied. This paper has provided a step towards filling this gap
174
Chapter Five
in the literature. The discussion has concluded that urban-based community bushland
care groups differ from Landcare groups in a number of aspects, particularly in terms of
their main purpose and the tenure of the land they operate on. These differences are
sufficient to warrant further research into community bushland care groups, to better
understand how urban bushland care volunteers can be supported.
Community-based Bushland Care
175
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was conducted during postgraduate candidature at The University of
Western Australia. Gratitude is extended to the bushland care volunteers who made
time to complete the research questionnaire, as well as for their efforts in volunteering.
Thanks to the non-government organisations and local government staff who assisted in
circulating the questionnaire, in particular the Urban Bushland Council of Western
Australia and the Australian Network for Plant Conservation. I am grateful for the
comments on the manuscript from Associate Professor Arthur Conacher.
176
Chapter Five
REFERENCES
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2001) Voluntary Work Australia 2000, Catalogue No
4441.0, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Australian National Audit Office (1997) Commonwealth Natural Resource
Management and Environment Programs, Australia’s Land, Water and
Vegetation Resources, The Auditor-General performance audit Report No. 36:
1996-97, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.
Arai, S.M., and Pedlar, A.M. (1997) ‘Building communities through leisure: citizen
participation in a healthy communities initiative’, Journal of Leisure Research
29(2), pp. 167-182.
Arnstein, S. (1969) ‘A ladder of citizen participation’, Journal of the American Institute
of Planners 35, pp. 216-224.
Argyle, M. (1996) The Social Psychology of Leisure, Penguin, Harmondsworth, UK.
Bailey, M.A. (1996) ‘Landcare group networks as models for holistic management’,
Eco-Management and Auditing 3, pp. 147-152.
Baker, R. (1997) ‘Landcare: policy, practice and partnerships’, Australian
Geographical Studies 35(1), pp. 61-73.
Bridgman, H., Warner, R. and Dodson, J. (1995) Urban Biophysical Environments,
Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
Buchanan, R.A. (1989) Bush Regeneration: Recovering Australian Landscapes, Tafe,
N.S.W.
Byron, I., Curtis A., and Lockwood, M. (2001) ‘Exploring burnout in Australia’s
Landcare program: a case study in the Shepparton Region’, Society and Natural
Resources 14, pp. 901-910.
Community-based Bushland Care
177
Campbell, A. (1997) ‘Facilitating Landcare: conceptual and practical dilemmas’. In:
Lockie, S. and Vanclay, F. (eds) (1997) Critical Landcare, Key Papers Series,
No. 5, Centre for Rural Research, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, pp.
143-152.
Carr, A. (1993) Community Involvement in Landcare: The Case of Downside, Centre
for Resource and Environmental Studies, The Australian National University.,
Canberra.
Cary, J. and Webb, T. (2001) ‘Landcare in Australia: community participation and land
management’, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 56(4), pp. 274-278.
Chamala, S. and Keith, K. (Eds.) (1995) Participative Approaches for Landcare:
Perspectives, Policies, Programs, Australian Academic Press, Brisbane.
Cotgrove, S. (1982) Catastrophe or Cornucopia: The Environment, Politics and the
Future. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Curtis, A. (1998) ‘Agency-community partnership in Landcare: Lessons for statesponsored citizen resource management’, Environmental Management 22 (4),
pp. 563-574.
Curtis, A. (2000) ‘Landcare: Approaching the limits of voluntary action’, Australian
Journal of Environmental Management 7(1), pp. 19-27.
Curtis, A. and Lockwood, M. (2000) ‘Landcare and catchment management in
Australia: Lessons for state-sponsored community participation’, Society and
Natural Resources 13, pp. 61-73.
Curtis, A. and De Lacy, T. (1995) ‘Evaluating Landcare groups in Australia: how they
facilitate partnerships between agencies, community groups, and researchers’,
Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 50(1), pp. 15-20.
178
Chapter Five
Curtis, A., Shindler, B. and Wright, A. (2002) ‘Sustaining local watershed initiatives:
Lessons from Landcare and Watershed Councils’, Journal of the American
Water Resources Association 38(5), pp. 1207-1216.
Curtis, A. and Van Nouhuys, M. (1999) ‘Landcare participation in Australia: the
volunteer perspective’, Sustainable Development 7, pp. 98-111.
Donald, B.J. (1997) ‘Fostering volunteerism in an environmental stewardship group: a
report on the task force to bring back the Don, Toronto, Canada’, Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 40(4), pp. 483-505.
Ewing, S. (1999) ‘Landcare and community-led watershed management in Victoria,
Australia’, Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 35(3), pp.
663-673.
Hill, R. (1999) Bushcare: new directions in native vegetation management [statement
by Senator the Honourable Robert Hill, Minister for the Environment and
Heritage], Natural Heritage Trust, Canberra.
Kitchin, R. and Tate, N.J. (2000) Conducting Research into Human Geography:
Theory, Methodology and Practice, Pearson Education Limited, Essex, England.
Lenaghan, J. (1999) ‘Involving the public in rationing decisions: the experience of
citizen juries’, Health Policy 49, pp. 45-61.
Lockie, S. (2001) ‘Community environmental management? Landcare in Australia’, In:
Lockie, S. and Bourke, L. (Eds) (2001) Rurality Bites: the Social and
Environmental Transformation of Rural Australia, Pluto Press Australia Pty Ltd,
Annandale, NSW, pp. 243-256.
Lockie, S. and Vanclay, F. (Eds.) (1997) Critical Landcare, Centre for Rural Social
Research, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga.
Community-based Bushland Care
179
Martin, P. and Woodhill, J. (1995) ‘Landcare in the balance: government roles and
policy issues in sustaining rural environments’, Australian Journal of
Environmental Management 2, pp. 173-183.
Miles, I., Sullivan, W.C. and Kuo, F.E. (1998) ‘Ecological restoration volunteers: the
benefits of participation’, Urban Ecosystems 2, pp. 27-41.
Millbrath, L.W. (1982) Environmentalists: Vanguard for a New Society, State
University of New York Press, Albany.
Moore, E.A. and Koontz, T.M. (2003) ‘A typology of collaborative watershed groups:
Citizen-based, agency-based, and mixed partnerships’, Society and Natural
Resources 16, pp. 451-460.
Nias, R.C. (1995) ‘The role of non-government organizations in the development of
international and national policies for the conservation of biological diversity’,
In: Bradstock, R.A. Auld, T.D. Keith, D.A. Kingsford, R.T. Lunney, D. and
Sivertsen, D.P. (Eds) (1995) Conserving Biodiversity: Threats and Solutions,
Surrey Beatty and Sons, Australia, pp. 375-379.
O’Byrne, M. (2003) Personal communication. Ecoplan, Department of Conservation
and Land Management, Perth, Western Australia.
Rees, L.M. and Smith, M.G. (1996) ‘Volunteers – can they make a difference? The
value of volunteers in rehabilitating urban bushland – survey and case study’, In:
Weed Science Society of Victoria Inc. (1996) Eleventh Australian Weeds
Conference Proceedings,: Weed Science Society of Victoria Inc., Victoria,
Australia, pp. 366-369.
Ross, H., Buchy, M. and Proctor, W. (2002) ‘Laying down the ladder: a typology of
public participation in Australian natural resource management’, Australian
Journal of Environmental Management 9, pp. 205-217.
180
Chapter Five
Ryan, R.L., Kaplan, R. and Grese, R.E. (2001) ‘Predicting volunteer commitment in
environmental stewardship programmes’, Journal of Environmental Planning
and Management 44(5), pp. 629-648.
Safstrom, R. and O’Byrne, M. (2001) ‘Community volunteers on public land need
support’, Ecological Management and Restoration, 2(2), pp. 85-86.
Steel, B.S. (1996) ‘Thinking globally and acting locally?: environmental attitudes,
behavior and activism’, Journal of Environmental Management 47, pp. 27-36.
Stenhouse, R. (2001) ‘Management of urban remnant bushlands by the community and
local government’, Australian Journal of Environmental Management 8(1), pp.
37-47.
Stern, P.C., Dietz, T. and Kalof, L. (1993) ‘Value orientations, gender, and
environmental concern’, Environment and Behavior 25(3), pp. 322-348.
Webler, T., Tuler, S. Shockey, I. Stern, P. and Beattie, R. (2003) ‘Participation by local
government officials in watershed management planning’, Society and Natural
Resources 16, pp. 105-121.
Weber, E.P. (2000) ‘A new vanguard for the environment: Grass-roots ecosystem
management as a new environmental movement’, Society and Natural
Resources 13, pp. 237-259.
Chapter Six
Community Group-Local Government
Partnerships in Urban Bushland Care
A volunteer weeding (inset L), regenerating eucalypts (inset R) and revegetation at a reserve in Perth
Link to Chapter Six
181
LINK TO CHAPTER SIX
The issues involved in urban bushland conservation and management are too large and
too numerous to be tacked by local governments alone on their currently limited
bushland budgets and staff. However, the previous chapter has shown that some
members of the community are willing volunteers for local bushland care in Australian
cities. Further, volunteers experienced a number of benefits from participation,
including increased skills and knowledge, satisfaction in visible results, social
interaction, personal development, a sense of achievement and purpose and a
heightened sense of community.
Facilitation of community involvement in local environmental issues has been identified
as an important role of local governments. Chapter 28 of Local Agenda 21 (UNCED
1992), an agreed action plan from world leaders at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, states,
regarding local authorities:
As the level of governance closest to the people, they play a vital role in
educating, mobilizing and responding to the public to promote sustainable
development.
The Australian government reiterates this declaration (Commonwealth of Australia
1998):
… Local Government can facilitate and organise community action to
tackle local problems … (p. 12) [and] … plays a vital role in educating
and mobilising the public towards biodiversity conservation and protection
(p. 50).
The research on local government bushland conservation, presented in Chapter Four,
found that of the 63 local governments that responded to the questionnaire, 59 cooperate
with community volunteers in bushland management. Local governments were
supplying community groups with tools and materials, assisted groups with on-ground
work, helped with grant applications and provided volunteers with technical advice.
Few of the local governments had a staff position dedicated to coordinating and
assisting community bushland care groups. The ‘partnership’ arrangement between
182
Link to Chapter Six
community groups and local government in urban bushland care has developed in an
unstructured and ad hoc way at the city and national level, and has not been described in
the research literature. Thus, the final research-based chapter of this thesis describes
research that aimed to explore community–government environmental management
partnerships in relation to local level bushland management in urban Australia. The
research is based on a questionnaire (Appendix A) completed by community bushland
care volunteers.
Community Group-Local Government Partnerships
6.0
185
ABSTRACT
Community groups and local governments are coming together to manage bushlands
reserves in Australian cities. A questionnaire returned by 76 bushland care volunteers
provided volunteers’ perspectives on the community group-local government
relationship. Local governments are providing the community groups with practical
assistance to restore bushlands. The majority of volunteers described their community
group-local government relationship as positive, and factors that influenced a positive or
negative relationship are identified. The research indicated that positive partnership
processes were associated with a ‘contract model’ of volunteer management by local
governments, where the local government has a number of regulations and expectations
of volunteers, but also provides support and assistance to groups.
186
Chapter Six
6.1
INTRODUCTION
Remnants of the original, native vegetation are found in all of the metropolitan regions
of Australia. Across urban Australia, and especially in the rural-urban fringe, local
people have formed grass-roots bushland conservation groups, motivated by an
altruistic concern over the security and condition of a bushland remnant1. This ‘bottomup’, community-based approach to environmental management fosters environmental
education and a sense of community, and enables more effective biodiversity
conservation than governments could achieve alone. Participants also benefit, through
increased skill levels, social interactions, a sense of purpose, satisfaction and enjoyment
in the work (Chapter Five). Community-based groups have been caring for urban
bushlands since the 1970s. Most groups work to restore the natural ecosystem, by
actions such as weed control, planting and rubbish removal. These groups are often
called Friends groups or Bushcare groups, but here the broader term ‘community
bushland care group’ is used.
Community bushland care groups work on public land, often vested in local
government. Local government (LG) in this paper refers to local authorities such as city
or shire councils. Since the 1980s and 1990s, urban local governments have been
managing bushlands vested in them, with most having been encouraged into this role by
their community. A previous survey found that 59 of 63 urban local governments
assisted community bushland care groups (Chapter Four). So while most bushland care
groups start from their own initiative, local government has taken on the role of
cooperating with groups, with the process moving towards what Carr (2002) terms a
meeting of ‘bottom up’ and ‘top down’ approaches – a ‘middle ground’ or partnership
approach. Carr (2002) writes that this approach is not a compromise between top-down
and bottom-up. Rather, it embraces cooperation, pragmatism, equality, flexibility,
responsiveness, openness to new ideas and commitment to both solutions and the
cooperative process (Carr, 2002).
Environmental partnerships might be defined as voluntary collaborations between two
or more organisations, with a jointly defined agenda focused on an attainable and
potentially measurable goal (Long & Arnold 1994, p 6). Partnerships between local
people and management authorities are praised for incorporating local knowledge,
values and interests into planning and management, allowing for representation of
Community Group-Local Government Partnerships
187
multiple perspectives, encouraging local ownership of natural resources, increasing
community trust in the management agency and implementing better environmental
management (Wondolleck & Yaffee, 2000; Kapoor, 2001; Stoll-Kleemann &
O’Riordan, 2002; Chenoweth et al., 2002). While it is hard to argue against the need for
participation, the reality often falls short of its many proposed advantages. Causes of
ineffective or failed participative approaches identified in the literature are numerous,
and include institutional reticence, the intensive time and resource requirements, lack of
representativeness among participants, compromised outcomes such that no party is
satisfied, and lack of communication and mistrust among stakeholders (Kapoor, 2001;
Mahanty & Russell, 2002; Stoll-Kleemann & O’Riordan, 2002; Leskinen, 2003).
Evaluation of community participation is important if improvements are to be made.
There are two main methods of evaluation – evaluation of process and evaluation of
outcomes (Chess & Purcell, 1999; Chess, 2000; Leach & Pelkey, 2001). This paper
aims to determine whether community-local government partnerships are operating
successfully in bushland care and evaluates the process rather than conservation
outcomes, from the volunteers’ perspective. In the bushland care experience,
community groups have formed autonomously and local governments have become
involved to assist groups – often in response to pressure from the groups for help, or
because the local government is concerned over health and safety issues of having
volunteers working on their land. Are community groups resentful of local government
intervention, or appreciative of the assistance? Given the partnership approach between
local governments and community groups has evolved in an ad hoc manner across
Australia, do volunteers have a clear view of what is expected and required of them by
their local government? What factors contribute to a positive partnership process?
Government, especially local government, lacks the resources to tackle natural resource
management alone. Government agencies and local governments are increasingly
entering into environmental partnerships with community volunteers (Safstrom and
O’Byrne 2001). An analysis of the factors that foster positive community-government
partnerships will be useful to practitioners who benefit from volunteer efforts in local
biodiversity conservation.
This paper describes volunteers’ evaluation of partnerships between community and
local government in caring for urban bushlands. The research investigated: what
assistance local governments provide to groups and what assistance is lacking; what
188
Chapter Six
expectations and regulations local governments place on bushland care groups, and
whether the cooperative relationship is positive or negative. The underlying purpose
was to determine whether community-local government partnerships are working
successfully (or at all), from the volunteers’ perspective.
6.2
METHODS
To gather a volunteer’s perspective on cooperation between community bushland care
groups and local governments, a questionnaire was widely advertised and circulated in
Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane (Figure 6.1). As there is no register
for community bushland care groups, distribution of the questionnaire had to rely on
advertising and mail outs in newsletters with the hope that relevant bushland care
volunteers would participate. For each city, the questionnaire was advertised in local
community newspapers and in the newsletters or list-servers of non-government
bushland advocacy organisations, asking bushland care volunteers to contact the
researcher for a questionnaire. Staff at two local governments distributed questionnaires
to bushland care volunteers. The questionnaire was included in mail outs of the
newsletter of a Perth based advocacy group, The Urban Bushland Council, and the
newsletter of The Australian Network for Plant Conservation. Any member of a
community bushland care group was eligible to complete the questionnaire, on the
proviso that they were an active member and were involved in bushland care on local
government vested land in the metropolitan region of one of the cities studied. Multiple
questionnaires from the same bushland group were included. Four respondents did not
work on land vested in local government. However, these groups cooperated with local
government in caring for the bushland, and these four questionnaires were included in
the analysis. In total, 76 questionnaires from community bushland care group members
were analysed. Forty-four of the respondents were from Perth. Due to the nature of the
questionnaire distribution, no return rate can be provided. As an indication, in
metropolitan Perth alone, there are estimated to be over 300 bushland care groups
(O’Byrne, pers. comm. 2003) and the questionnaire was returned by approximately 15%
of them.
Community Group-Local Government Partnerships
120OE
189
Brisbane
40OE
20OS
Moreton
Australia
Brisbane
30OS

Perth
Bay
Sydney
Adelaide
Melbourne
40OS
Logan City
0
5
Council
10 km
Melbourne
Sydney


Port
Tasman
Phillip
Sea
Bay
0
5 10 km
0
5 10 km
Adelaide
Perth
Gulf
St.


Indian
Vincent
Ocean
0
5
10
0
5
10 km
Figure 6.1. Map of Australia and maps of local government regions for the
metropolitan region of each study city.  denotes central business district of each city.
190
Chapter Six
Respondents were asked to name their city, local government and bushland care group.
Further questions were open-ended as there is no previous work in the area from which
to draw multiple-choice answers to questions. It was intended that respondents reply
freely to questions, following the assumption that issues important to each respondent
would be expressed. Open-ended questions asked:

In what ways does your local government assist/support your group?

What support would you like from your local government that is not
currently being provided?

How significant is the assistance provided by your local government? Do
you get support from other organisations and is their assistance more
significant than that from your local government?

What is your local government’s expectation level of your group - and is it
reasonable?

What regulations does your local government place on your group and how
do you feel about such regulations?

Describe your group’s relationship with your local government. Is it a
positive or negative (or both) relationship?
To reduce the data for presentation and interpretation in this paper, answers to the openended questions were coded. That is, from a verbatim listing of all written responses to
questions, each response was broken down into discrete parts, which were then analysed
for similarities and differences, and similar data were then grouped into sub-categories
of responses for each of the questions above (following Kitchin & Tate 2000). Direct
quotes have been used in the results to illustrate points, and are in quotation marks. For
two questions, the responses were also quantified for data analysis: responses on ‘how
significant is your local government?’ were categorised as ‘minor’, ‘important but more
assistance is given by other organisations’, ‘significant’ and ‘very significant’; and
responses on ‘is your relationship with council positive, negative or both, and why?’
were categorised as ‘positive’, ‘negative’ or ‘both’. Chi square analysis was executed
for the categories of LG assistance and the relationship with their LG.
Community Group-Local Government Partnerships
6.3
191
RESULTS
This section presents results on the volunteers’ perspective of what assistance local
governments provide to bushland care groups, how significant this assistance is, what
expectations and regulations are placed on volunteers and the relationship between
bushland care groups and their local government.
6.3.1
Local Government Assistance Provided to Community Bushland Care
Groups
The most frequently cited form of local government assistance to groups was supply of
tools, materials, herbicides and/or equipment, followed by: provision of internal funding
or grants; supply of trees and plants; technical assistance; attending to job requests;
having a specific staff position such as a Bushcare Officer; organising training and
workshops, and providing photocopying and mailing materials. A number of councils
also provided: additional labour (via contractors or unemployment schemes); staff
supervision of volunteer workdays; grant application assistance; insurance cover;
meeting facilities, and a local bushland care newsletter. Three respondents stated their
group received no assistance. One LG that stood out as a strong provider of assistance
was Logan Shire, in Brisbane (Figure 6.1), and respondents working with this Shire
were particularly praising, e.g. ‘Our local government has been outstanding … We only
have to ask for anything and they supply immediately’ and ‘[Logan Shire] fully
endorses and supports our group …’. Logan Shire provided some different forms of
assistance such as induction courses, ongoing team leader meetings and ‘cross-group
activities’. Progressive types of assistance from other LGs included equipment and
breakfast for a two-day planting celebration, holding functions such as barbeques for
volunteers, and community nursery facilities. One LG held bus tours to visit other
volunteer bushland care sites to view their approaches and results.
6.3.2
Local Government Support Requested
The most common responses to the question ‘what support would you like from your
LG that is not currently provided’ were financial support (14 responses), more
bushland-related staff (6 responses) and more expertise in the staff (6 responses),
192
Chapter Six
promotion of bushlands and community groups to the local public (5 responses), greater
levels of cooperation, transparency and consultation (5 responses) and for specific
actions, such as more weeding by the LG (4 responses). Respondents also asked for:
help in on-ground management, more technical support and advice, assistance with fire
management, more tools and equipment, insurance cover, access to office space,
training, assistance with grants and field demonstrations. In terms of group
management, respondents asked for help with recruiting more members and bushland
care groups, and networking among bushland care groups within the LG area.
Respondents requested that their LG take on a more pro-active and environmental
attitude, prosecute people for illegal activities in bushlands, implement ‘bigger picture
planning’, and ‘assume their responsibility’ for bushland reserves. Eight respondents
stated nothing more was needed from their LG. While requests for funding were
common, it was usually in combination with other requests, e.g. ‘More money would
also be useful but practical support/cooperation better.’
6.3.3
Significance of Local Government Assistance
The questionnaire aimed to assess the significance of local government assistance, both
financial and other support, to community bushland care groups. Four respondents (5%)
said assistance from their local governments was the only help they received while 60%
stated that their local government’s assistance was significant or very significant. For
21% of respondents, LG assistance was no more significant than that provided by other
organisations. These groups received funding support from State agencies involved in
environmental or land management, the Federal Natural Heritage Trust and small or
large businesses. Training, on-ground support and advice were received mainly from
non-government organisations, such as Greening Australia. Local government provided
no support, or minor support, to nine groups (12%), though in one case assistance had
not been requested.
6.3.4
Perceived Local Government Expectations of Groups
Eleven of the 76 respondents stated that they did not know what their LG expected of
them in bushland care, or that it was never specified. A further eleven respondents
reported their LGs had no strong expectations or were happy with whatever the group
achieved. One third of the respondents stated that their LG had a number of
expectations of the group, and these expectations were deemed to be reasonable. This
Community Group-Local Government Partnerships
193
included volunteers and groups being expected to: improve the reserve with
environmental work; work within OH&S guidelines; be a voice for the community and
Bushcare; work to an agreed plan; keep the LG informed of work achieved, attendees at
workdays and of any issues arising in the reserve; account for money spent; be self
sufficient and self functioning; work in an environmentally responsible manner, and/or
provide the LG with a yearly report.
Five respondents felt that local government expectations were unreasonable, and in each
case this was linked to a perception that LG management responsibilities were being
placed on the community group, for example; ‘[local government expects] we will
manage most aspects of on-ground work and secure extra funding. This delegation of
total responsibility is unreasonable.’
6.3.5
Local Government Regulations Placed on Groups
Local governments’ fear of litigation underlies many of the restrictions placed on
volunteers. These include: restrictions on the use of herbicides and tools such as
chainsaws, with individuals required to have training to use equipment; following
OH&S rules and adhering to insurance policy guidelines; registration of volunteers at
work days; adhering to volunteer manuals/guidelines; attending training; being
supervised; reporting volunteer hours spent, and informing council of planned activities.
Some volunteers had to sign a contract agreeing to obey LG instructions. The majority
of respondents felt that the restrictions placed on their group by the LG were reasonable,
and for volunteers’ safety. ‘[Regulations] are necessary so that Volunteer groups know
they are safe’. Twenty-seven respondents stated that the LG had no, or minimal,
restrictions on their group (two thirds of these were Perth based groups). A number of
these respondents said that their group was self-regulated. One respondent felt that their
LG should be more accountable to the community group.
6.3.6
Local Government and Community Bushland Care Group Relationship
Forty-seven respondents reported a positive association with their LG, and a further six
said the relationship was mostly positive (70% together). Seventeen respondents (22%)
described their relationship with the LG as being both positive and negative. Six
respondents (8%) reported a negative, or mostly negative relationship between their
group and LG. Respondents’ descriptions of their partnership with local government
194
Chapter Six
were analysed, and a number of factors were found to characterise positive and negative
aspects of the relationship (Tables 6.1 and 6.2). Chi square analysis showed that
respondents from groups receiving significant or very significant LG assistance also
reported positive relationships with their LG (p<0.01). Very significant LG assistance
and a positive relationship with LG was reported by 53% of respondents.
Table 6.1. Common Themes in Respondents’ Descriptions of Positive Community
Group-Local Government Relationships.
Theme1
Examples of Responses2
Having a responsive
and supportive LG
- Council responds to issues arising fairly promptly.
- If we need them they are always there for us.
- [LG has] Always been open and supportive.
- Any problems I can ring [telephone] and get advice or help.
- Funding for bushland management has improved as has the
level of support and training.
Good staff and
sympathetic
Councillors
- Council staff have been excellent
- Staff are very committed and helpful
- Relationship is good because our local Councillors are
environmentally concerned
Appreciation and
respect from LG
- They reward us in many ways.
- They now appreciate our voluntary contribution
- They recognise we do what they do not have the money for
- We are held in high regard by them
Teamwork
- It is a two-way support as we help them in other projects too
- We work together as a team at all levels of park management
- We work together to achieve a positive outcome
Group recognises
LG’s limitations
- We try to be realistic in our expectations of what they can do
- We understand the council’s limitations on finance and work
within them
Strong and regular
communication
- We are in regular contact with the Environmental Officer
- Council are updated monthly on group activities and we get our
chance to request more work at that time
Trust
- They know I’m genuine and [I] have gained their support and
trust, that I’m not wasting their time or resources.
Having a specific
LG point of contact
- [Council] employing a Bushcare Officer was a positive step,
and has helped improve relations
Notes. 1: Coded themes from respondents’ answers.
2: Quoted from respondents’ answers.
Community Group-Local Government Partnerships
195
Table 6.2. Common Themes in Respondents’ Descriptions of Negative1 Community
Group-Local Government Relationships.
Theme2
Unresponsive LG
Examples3
- Take forever to do simple things
Lack of coordination
within council
- There are many sectors of Council and some work at cross
purposes.
- Departments are layered so strong coordination is missing.
Group perceives
lack of LG expertise
- Low management skills within the council.
- They have limited expertise and knowledge for managing
natural areas.
Lack of commitment
to bushland
management by LG
- Do not come across as strongly committed to the environment.
They regard these areas as difficult to manage and costly.
- Council is still trying to work out what the environment is.
- Shire CEO and President are vaguely supportive, slightly
patronising and do not have a keen interest in conservation,
biodiversity etc.
- Our council is divided between pro development and pro
environmental sustainability, with greater numbers in the
former category.
Perceived
inappropriate action
by council
- Council road gangs get absolute hell from us, because we insist
on appropriate behaviour towards creek and native vegetation.
- Council have mowed, sprayed, driven over and forgotten to
water on many occasions.
Contention over
issues and priorities
- There is some contention between the group and the Shire over
control of horses in a Bush Forever site that contains Declared
Rare Flora.
Lack of
communication
- Communication from council to us is very poor.
- We are told we are ‘partners’ in the management process…
[but]sometimes we are not listened to.
Lack of resources
- Resources are very limited.
Poor appreciation of
group efforts and
expertise
- They often forget that volunteers are unpaid workers.
- Council does not fully recognise the authority and expertise of
the committee, and this is probably the root cause of the endless
conflict.
LG lacks trust in
group
- We are treated with grave suspicion in some quarters.
Group felt ‘used’ by
LG
- We feel that council expects us to provide cheap labour…
Notes. 1: Includes comments from respondents who described having a both ‘negative and positive
relationship’ with their LG.
2: Based on similar statements that were given more than once in the data set.
3: Direct quotes from respondents’ answers.
196
Chapter Six
6.4
DISCUSSION
6.4.1 Are Partnerships Working?
The community participation process described in this research has moved from one of
self-initiated and autonomous community groups caring for local bushlands to one of
local government facilitation of community efforts. Rather than separate contributions
from grass roots groups and local government authorities, there has been a meeting of
‘bottom up’ and ‘top down’ efforts (Carr, 2002). This might be considered a
‘partnership’ approach to participative environmental management. Almost all (88%) of
the community groups that responded to the questionnaire were assisted by their local
government in bushland care. It is evident that community-local government
partnerships are operating in urban bushland care. The question is – how successfully?
Local government assistance to groups was mainly practical and tangible, in the form of
tools, materials, technical help and training. When asked what LG support was lacking,
answers also focused on practical assistance; funding, expert staff and help on-ground.
Less assistance was provided to volunteers in terms of group management support and
some respondents requested help with recruiting members and opportunities to meet
with other community groups, to exchange experiences and ideas. Local government
could have a role in ‘empowering groups’ by facilitating collaboration with other
bushland care groups in the local government area, particularly as inter-group
coordination fits well with the funding model of the Federal Government grant provider,
the Natural Heritage Trust, which aims to provide funding to address regional issues.
The respondents reported numerous expectations and regulations placed on bushland
care volunteers by individual local governments. The majority of respondents believed
that most of the expectations and regulations were reasonable, as they are often related
to volunteer safety when working in the bushland. However, if regulations and
officialdom increase there is the possibility that such regulation may cause the
participative process to lose its appeal to volunteers and local governments alike. As one
respondent commented: ‘…most [community] bushland groups are made up of people
who want to do active things, and who may resent the extra administration involved
with running a group’. Placing regulations and expectations on volunteers, such as
ensuring they follow agreed plans, adhere to the local government’s volunteer
Community Group-Local Government Partnerships
197
guidelines, undergo training, be supervised at work days, and even sign contracts in
some cases, constitutes a ‘contract model’ approach to volunteer management.
The contract model is described by the Volunteer Co-ordinators Network (Natural
Areas) (1998) and briefly discussed by Safstrom and O’Byrne (2001). This model is the
modern view of volunteers, where volunteers are as valuable as paid staff and are
managed with a formalised system, with set roles for volunteers and staff. In return, the
authority is expected to provide strong support and commitment to volunteers. The
advantages of this approach are that both parties have a clear understanding of each
other’s roles, responsibilities and expectations. Also, there is scope for the community
group and local government to work complementarily and achieve more together than
they would separately. However, this incorporation of volunteers into the local
government system and regulation of volunteers may minimise some of the advantages
of community participation; such as the input of volunteers’ ideas, experiences and
values that are new and different to those held by the local government. The contract
model may lead to volunteers taking on local government values and attitudes to
bushland management. Thus, there is the possibility that the community participation
process will move towards co-option of volunteers by local government and the very
nature of community volunteering would be lost. Additionally, volunteers will be
resentful if too much responsibility is passed on to them, without equal or higher efforts
contributed by the local government in bushland management. This research found that
volunteers were significantly more likely to have a positive relationship with their local
government when restrictions were placed on the group by local government, than when
no restrictions were placed (p<0.05, chi square). Additionally, a positive community
group-local government relationship was reported when local government provided a
high level of assistance to groups (p<0.01, chi square). This suggests that the contract
model, including volunteer access to resources and staff, may improve community
group-local government associations in bushland management.
The alternative to the contract model is the ‘gift model’. This is the more traditional
view of volunteers, where the authority treats volunteers as a ‘gift’ and gives them
‘special treatment’ in an unstructured system – not too much is asked or expected of
them (Volunteer Co-ordinators Network (Natural Areas), 1998). Volunteers will be
appreciated for their efforts but not overly rewarded. Eighteen percent of respondents in
this research described this type of approach, with no regulations or expectations placed
198
Chapter Six
on volunteers by their local government. The advantage of this approach is that it is less
labour intensive for the LG; it does not require a volunteer management program such
as the ‘contract model’ would necessitate. There is also a low possibility of volunteers
being co-opted by the authority. The risk with the ‘gift model’ approach is that without
training and supervision from local government bushland management ‘experts’, there
is the possibility that some volunteers will not always undertake ‘best practice’
techniques in bushland management.
Some respondents felt that local government was not ‘doing enough’ or was foisting
bushland management responsibility on to the community. This perception may occur
with either the contract or gift model of volunteer management. In the contract
approach, volunteers may feel they have too much responsibility in management, and
are doing the local government’s work for them. In the gift model, volunteers are left to
themselves and may not have the opportunity to see how much work is being done by
local government.
If the participative process of bushland management is to move towards the contract
model, as seems to be the case with the majority of respondents describing regulations
and expectations placed on them by their LG, there needs to be stronger staff support of
volunteers. A survey of local governments in Australia found that very few have staff
employed to coordinate volunteers (Chapter Four). Appropriate local government
staffing makes a significant difference in the local government-community group
relationship. Respondents lamented the lack of, or praised the addition of, council staff,
such as Bushcare Officers or Coordinators, who hold specific roles in assisting
community bushland care groups. Research on the Australian Landcare experience,
another community-government partnership in natural resource management, suggests
that Landcare group performance and extent of government funding received by the
group is higher when there is more contact between the Landcare group and government
extension staff (Curtis, 1998). Keeping in mind LGs’ financial limitations, Bushcare
Coordinators/Officers trained in both community group facilitation and bushland
management, shared across a few neighbouring LGs, will likely increase community
group effectiveness and strengthen relations between groups and their LGs.
Literature on community participation discusses a need for power sharing between
community and the authorities involved (Buchy & Race, 2001). Power sharing has not
Community Group-Local Government Partnerships
199
been achieved in the case of community group-LG bushland care, with local
government still being the dominant group. Local government is largely regulating the
resources available to groups, and specifying what regulations must be satisfied and
what is expected of groups. To become a partnership of equality, as defined by Moore et
al. (2001), the situation would have to move towards one in which groups and local
government can decide together how funding and resources may best be used, jointly
discuss plans for the reserve and its management at all stages, formulate regulations and
expectations to guide groups together, and include an outline of the LG’s
responsibilities towards the group. However – is power sharing appropriate? Local
government has been elected by the community, to serve the community; whereas
bushland care group volunteers are self-appointed. It is perhaps more important to
recognise that community and local government efforts are both valuable and necessary
in local biodiversity conservation. Community groups can provide local expertise,
volunteer labour and community values and opinions, while local government is in a
position to provide technical expertise, tools and materials, funding and planning and
decision-making authority. However, some level of power sharing needs to occur for
community volunteers to feel satisfied with their relationship with local government:
‘we would like our relationship with council to be more of a partnership based more on
equality than a ‘master-servant’ relationship’.
Returning to the original question, the research has shown that community-local
government partnerships are occurring in participative bushland management in urban
Australia, and that the majority of volunteers had a positive relationship with their local
government. Volunteer evaluation of this ‘middle-ground’ approach has identified some
problems, including: a lack of support, trust, responsiveness and commitment from local
government to some community groups; the perception that local government has
foisted their own management responsibilities on to the community, and poor
appreciation and respect of groups by local government. The research highlighted a
number of key requirements of local governments in contributing to a positive
partnership with community groups:

respect for and appreciation of community groups;

support and trust of community groups;

recognition of expertise within groups, and the importance of bushland
expertise within council;
Chapter Six
200

regular communication with groups, and being responsive to groups’ requests,
and

taking responsibility for management of bushlands vested in them, and not
relying on volunteers (or ensuring that community groups are aware of LG
efforts so that this perception is avoided if it is untrue).
These steps towards a positive partnership between community groups and LGs are
biased by the volunteer perspective approach adopted in this research. An evaluation
from the local government staff viewpoint is required to complete the picture.
6.4.2
Data Set Bias
Over half of the questionnaires analysed in this research came from bushland care
groups in the Perth Metropolitan area. This bias was possibly due to a more extensive
mail out in Perth, as questionnaires were sent out with, or advertised in, the newsletters
of two large Perth organisations; Ecoplan, and the Urban Bushland Council. Also, 70%
of the respondents were coordinating bushland care with outer-metropolitan local
governments. The majority of remnant vegetation occurs in the less urbanised outer
areas of metropolitan areas, thus the statistic is representative rather than biased.
Also, while the research was widely advertised and circulated in appropriate media, the
onus was on the volunteer to return questionnaires included in newsletters, or to obtain
and return the questionnaire. Thus the sample of respondents is small, non-random and
biased. It is likely that enthusiastic volunteers responded to the questionnaire, rather
than volunteers who have had conflict with their local government. Findings from the
research were presented at a meeting of the Urban Bushland Council (UBC) of Western
Australia in May 2003. UBC is an umbrella group representing many bushland care
groups of Perth. When told that 72% of respondents had a positive or mostly positive
relationship with their LG, the audience (of approximately 15 people) responded with
disbelieving laughter. In their experience, many volunteers have problematic relations
with local government. Further, the President of one bushland care group told the
researcher that she did not respond to the questionnaire as she only had negative
comments and that possibly many bushland carers would not have completed the
questionnaire, as they would not want to put negative thoughts and experiences on
paper. The researcher’s own experience in both community bushland care and research
Community Group-Local Government Partnerships
201
on bushland carers tends to confirm this suggestion. While there is no strong evidence
that ‘unhappy’ volunteers avoided responding, the reader should keep in mind the points
made here. Case study analysis may be more effective in detailing community-local
government partnerships in urban bushland care.
6.5
CONCLUSION
The approach to participative biodiversity conservation described in this paper is still
evolving towards the ‘ideal’ community-government partnership that embraces equality,
flexibility, responsiveness, openness and commitment to cooperation (Carr, 2002). As
with other examples of participative environmental management (noted in the
introduction) some problems are limiting the success of partnership in urban bushland
management for some groups, such as lack of communication between community
groups and their local government. Local government facilitation of bushland care
volunteers is labour and time intensive, and few local governments have a staff position
to coordinate or facilitate community bushland care. Community participation is
advanced for its incorporation of local knowledge and values into projects. However, a
number of respondents felt their local bushland expertise was ignored by their local
government. Some volunteers were of the view that responsibility for bushland care had
been shifted from the local government to the community.
The majority of bushland care volunteers was satisfied with the support their local
government provides, believed the expectations and regulations held of them are
reasonable, and reported a positive relationship with their local government. The
volunteers’ evaluation revealed a number of local government attributes that contribute
to positive community group-local government partnerships, including being:
responsive, supportive, trustful, appreciative and respectful of the community group;
communicative; expert in bushland management; committed to bushland conservation
and teamwork with the community, and able to have staff to interact with volunteers.
Most respondents described what has been termed a ‘contract model’ of volunteer
management by their local government, which involved local governments placing
regulations and expectations on groups and matching this with support and assistance of
groups. It appeared that the ‘contract model’ was associated with positive communitylocal government partnerships. Local governments do not have the resources to manage
202
Chapter Six
urban bushlands alone, and members of the community have proven to be willing
participants in bushland care. Community groups and local governments building on the
positive relationships reported on in this research will strengthen on-ground outcomes in
biodiversity conservation in urban local areas.
Community Group-Local Government Partnerships
203
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you to all of the bushland care volunteers who completed the questionnaire.
Thanks to the non-government organisations and local government staff who assisted in
circulating the questionnaire, in particular the Urban Bushland Council of Western
Australia and the Australian Network for Plant Conservation. I greatly appreciate
comments and advice from Associate Professor Arthur Conacher on the research and
this manuscript.
Notes from the Text:
1. Bushland remnant refers to a patch of native vegetation. It can refer to a reserve, or
vegetation under any tenure.
204
Chapter Six
REFERENCES
Buchy, M. and Race, D. (2001) The twists and turns of community participation in
Natural Resource Management in Australia: what is missing? Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 44(3), pp. 293-308.
Carr, A. (2002) Grass Roots and Green Tape: Principles and Practices of
Environmental Stewardship. (Sydney, The Federation Press).
Chenoweth, J.L., Ewing, S.A. and Bird, J.F. (2002) Procedures for ensuring community
involvement in multijurisdictional river basins: a comparison of the Murray-Darling
and Mekong River basins, Environmental Management, 29 (4), pp. 497-509.
Chess, C. (2000) Evaluating environmental public participation: methodological
questions, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(6), pp. 769784 .
Chess, C. and Purcell, K. (1999) Public participation and the environment: do we know
what works? Environmental Science and Technology, 33(16), pp. 2685-2692.
Curtis, A. (1998) Agency-community partnership in Landcare: lessons for statesponsored citizen resource management, Environmental Management, 22(4), pp.
563-574.
Curtis, A., Britton, A. and Sobels, J. (1999) Landcare networks in Australia: Statesponsored participation through local organizations, Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management, 42(1), pp. 5-21.
Curtis, A. and Lockwood, M. (2000) Landcare and catchment management in Australia:
Lessons for state-sponsored community participation, Society and Natural
Resources, 13, pp. 61-73.
Kapoor, I. (2001) Towards participatory environmental management? Journal of
Environmental Management, 63, pp. 269-279.
Community Group-Local Government Partnerships
205
Kellert, S.R., Mehta, J.N., Ebbin, S.A. and Lichtenfeld, L.L. (2000) Community natural
resource management: promise, rhetoric and reality, Society and Natural
Resources, 13, pp. 705-715.
Kitchin, R. and Tate, N.J. (2000) Conducting Research into Human Geography:
Theory, Methodology and Practice pp 1-330 (Essex, England, Pearson Education
Limited).
Leach, W.D. and Pelkey, N.W. (2001) Making watershed partnerships work: a review
of the empirical literature, Journal of Water Resources Planning and
Management, November/December, pp. 378-385.
Leskinen, L.A. (in press) Purposes and challenges of public participation in regional and
local forestry in Finland, Forest Policy and Economics.
Long, F.V. and Arnold, M.B. (1994) The Powers of Environmental Partnerships. pp.
(The United States of America, Dryden Press).
Mahanty, S. and Russell, D. (2002) High stakes: lessons from stakeholder groups in the
biodiversity conservation network, Society and Natural Resources, 15, pp. 179188.
Moore, S.A., Jennings, S. and Tacey, W.H. (2001) Achieving sustainable Natural
Resource Management outcomes on the ground: the key elements of stakeholder
involvement, Australian Journal of Environmental Management, 8(2), pp. 9198.
O’Byrne, M. (2003) Personal communication. Ecoplan, Department of Conservation
and Land Management, Perth, Western Australia.
O’Riordan, T. (1976) Chapter 7: The politics of environmentalism. Environmentalism,
pp. 228-263 (London, Pion Limited).
Safstrom, R. and O’Byrne, M. (2001) Community volunteers on public land need
support. Ecological Management and Restoration, 2(2), pp. 85-86.
206
Chapter Six
Stoll-Kleemann, S. and O’Riordon, T. (2002) From participation to partnership in
biodiversity protection: experience from Germany and South Africa, Society and
Natural Resources, 15, pp. 161-177.
Volunteer Co-ordinators Network (Natural Areas) (1998) Developing a Bushcare
Volunteer Program - A Guide for Organisations (Stanmore, NSW, Greening
Australia).
Wondolleck, J.M. and Yaffee, S.L. (2000) Making Collaboration Work. Lessons
from Innovation in Natural Resource Management, pp. 1-277 (Washington, D.C,
Island Press).
Chapter Seven
Discussion and Conclusions
Kangaroo Paw, Perth
Discussion and Conclusions
7.0
209
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Native vegetation (bushland) in urban areas remains mostly as small, isolated patches
within a human dominated landscape; thus it is affected by the processes of
fragmentation and disturbance. In Australia, the capital cities have between 3% and
49% of their land areas still under native vegetation; however, these remnants continue
to be encroached upon by urban and industrial development (e.g. Melbourne: Williams
et al. 2005). Bushland in urban areas is valuable for: biodiversity conservation;
maintaining healthy environments; their scenic beauty, and providing city residents with
a natural setting for relaxation and recreation (Bradley 1995; Buchanan 1989;
Government of Western Australia 2000; Kaplan 1995). In recognition of such values,
since at least the late 1970s there has been a local-level movement towards protecting
and managing urban bushlands in Australia (Safstrom and O’Byrne 2001; Stenhouse
2001).
The overall aim of this research was to test principles, theories and concepts relating to
the ecology and management of bushland fragments in Australian cities, as outlined in
the Introduction. Based on the review of the literature, gaps were identified in relation to
such concepts in the urban bushland context, and a number of specific objectives were
developed. These were to:
1. test principles and theories of fragmentation and patch ecology for the urban
bushland context;
2. test the hypothesis that within bushland patches, localised areas of high
disturbance have poor vegetation condition, and to compare a qualitative and a
quantitative assessment of vegetation condition;
3. test the hypothesis that local government does not have sufficient capacity to
manage and conserve local bushlands, in major Australian cities;
4. test concepts related to community participation and volunteering, with regard to
urban bushlands, and
5. explore community-government environmental partnerships in relation to locallevel bushland management in urban Australia.
The research for each objective formed each of the five research-based chapters in this
thesis. This chapter first discusses the research outcomes in relation to the overall thesis
210
Chapter Seven
aim and specific objectives. This is followed by an evaluation of the research methods,
and concluding section.
7.1
DISCUSSION
7.1.1
Objective One: Fragmentation and Patch Ecology in the Urban Bushland
Context
Fragmentation and patch ecology is an area of landscape ecology that has been well
researched, particularly in rural settings and in European landscapes. A number of key
principles and theories has been developed in this area of ecology (as discussed in the
Introduction):
1. larger patches hold more habitat diversity, greater species diversity and larger
populations than smaller patches (Diamond 1975; Buchanan 1979; Recher 1986;
Dale et al. 2000; Hall et al. 2002);
2. larger patches are better buffered against disturbance and invasion than smaller
patches (Honnay et al. 1999);
3. small and/or irregularly shaped reserves have higher edge-area ratios than large
or regularly shaped reserves, and this increases the area of the reserve that
interfaces with non-vegetation land uses, therefore introducing a higher level of
disturbance and change to the reserve, particularly at the edge – this is known as
an ‘edge effect’ (Porteous 1993; Bastin and Thomas 1999; Honnay et al. 1999);
4. connectivity among patches, through corridors and close proximity to other
patches, increases biotic flow among patches, therefore allowing interbreeding
and dispersal and increasing the resilience of populations within patches
(Saunders et al. 1991), and
5. the fragment context (surrounding land uses) influences the level of disturbance
and condition of a patch, and a higher degree of dissimilarity of surrounding
land use type will result in greater disturbance of a patch than a similar adjacent
land use (Hobbs 1998; Collinge 1996).
The research presented in this thesis aimed to test these principles and theories of
fragmentation and patch ecology in the context of urban bushland fragments. The
research aimed to test the hypothesis that remnant native vegetation will be more
fragmented in the more highly urbanised areas of a metropolitan region, and more
highly fragmented patches will be more highly disturbed. A study into fragmentation
Discussion and Conclusions
211
and patch ecology was undertaken for the Perth metropolitan region. Official figures
indicate that 49% of the Perth metropolitan region retains a cover of native vegetation
(Dixon et al. 1995; Perth Biodiversity Project 2003), mostly in small remnants (Dixon
et al. 1995). The research investigated the patterns and relationships among urban
density, fragmentation, anthropogenic disturbance and condition of bushlands in the
Perth metropolitan region, to test whether the patch ecology theories outlined above
applied.
The research results were generally consistent with the patch ecology literature. Larger
patches were found to hold greater habitat diversity – larger patches contain more
floristic communities than small patches. However, due to the methods used (rapid onsite surveys and GIS analysis) there was no analysis of whether larger patches also hold
greater species diversity and population sizes than smaller patches. The second theory
listed above, that larger patches are better buffered against disturbance than smaller
patches, was also tested. It was found that smaller reserves display higher levels of
disturbance, such as recent fire, high weed infestation, dense networks of walking paths
and low vegetation condition. No strong relationship was found between area and shape
indices for patches. Patch ecology theory suggests that high shape indices are
disadvantageous to a patch. However, this research found that patches with high shape
indices, i.e. irregularly shaped reserves, have higher numbers of floristic communities.
The methods used did not allow for observation of any edge effects in the patches, so
the theory that high edge to area ratios increases edge effects was not tested. The
research did not directly test the fourth patch ecology theory listed above, so no
comment can be made here on whether connectivity creates more resilient ecosystems
in urban vegetation remnants. The final patch ecology theory listed above states that the
fragment context influences level of disturbance and condition of a patch. The research
found that higher disturbance occurs in patches with low surrounding land use
compatibility (i.e. urban land use). However, small patches, high urban density, low
surrounding land use compatibility and high disturbance were found to occur together,
and are likely to be interrelated, rather than there being direct causal relationships
between two patch ecology factors, such as surrounding land use type and patch
disturbance. It is difficult to differentiate the effects of any one factor. Size, shape, edge,
isolation and disturbance may all be confounding factors. Further, the effect of
fragmentation on the biodiversity and ecosystem functioning of a patch may not be
212
Chapter Seven
separated out from underlying factors, such as vegetation type, natural landscape
heterogeneity, the past history of a site and natural disturbance regimes.
The research then extended the above patch ecology theories by placing them in a
context of patterns of fragmentation in a metropolitan region. The research supported
the hypothesis that remnant vegetation is more fragmented in the more highly urbanised
areas of a metropolitan region, and that more highly fragmented patches are more
disturbed. Higher levels of fragmentation of the vegetation were evident in the more
highly urbanised area of the metropolitan region. In the more highly urbanised
metropolitan area (as measured by being close to the city centre, with higher population
density and predominantly urban land uses), reserves are smaller than in the outer
metropolitan area and have long encapsulation periods. In contrast, in the less populated
outer metropolitan region, land uses are more bushland-compatible (e.g. other bushland,
rural activities) and reserves are larger, in closer proximity, and with higher floristic
community diversity than reserves in the inner metropolitan area. There was some
evidence to support the second part of the hypothesis, that more highly fragmented
patches are more disturbed. The more highly fragmented, inner city reserves are
subjected to frequent fires and have high walking path densities, high levels of weed
cover, low diversity of floristic communities and reduced vegetation condition.
The findings from this research combined with the landscape ecology literature indicate
that the small inner metropolitan bushland reserves may have lower, long-term viability
than the outer metropolitan reserves; as they would support only small populations of
plants and animals, experience greater edge effects, have reduced genetic flow, and
contain higher levels of disturbance. However, small inner city bushlands are valuable:
they represent the vegetation types that once occurred there and may not be present
elsewhere (Shafer 1995). They also allow inner city residents access to nature and are
perceived to be less threatening than large reserves (Gilbert 1989). Given the generally
vulnerable state of inner city reserves, management intervention is particularly
important.
As well as the theoretical contribution of the research, linking the principles of
fragmentation ecology to levels of urban density, a number of planning and
management implications arose from the research detailed in Chapter Two. The
research pointed to ways that management can make a positive influence on bushland
Discussion and Conclusions
213
quality. Twenty-six different disturbance impacts were evident in 71 bushlands located
across the Perth metropolitan region and weeds were present in every bushland. Weeds,
trampling and other disturbances could be minimised by management actions. For
example, it was found that a lack of fencing and presence of vehicle access tracks
entering reserves is correlated with high levels of rubbish. The research also identified
that planning has a role in optimal urban bushland conservation, for instance in ensuring
that individual bushland reserves are not further dissected by roads, or reduced in size,
or increased in edge proportions by development. Outer metropolitan reserves are
larger, better-connected and less disturbed than inner metropolitan bushlands and
planners should ensure that these larger bushlands are maintained, as larger bushlands
were found to have high floristic community diversity and vegetation condition.
7.1.2
Objective Two: Disturbance and Vegetation Condition in Urban Bushlands,
and Qualitative and Quantitative Assessment of Vegetation Condition
Bushlands in the urban environment are subjected to many disturbances, such as fire,
feral animals, trampling and rubbish dumping. The literature shows that disturbances
have an impact on the bushland vegetation. For example, frequent fire can change
species composition (Baird 1977), dumped rubbish can smother or break plants
(Buchanan 1989, p. 226), and trampling can strip away leaf litter and damage ground
cover (Florgård 2000; Littlemore and Barker 2001; Malmivaara et al. 2002). Hobbs and
Huenneke (1992) suggest that multiple disturbances have a synergistic effect on the
vegetation. Given that numerous disturbances occur in urban bushlands, as identified in
the research presented in Chapter Two, there is a need to understand the combined
effects of human-caused disturbance on bushland vegetation condition. The literature on
ecosystem condition assessments holds that ecosystems are complex, and thus
assessments of condition should capture complexities by including multiple indicators,
rather than considering only species diversity or keystone species (Noss 1990, 1999;
Williams and Martinez 2000; Farina 2000b; Dale and Beyeler 2001; Frood 2001; Oliver
2002; Oliver et al. 2002). The second objective of the thesis was to test the hypothesis
that within bushland patches, localised areas of high disturbance have poor vegetation
condition, and to compare a qualitative and a quantitative assessment of vegetation
condition. The metropolitan-scale assessment, discussed previously, identified a
relationship between human impact and vegetation condition. The research presented in
Chapter Three aimed to determine if such a relationship is also evident at the bushland
214
Chapter Seven
scale. It was hypothesised that within bushland patches, localised areas of high
disturbance would cause low vegetation condition.
Contrary to expectation, the research found a weak relationship between disturbance
severity and vegetation condition. No statistically significant correlations were apparent
between amount of disturbance and any of the measured vegetation parameters. The
vegetation parameters were used to create a Vegetation Condition Index and again
degree of disturbance was not correlated with the Vegetation Condition Index scores.
The non-relationship found between disturbance and condition may have been due to: a)
a generally low level of disturbance severity across the reserves; b) methods that lacked
the precision and sensitivity required to detect a relationship; c) interference from past
and present activities on site that were not accounted for in the analysis, such as
management, or d) an actual lack of relationship. It may be that the two factors,
disturbance and condition, are not independent variables, and as such a causal
relationship would not be revealed in such a study. The nature of the vegetation type
researched may also influence this ‘lack of relationship’. A more obvious relationship
between level of disturbance and vegetation condition may occur in closed canopy,
mesic forest, but be more subtle in open dry woodlands such as the bushland sites
studied in this research.
However, there were some indications that disturbance affects bushland vegetation. The
quadrats that displayed the highest levels of disturbance were those that had the lowest
Vegetation Condition Index scores. The whole-of-site assessment revealed a correlation
between higher levels of disturbance and lower native understorey cover. No quadrat
was free of weeds, and on average weeds were found to contribute 17% of the
understorey cover. Additionally, high native plant understorey and ground-layer cover
correlated significantly with low weed cover. These findings suggest three things. First,
implementation of the ‘precautionary principle’: despite the absence of statisticallysignificant relationships, we know logically that human-caused disturbance will at some
point affect the bushland vegetation, and this research did not disprove the hypothesis
that disturbance causes declined vegetation condition. Thus, bushland management
should involve disturbance minimisation. Second, weeds are in relatively high
proportions in the three bushlands, as well as being ubiquitous in the 71 bushlands
surveyed for the research in Chapter Two. This highlights the importance of weed
management (control of both weed cover and the source of weed infiltration). Third,
Discussion and Conclusions
215
native vegetation cover should be maintained as this is correlated with lower levels of
weed cover (and also higher native species diversity).
Interestingly, while the metropolitan-scale research of Chapter Two found that high
numbers of floristic communities (inferring higher total species diversity) occur in the
larger reserves in the data set (consistent with the results of other species-area studies
reported in the Introduction), this research found that per-quadrat species diversity is
highest for the smallest (9 hectare) reserve. In the Perth region, species diversity is
influenced by vegetation type as well as patch area. How sustainable is species diversity
in small remnants? Will these species reproduce, and still be found in these small
remnants in 100 years time? Or are they simply museum pieces, ‘hanging on’ at this
moment in time? The research reported in Chapter Two found that most reserves have
been encapsulated by urban land uses relatively recently – so it is possible that there is a
lag effect operating in Perth bushlands regarding the relationship between urbanisation,
patch size and species diversity. There has been little research on this issue in the Perth
region, and it may be an interesting topic for future research.
The main contribution of the research presented in Chapter Three was in
methodological advancement. The research developed a quantitative assessment of
vegetation condition (the Vegetation Condition Index), using multiple vegetation
indicators, as advocated in the current literature on vegetation condition assessment
methodology. The quantitative scale was compared to a qualitative scale commonly
used by ecologists and community groups in Perth; Keighery’s (1994) Vegetation
Condition Scale. The validity of Keighery’s scale had not previously been tested. The
two methods provided parallel rankings of vegetation condition for the quadrats. Thus
Keighery’s Scale provides an accurate proxy for measuring vegetation condition
(assuming confidence can be placed in the quantitative Vegetation Condition Index
developed in this research). The robustness of Keighery’s Scale was also demonstrated:
vegetation condition estimates made by eight people independently of the researcher
were all very similar, and similar to the scores given by the researcher. Keighery’s Scale
has the distinct advantage of not requiring ecological expertise, being easy to use and
allowing rapid coverage of sites for condition assessments, whereas constructing the
quantitative index was technical and laborious. It would appear that Keighery’s Scale is
a very useful method for community groups. However, further research is required to
determine whether Keighery’s Scale is sensitive enough to detect improvements in
216
Chapter Seven
vegetation condition over time resulting from restoration works. Thus, while the current
concepts in vegetation condition assessments were applied, namely attempting to
account for bio-complexity by using multiple, ecologically based indicators, it was
found that a simple, observation-based scale provided very similar results.
7.1.3
Objective Three: Local Government Capacity to Manage and Conserve
Local Urban Bushlands
As indicated by the research presented in Chapters Two and Three, there is a need for
management to minimise disturbance in urban bushlands, to retain their ecological
value. A strong role has been identified for local level biodiversity management in
Australia, involving both local government and the community (e.g. Commonwealth of
Australia 1996, 1998). Indeed, the Australian Local Government Association states,
‘natural resource management is best done at a local level, to suit local conditions, in
consultation with local people’ (Australian Local Government Association and
Biological Diversity Advisory Council 1999, p. 6). Decentralisation is promoted for its
inclusion of the community and improvement in resource allocation, efficiency,
accountability and equity (Larson 2002; Lane 2003). Concerns have been expressed that
local governments do not have the capacity to undertake biodiversity management and
conservation, due to resource shortages and low technical capacity (Woodhill 1996;
Larson 2002; Wild River 2003). However, these concerns have not been tested
nationally, in relation to urban bushland management. Thus, the third aim of the thesis
was to test the hypothesis that local government does not have sufficient capacity to
manage and conserve local bushlands in major Australian cities. To test this hypothesis,
the research investigated the awareness of local government bushland managers of
bushland disturbances, the level of bushland management and planning implemented by
local governments, funding and staffing, and the ways in which local governments
coordinate with the community in bushland management.
The research found that local government is indeed involved in protecting and
managing urban bushlands. Of the 111 metropolitan local governments that were
contacted, 86% stated they have bushland vested in them. Of the 63 local governments
that responded to the questionnaire, all manage bushlands. The potential role for local
government is clearly high. Local governments are aware of the anthropogenic
disturbances present in bushlands within their jurisdiction. Local government
Discussion and Conclusions
217
respondents identified weed proliferation, development impacts and urban runoff to be
the most threatening disturbance types in urban bushlands. Of all bushland management
actions undertaken, the most time and resources are spent on weed management.
Management of development impacts and urban runoff is less common, and other
frequent disturbances, such as the presence of feral animals, receive minimal attention.
Just under half of the local governments are not conducting any monitoring in their
bushlands, and these local governments have no indication of whether disturbance
minimisation and other management actions are effective. Management actions
undertaken are similar among the cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Perth and Adelaide.
The research found that not all local governments have bushland-relevant staff: just
11% of the local governments have both a Bushcare Officer and an Environment
Officer, and 21% employ neither. Local governments have resource constraints: one in
five local governments reported a 1999/2000 budget of less than $20 000 for bushland
management, and most local governments apportioned less than 1% of their total budget
to bushland management, for the same year. This may be topped up by Federal funding,
through the Natural Heritage Trust, for on-ground works. Although there is a number of
ways that local governments might increase their funding for bushland management
(identified in Binning et al. 1999), the local governments included in this research are
not exploiting these options. Larger budgets correlated with a higher number of
management actions, indicating that local government budget restraints need to be
further addressed. Bushland-related budgets and staff numbers vary widely both among
and within cities, and this research did not identify the factors which contribute to this
variation. The size of the budget for bushland management was not correlated with the
areas of the local governments, or the amount of bushland vested in them. Further
research is required to identify the determinants of local government bushland budgets.
It may depend on how vocal the community is over bushland management or how
sympathetic the Councillors are towards bushland conservation. There is limited
coordination among individual local governments, which reduces capacity to tackle
environmental problems outside the scale of the single local government, such as feral
animals. Thus, the research presented in this thesis indicates that, to an extent, the
concerns over decentralisation raised in the literature are valid.
As well as having a role in on-ground implementation of biodiversity protection and
management, local government’s role in educating, mobilising and responding to the
218
Chapter Seven
community regarding biodiversity has also been expounded (Australian Local
Government
Association
and
Biological
Diversity
Advisory
Council
1999;
Commonwealth of Australia 1998; UNCED 1992). This research found that local
governments as a whole are employing many techniques in community education, yet
are individually implementing only a few educational strategies. More community
education would be ideal, as this may be effective in reducing human-caused
disturbances in urban bushlands (and may have the flow-on effect of reducing direct
management actions required to minimise disturbance). Few local governments have a
staff member employed specifically to liaise with community over bushland issues.
However, most of the local governments (94%) stated that they coordinate with
community-based groups and landholders involved in bushland management. This
means that community liaison becomes the task of the Environment Officer or other
staff, who are likely to have limited training in community participation.
Larson (2002) has stated that to be good natural resource managers, local governments
need resources, pressure from society or other parties, and interest. In the case of local
government bushland management, there is pressure from the community, State
governments and local government staff, and interest is evident through the extent of
bushland management and community coordination. A lack of resources is the main
constraint on local government bushland management and conservation. The question,
then, is how can local government resources be increased? Given the strong community
push for local government bushland management, should funds come from increased
rates or levies on ratepayers? State governments have increased local government
responsibilities in bushland management, so should the States increase local
government funds? Or can local governments re-prioritise budget allocations? These
questions are relevant outside the Australian local government bushland management
context, as local authorities in other countries have also been handed more
responsibilities from higher levels of government, with no additional funding.
Overall, the hypothesis that local government does not have sufficient capacity to
manage and conserve local bushlands, in major Australian cities, was not entirely
supported. Local governments lack funding and staff, yet despite limited funds and staff
many local governments are undertaking a range of conservation and management
actions, and are implementing community education and involvement programs. The
main outcome appears to be that while financial and technical capacity is low for many
Discussion and Conclusions
219
urban local governments, with far less funding devoted to biodiversity conservation than
to managing landscaped parks or engineering works, local governments are willing to
take a strong role in bushland conservation and management.
7.1.4
Objective Four: Community Participation and Volunteering in Urban
Bushland Care
The research discussed in Chapter Four found that local governments are cooperating
with community groups in bushland management. Community participation in
environmental management is promoted in the research literature for its value in
incorporating local knowledge and community views and for building environmental
commitment and community trust in authorities (Glicken 2000; Kapoor 2001;
Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). The Australian government has embraced the concept of
community participation in environmental management, and promotes it through
programs such as Landcare and Bushcare, and in The Environment Protection and
Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Given the many anthropogenic disturbances
affecting urban bushlands, as identified in Chapters Two and Three, and local
governments’ resource constraints in bushland management, a case is made for
community groups to play an active role in caring for urban bushlands. Thousands of
community-based bushland care groups are estimated to exist in Australian cities, yet
these groups have been largely overlooked in the literature on community participation.
To fill this research gap, this thesis aimed to test concepts related to community
participation and volunteering, with regard to urban bushlands. Specifically, it aimed to
investigate the concepts of motivation to volunteer, and the benefits and frustrations
experienced through volunteering, in the urban bushland context.
The research was based on a questionnaire completed by 76 volunteers from five cities.
Most respondents were female, and over 40 years of age. On average, respondents’
bushland care groups have 50 signed-up members and 14 active members. The research
found that volunteers are largely motivated by altruism, wanting to help conserve local
biodiversity, and also because they saw a specific need for bushland care, for instance a
profusion of weeds in a local bushland. These volunteers come under O’Riordan’s
(1976) volunteer category of ‘ideological actors’; individuals who become involved in
an issue out of moral motives. Most respondents gave just one reason for joining a
bushland care group, but listed multiple benefits gained from their volunteer experience.
220
Chapter Seven
Positive experiences can be summarised as: skills and knowledge development; visible
outcomes from bushland management; social interactions; personal development; a
sense of purpose; a feeling of satisfaction and achievement; recognition and
appreciation from the community and authorities for their work; enjoyment in being in
the bushland, and a heightened sense of community. These benefits from volunteering
correspond well with findings from other researchers (see section 1.3.3.4 of Chapter
One). It is likely that the benefits from volunteering encourage individuals to continue
with their efforts. Indeed, most respondents indicated they have been with their groups
since the groups were established.
Negative experiences were also described by volunteers, though these were mentioned
far less frequently than positive experiences. Volunteers are frustrated by:
uncooperative members of the community; conflicts with landholders and developers; a
feeling that they are sole managers of the bushland; intra-group problems such as
maintaining membership and high demands on key members, and a lack of on-ground
results. It is expected that the need for volunteers and the number of people willing to
volunteer in natural resource management will increase (Safstrom and O’Byrne 2001).
Thus, it is important to foster healthy community bushland care groups, by exposing
volunteers to positive experiences and minimising frustrations. Volunteers’ programs,
whether coordinated by non-government or government organisations, could assist in
fostering groups.
In Chapter Five, the characteristics of urban-based community bushland care groups
were compared with Landcare groups. Landcare groups are usually rural-based groups
of landholders who are working together, usually on private land, to tackle land
degradation and implement sustainable land management (Campbell 1997; Cary and
Webb 2001). The two groups are classed together in an Australian typology of
community participation developed by Ross et al. (2002). Landcare features strongly in
the Australian literature on community participation, and many lessons on group
facilitation have been identified. Chapter Five asked: are the two groups sufficiently
similar to allow the lessons derived from Landcare to be transferred to the urban
community bushland care group phenomenon? Comparison of the two types of
community group suggested that they are fundamentally different, especially with
regard to tenure of the land they work on and key objectives of the groups, though
urban Landcare groups and urban bushland care groups may have similarities. Thus,
Discussion and Conclusions
221
more research into community groups caring for urban bushlands is required, to better
understand, direct and support local-level urban bushland conservation and
management.
7.1.5
Objective Five: Community–Government Partnerships in Local-level
Urban Bushland Management
As described in Chapter Five, most community bushland care groups are formed
spontaneously and autonomously. However, Chapter Four established that local
governments are assisting community-based groups with urban bushland management.
This has been termed a ‘middle ground approach’ by Carr (2002): a meeting of ‘bottom
up’ and ‘top down’ efforts. Uphoff (1999, cited in Curtis and Lockwood 2000)
describes this as the ‘paradox of participation’ – where government promotes ‘bottom
up’ efforts. The collaboration between local government and community groups may
also fit the definition of a partnership – a voluntary collaboration to achieve a shared
goal. There is a strong body of research into community-government partnerships in
environmental management, though these tend to focus on partnerships with State
government agencies. The final aim of this thesis was to explore communitygovernment environmental partnerships in relation to local level bushland management
in urban Australia, from the volunteers’ perspective.
Long and Arnold (1994, p6) defined an environmental partnership as a voluntary
collaboration between two or more organisations with a jointly-defined agenda focused
on a discrete, attainable, and potentially measurable goal. The community group-local
government partnership described in Chapter Six, for the urban bushland context,
generally appears to conform to such a definition. Key terms in the definition are
voluntary, jointly-defined agenda and goal. Partnership between local governments and
Friends or Bushcare groups are not always voluntary. If community groups are working
on bushland vested in a local government, that local government has a ‘duty of care’
responsibility, and is thus drawn into a collaborative process with the community group.
However, most local governments voluntarily go beyond this base-level duty of care
and provide groups with practical and technical assistance. A jointly-defined agenda is
generally officially lacking – few partnerships involved community groups and their
local government developing aims and work plans together. However, by default, the
222
Chapter Seven
two groups appear to be working towards the same goal: to conserve and manage the
natural ecosystems of a local urban bushland.
Long and Arnold (1994) described a number of characteristics that identify a serious
environmental partnership. These include having common goals, which appears to be
the case for urban bushland management, with both community groups and local
governments working towards conservation and management of local bushlands. There
should be full participation by both parties, rather than one-sided efforts, and action
rather than just information exchange (Long and Arnold 1994). This is the case in
relation to urban bushland management, with both parties participating and providing
tangible action. Local governments are providing practical assistance, such as tools and
materials, technical help and training (as described by both local governments in
Chapter 4 and community groups in Chapter 6). Less assistance is given to community
groups in terms of intra-group support (for instance group management and attracting
and retaining members). However, when volunteers were asked what assistance was
lacking, practical support was listed most frequently. While the research reported in
Chapter Five suggested the need for programs to foster healthy groups, perhaps
assistance with on-ground work is more important to volunteers. Community volunteers
are participating in a hands-on way; contributing an average of $178 per year and 22
hours per month, per active volunteer. Further, partnerships should involve some level
of power sharing, such that no group is dominant (Moore et al. 2001). This has not
happened in the local-level urban bushland management context, as local governments
control resources and regulate groups. However, is power sharing appropriate, given
that local government has been elected by the wider community, whereas community
groups consist of self-elected members? More important than power sharing, in this
case, is recognition of the complementary roles of community groups, who can provide
local knowledge and enthusiasm, and local government, which can provide resources
and planning and decision-making authority.
Having established that collaboration between community groups and local
governments is occurring in a way comparable to the environmental partnership
descriptions provided in the literature, it was pertinent to next examine the partnership
process. The majority of the volunteers described local government coordination of their
group in a way that corresponds to a ‘contract model’ of volunteer management. In this
case, the local government has a number of expectations of the group, provides a high
Discussion and Conclusions
223
level of assistance, and requires groups to comply with certain regulations. This
approach to volunteer management was associated with volunteers reporting a positive
relationship with their local government. Alternatively, some respondents described
their local government taking a less formal ‘gift model’ approach to volunteer
management, where no regulations or expectations are placed on the community group.
Chapter Six described the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches, and
surmised that if volunteer management is to move towards the contract model, then
higher levels of local government support of groups may be required. A number of
factors was identified in respondents’ descriptions of positive community group-local
government partnerships, including support from staff, respect, trust, recognition and
appreciation from local government, and regular communication. Additionally, it is
important that community groups do not feel that they are taking on the local
government’s responsibilities in bushland care. Factors associated with negative
community-local
government
relationships
include
local
governments
being
unresponsive and uncommitted, a lack of resources, and lack of communication. These
causes of negative relationships reflect findings in the literature on causes of failed
partnerships (Table 1.2 in Chapter One).
Community groups would benefit from increased group support and on-ground
assistance from local government. This research suggested local government is an
appropriate level of government to assist community groups – 94% of the local
governments are already assisting groups in some form, and 70% of the community
respondents reported a positive association with their local government. Yet local
governments have already had an increase in responsibilities regarding biodiversity
management, with no matching funding. The insecurity over long-term funding from
the Federal Natural Heritage Trust (Conacher and Conacher 2000, p. 303) may further
add to this issue. How should local government bushland funding be prioritised
regarding; a) their own on-ground management, and b) facilitating on-ground
management by community groups and fostering healthy community groups? An
analysis of the cost-effectiveness and environmental-effectiveness of local government
management compared with community group management would be required to
answer this question objectively. In more subjective terms, community input was shown
to be valuable: the push from the community was one of the main reasons that local
governments initiated bushland conservation and management (Chapter Four).
Additionally, individuals involved in community bushland care are also experiencing
224
Chapter Seven
many positive benefits (Chapter Five). In any case, the community has shown that they
want to have an input in bushland management (apart from a few individuals who stated
they were only volunteering because local government was not managing the reserve),
and the community has a right to be involved in the management of local natural
resources.
7.2
RESEARCH CRITIQUE
A broad, interdisciplinary approach was taken to investigate the research problems of
this thesis. The approach succeeded in exploring and describing a range of issues, such
as bushland fragmentation, disturbance and condition, local government management,
and community participation. However, a more thorough investigation could have been
undertaken on any one of these topics. While every attempt was made to minimise
limitations of the overall methodology, a number remain and are discussed here.

Objective One was not fully achieved, as not all the theories and principles of patch
ecology were tested in the research, due to the methodology chosen. For example,
the rapid-surveying at each site did not allow for counts of species in reserves to test
whether species diversity is related to patch size.

Ideally, the methods would have taken into account management input and past uses
of the bushland reserves included in the research for Chapters Two and Three. It is
likely that these factors would influence levels of disturbance and condition.
However, it would be difficult to include these factors in such ‘snapshot in time’
studies.

In evaluating the objectivity of Keighery’s (1994) qualitative Vegetation Condition
Scale in Chapter Three, only eight people independent of the researcher were
included. A larger sample would have provided more reliable results.

The quantitative analysis of vegetation condition, presented in Chapter Three, would
have been more reliable with the inclusion of more quadrats. However, the
technique was time consuming, as it involved identifying every plant species and
numerous other measurements in every quadrat. Inclusion of more quadrats would
have necessitated removal of other components of the thesis from the overall
research plan.

An obvious gap in the research on local government management of urban bushland
is the exclusion of Brisbane. However this was done intentionally. Time was spent
interviewing staff at Brisbane City Council, and it was found that they were highly
Discussion and Conclusions
225
active in bushland management and community coordination. However, unlike the
other four cities included in the analysis, which each have over twenty individual
local government bodies, Brisbane City Council’s jurisdiction covers most of the
metropolitan region and its has a huge operational budget. Thus, this council would
not have been comparable to the other local governments, especially in terms of
resources and staff numbers. A separate study of Brisbane City Council would be
valuable to identify progressive examples of bushland management and community
involvement. Hobart, Darwin and Canberra were excluded from the research as they
are smaller in size, and thus less comparable to the larger cities studied. However,
had time and resources allowed, the inclusion of these three cities may have
strengthened the research outcomes.

While reminder telephone calls and emails were made, a number of local
governments did not answer the questionnaire. This created a bias in the data set; in
particular, few respondents were from Melbourne.

Staff members from 22 local governments were interviewed during the course of the
research about bushland management and community coordination. This
information was extremely difficult to categorise, as respondents’ answers were
highly variable. The interviews produced hundreds of pages of information, and it
was beyond the scope of this thesis to fully include this database. Insights from the
interviews have been included in places in Chapter Four, and have informed the
study.

The research presented in Chapters Five and Six is based on a small sample size of
community bushland management volunteers. It is estimated that thousands of
groups operate in Australian cities, yet only 76 individuals answered the
questionnaire. This was mainly due to the fact that no register of groups exists from
which to draw potential respondents. While every effort was made to recruit
volunteers, Chapters Five and Six are based on data from a non-random and biased
sample.
Finally, comment must be made on the scope of the study. The research was broad in its
scope – taking in ecological research at both metropolitan and site-based scales; and
human geographical research in multiple cities. Thus the research moves from site
based to national in its spatial scale, and also across disciplines. The ecological research
at the regional scale allowed for a broad understanding of the patterns of fragmentation
and disturbance in urban bushlands. This was complemented by a site-based study of
226
Chapter Seven
disturbance and condition of urban bushlands, to create a more in-depth, focused study
on patch ecology in the urban context. The largest capital cities were chosen as the scale
for the research into local-level bushland management, under the assumption that this
would create a large sample size of local government and community group volunteer
respondents, to reveal the broadest range of actions and issues in local-level urban
bushland management. Ideally, this would have been followed by case study research to
provide a more detailed analysis of local-level management of urban bushlands.
Despite these limitations, the research on which this thesis is based identified a number
of important issues on the topic of urban bushlands. The thesis has contributed to our
understanding of the interactions among the factors of urban intensity, patch ecology,
anthropogenic disturbance and vegetation condition. Research presented in this thesis
has helped to fill research gaps regarding local government management of urban
bushland and community involvement in urban bushland care.
7.3
CONCLUSIONS
Nature in urban regions is fundamentally shaped by human activities. The aim of the
research was to test principles, theories and concepts relating to the ecology and
management of bushland fragments in Australian cities. Native vegetation is affected by
the processes of fragmentation, disturbance and local-level management, and this thesis
has focused on examining such concepts in the urban bushland context.
The research aimed to test principles and theories of fragmentation and patch ecology in
an urban bushland context. The thesis proposed that the quality and long-term viability
of bushland patches in a metropolitan region responded to fragmentation and
disturbance, which in turn are related to the urban densities. In the Perth region, inner
metropolitan bushlands were found to be more highly fragmented, contain numerous
disturbances and have lower floristic community diversity and vegetation condition than
reserves in the outer metropolitan area.
The research then examined disturbance and condition in urban bushlands at a finer
scale, using concepts from the literature on vegetation condition assessments. It was
hypothesised that a high incidence of anthropogenic disturbance would correlate with
Discussion and Conclusions
227
low vegetation condition. This hypothesis was not supported: the research found
inconclusive evidence that the intensity of anthropogenic disturbance is related to
vegetation condition. However, bushlands are showing signs of degradation, particularly
with ubiquitous, and sometimes high, weed cover.
Qualitative and quantitative methods of assessing vegetation condition were compared.
The two methods provided similar results, and the qualitative scale is considered to be
an accurate proxy for the more technical, quantitative method. This is a useful
contribution to the field of vegetation condition assessments, as quantitative techniques
are laborious and technical – unsuitable for situations requiring rapid assessments, such
as bushland condition mapping, or for use by people not trained in ecology, including
some community group members.
Having established that urban bushlands are subject to detrimental, human-caused
impacts, the research then aimed to examine local management of bushlands. In this
thesis it was argued that local governments in Australian cities are active in managing
and protecting bushlands, but are constrained by a lack of resources. With the current
trend towards decentralisation of environmental management responsibilities from
Federal and State governments to the local level, and high expectations from the
community for local government bushland management, it is necessary to increase local
governments’ capacities, but it is unclear where the increased resources should come
from.
At the local level, community-based groups are also involved in urban bushland care.
With both the need for volunteer assistance in environmental management and numbers
of willing participants from the community increasing, it is important to foster
volunteers. The research reported on in this thesis found that individuals join bushland
care groups for altruistic reasons and in response to specific needs for management in a
bushland. Volunteers gain many benefits from involvement in bushland care. These
benefits include acquiring increased knowledge and skills, and increased social
interactions, and are likely to encourage continued volunteering.
The research found that community groups are in partnership with local governments in
urban bushland care. Many local governments are placing expectations and regulations
on groups and providing assistance, and this ‘contract model’ of volunteer management
228
Chapter Seven
appears to develop positive partnerships between community groups and local
governments. A local government that supports, trusts, appreciates, recognises and
communicates with community groups also contributes to positive partnerships.
In conclusion, bushland reserves are highly fragmented in the urban environment, and
are subjected to numerous human-caused disturbances. Native vegetation in cities is
valuable for ecological and societal reasons, and local governments and communities
are both working towards securing the long-term sustainability of urban bushlands. In
the event of increased local government resources, for a) protection and management of
bushlands, and b) facilitation of community groups, the potential for local level urban
bushland management will be more fully realised.
References
229
REFERENCES
The following references are for Chapter One, linking pages and Chapter Seven only.
References for Chapters Two to Six are listed at the end of each chapter.
Adams, L.W. 1994. Urban Wildlife Habitats: A Landscape Perspective. University of
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, U.S.A.
Allan, C. 2003. Learning to implement adaptive management. Natural Resource
Management, 6(1):25-30.
Arai, S.M. and Pedlar, A.M. 1997. Building communities through leisure: citizen
participation in a healthy communities initiative. Journal of Leisure Research,
29(2):167-182.
Argyle, M. 1996. The Social Psychology of Leisure. Penguin, Harmondsworth, U.K.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2 May 2000), Common census terms [Online],
Available from:
<http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3110120.nsf/1490d990bd57d5eeca25653f007ed9
99/3e069b7ed3e6e9caca25653f007ee6bd!OpenDocument> [3 February 2004].
Australian Bureau of Statistics (12 September 2000), AusStats: 3218.0 Capital cities
dominate regional population growth [Online], Available from:
<http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/CAOB7F6572E7CDAECA2568A9
00136386> [2 January 2004].
Australian Local Government Association. 2000. National Local Government
Biodiversity: Executive Summary. Australian Local Government Association, Canberra,
A.C.T.
Australian Local Government Association (26 May 2003), Natural Resources
Management [Online], Available from:
<http://www.alga.asn.au/policy/environment/resourceManagement.php> [22 July 2003]
230
References
Australian Local Government Association and Biological Diversity Advisory Council.
1999. National Local Government Biodiversity Strategy. Australian Local Government
Association, Canberra, A.C.T.
Australian National Audit Office. 1997. Commonwealth Natural Resource Management
and Environment Programs, Australia’s Land, Water and Vegetation Resources. The
Auditor-General performance audit Report No. 36: 1996-97. Australian Government
Publishing Service, Canberra, A.C.T.
Bagnall, R.G. 1979. A Study of human impact on an urban forst remnant: Redwood
Bush, Tawa, near Wellington, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Botany, 17:117126.
Bailey, C. 1995. Diseases. In: Scheltema, M. and Harris, J. (Eds). 1995. Managing
Perth’s Bushlands: Perth’s Bushlands and How to Manage Them. Greening Western
Australia, Perth, W.A., pp. 150-151.
Baird, A.M. 1977. Regeneration after fire in King’s Park, Western Australia. Journal of
the Royal Society of Western Australia, 60(1):1-22.
Bamberger, M. 1986. The Role of Community Participation in Development Planning
and Project Management. EDI Policy Seminar Report No. 13. The World Bank,
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Bastin, L. and Thomas, C.D. 1999. The distribution of plant species in urban vegetation
fragments. Landscape Ecology, 14:493-507.
Bateson, P. 2000. Incentives for Sustainable Land Management: Community Cost
Sharing to Conserve Bioodoversity on Private Lands. A guide for local government.
Environment Australia, Canberra and Environs Australia, Melbourne, Vic.
Beard, J.S. 1990. Plant Life of Western Australia. Kangaroo Press, Kenthurst, N.S.W.
References
231
Beardsell, D., Walsh, N. and Beardsell, C. 2001. Vegetation of Melbourne.
Encyclopaedia of Melbourne. Melbourne University, Melbourne, Vic.
Bellamy, J.A. and Johnson, A.K.L. 2000. Integrated resource management: moving
from rhetoric to practice in Australian agriculture. Environmental Management, 25:265280.
Bellamy, J.A., McDonald, G.T.G., Syme J. and Butterworth, J.E., 1999. Evaluating
integrated resource management. Society and Natural Resources, 12:337-353.
Benson, D.H. and Howell, J. 1990 a. Sydney’s vegetation 1788 – 1988: utilization,
degradation and rehabilitation. Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia,
16:115-127.
Benson, D. and Howell, J. 1990 b. Taken for Granted: The Bushland of Sydney and its
Suburbs. Kangaroo Press Pty Ltd, N.S.W.
Benson, D. and Howell, J. 1998. Sydney Bushland: Two Centuries of Change. Royal
Botanic Gardens, Sydney, N.S.W.
Binning, C., Young, M. and Cripps, E. 1999. Beyond Roads, Rates and Rubbish:
Opportunities for local government to conserve native vegetation. National R&D
Program on Rehabilitation, Management and Conservation of Remnant Vegetation,
Research Report, 1/99, Environment Australia, Canberra, A.C.T.
Biodiversity Unit, 1995. Biodiversity Series, Paper No. 6: Native Vegetation Clearance,
Habitat Loss and Biodiversity Decline, an overview of recent native vegetation
clearance in Australia and its implications for biodiversity. Department of
Environment, Sports and Territories, Canberra, A.C.T.
Bolton, G. 1981. Spoils and Spoilers: Australians Make their Environment 1788-1980.
George Allen & Unwin, Sydney, N.S.W.
Bowman, M. 1976. Local Government in the Australian States. Australian Government
Publishing Service, Canberra, A.C.T.
232
References
Bradley, G.A. 1995. Urban forest landscapes: integrating multidisciplinary perspectives.
In: Bradley, G.A. 1995. Urban Forest Landscapes: Integrating Multidisciplinary
Perspectives. University of Washington Press, Seattle, U.S.A., pp. 3-12.
Bradstock, R.A., Gill, A.M., Kenny, B.S. and Scott, J. 1998. Bushfire risk at the urban
interface estimated from historical weather records: consequences for the use of
prescribed fire in the Sydney region of south-eastern Australia. Journal of
Environmental Management, 52:259-271.
Bradstock, R.A., Keith, D.A. and Auld, T.D. 1995. Fire and conservation: imperatives
and constraints on managing for diversity. In: Bradstock, R.A., Auld, T.D., Keith, D.A.,
Kingsford, R.T., Lunney, D. and Silvertsen, D.P. (Eds). 1995. Conserving Biodiversity:
Threats and Solutions. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Sydney, N.S.W., pp. 323-333.
Bradstock, R.A., Tozer, M.G. and Keith, D.A. 1997. Effects of fire frequency on
floristic composition and abundance in a fire-prone heathland near Sydney. Australian
Journal of Botany, 45:641-655.
Breuste, J., Feldman, H. and Uhlmann, O. (Eds). 1998. Urban Ecology. SpringerVerlag, Germany.
Bridgman, H., Warner, R. and Dodson, J. 1995. Urban Biophysical Environments.
Chapter 7: Urban Bushland and the Quality of Life. Oxford University Press,
Melbourne, Vic., pp. 113-127.
Brown, K., 2002. Innovations for conservation and development. The Geographical
Journal, 168 (1):6-17.
Brunner, H. Moro, D., Wallis, R. and Andrasek, A. 1991. Comparison of the diets of
foxes, dogs and cats in an urban park. The Victorian Naturalist, 108(2):34 -37.
Buchanan, R.A. 1979. Edge Disturbance in Natural Areas. Australian Parks and
Recreation, August 1979:39-43.
References
233
Buchanan, R.A., 1989. Bush Regeneration: Recovering Australian Landscapes. Tafe,
N.S.W.
Buchhorn, R., Jones, D. and Robertson, D. 1989. Urban Forestry Handbook: A Guide
to the Management of Urban Bushlands. Department of Conservation, Forests and
Lands, Melbourne, Vic.
Buist, M., Yates, C. and Ladd, P.G. 2000. Ecological characteristics of Brachychiton
populneus (Sterculiaceae) (Kurrajong) in relation to the invasion of urban bushland in
south-western Australia. Austral Ecology, 25:487-496.
Burrell, J.P., 1972. Vegetation of the Sydney area: 1788 and 1961. Proceedings of the
Ecological. Society of Australia, 7:71-78.
Byron, I. And Curtis, A. 2002. Maintaining volunteer commitment to local watershed
initiatives. Environmental Management, 30(1):59-67.
Cameron, J.M.R. 1979. Ch 8: Patterns on the land, 1829-1850. In: Gentilli, J. (Ed.)
1979. Western Landscapes. University of Western Australia Press, Perth, W.A., pp.
203-219.
Campbell, A. 1997. Facilitating Landcare: conceptual and practical dilemmas. In:
Lockie, S. and Vanclay, F. (eds). 1997. Critical Landcare, Key Papers Series, No. 5,
Centre for Rural Research, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga, pp. 143-152.
Carr, A. 2002. Grass Roots and Green Tape: Principles and Practices of Stewardship.
The Federation Press, Sydney, N.S.W.
Carr, G.W., Yugovic, J. V. and Robinson, K.E. 1992. Environmental Weed Invasions in
Victoria. Department of Conservation and Environment, Melbourne, Vic.
Cary, J. and Webb, T. 2001. Landcare in Australia: community participation and land
management. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 56(4):274-278.
234
References
Catterall, C.P. and Kingston, M. 1997. Remnant Bushland of South East Queensland in
the 1990s: its distribution, loss, ecological consequences, and future prospects. Faculty
of Environmental Sciences, Griffith University and Brisbane City Council, Brisbane,
Qld.
Chenoweth, J.L., Ewing, S.A. and Bird, J.F., 2002. Procedures for ensuring community
involvement in multijurisdictional river basins: a comparison of the Murray-Darling and
Mekong River basins. Environmental Management, 29(4): 497-509.
Chess, C. and Purcell, K. 1999. Public participation and the environment: do we know
what works? Environmental Science and Technology, 33(16):2685-2692.
Clark, S.S. and McLoughlin, L. 1986. Historical and biological evidence for fire
regimes in the Sydney Region prior to the arrival of Europeans: implications for future
bushland management. Australian Geographer, 17:101-122.
Clemants, S. and Moore, G. 2003. Patterns of species richness in eight northeatsern
United States cities. Urban Habitats, 1(1):3-12.
Clements, A., 1983. Suburban development and resultant changes in the vegetation of
the bushland of the northern Sydney region. Australian Journal of Ecology, 8:307-319.
Cochrane, A. 2001. Alien Invaders: Identification, Contract and Monitoring of the Most
Recognisable Environmental Weeds of Melbourne and Surrounds. Education Service,
Royal Botanic Gardens, Melbourne, Vic.
Collinge, S.K. 1996. Ecological consequences of habitat fragmentation: implications for
landscape architecture and planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, 36:59-77.
Commonwealth of Australia. 1996. The National Strategy for the Conservation of
Australia's Biological Diversity. Department of the Environment, Sport and Territories,
Canberra, A.C.T.
References
235
Commonwealth of Australia. 1998. Australia's National Report to the Fourth
Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. Environment
Australia, Canberra, A.C.T.
Conacher, A. and Conacher, J. 2000. Environmental Planning and Management in
Australia. Oxford University Press, South Melbourne, Vic.
Cortner, H.J., 2000. Making science relevant to environmental policy. Environmental
Science & Policy, 3:21-30.
Cripps, E., Binning, C. and Young, M. 1999. Opportunity Denied: Review of the
legislative ability of local government to conserve native vegetation. National R&D
Program on Rehabilitation, Management and Conservation of Remnant Vegetation,
Research Report 2/99, Environment Australia, Canberra, A.C.T.
Crooks, K.R., Suarez, A.V. and Bolger, D.T. 2004. Avian assemblages along a gradient
of urbanization in a highly fragmented landscape, Biological Conservation, 115(3):451462.
Curtis, A. 1998. Agency-community partnership in Landcare: lessons for statesponsored citizen resource management. Environmental Management, 22(4):563-574.
Curtis, A. 2000. Landcare: Approaching the limits of voluntary action. Australian
Journal of Environmental Management, 7(1):19-27.
Curtis, A. 2003. The Landcare experience. In: Dovers, S. and Wild River, S. (Eds).
2003. Managing Australia’s Environment. The Federation Press, Sydney, N.S.W., pp.
442-460.
Curtis, A. and DeLacy, T. 1995. Evaluating Landcare groups in Australia: how they
facilitate partnerships between agencies, community groups, and researchers. Journal of
Soil and Water Conservation, 50(1):15-20.
236
References
Curtis, A. and M. Lockwood. 2000. Landcare and catchment management in Australia:
Lessons for state-sponsored community participation. Society and Natural Resources,
13:61-73.
Dahiya, B. and Pugh, C. 2000. The localization of Agenda 21 and the Sustainable Cities
Programme. In: Pugh, C. (Ed.) 2000. Sustainable Cities in Developing Countries.
Earthscan Publications, London, U.K., pp. 152-184.
Dale, V.H. and Beyeler, S.C. 2001. Challenges in the development and use of
ecological indicators. Ecological Indicators, 1:3-10.
Dale, V.H., Brown, S., Haeuber, R.A., Hobbs, N.T., Huntly, N., Naiman, R.J.,
Riebsame, W.E., Turner, M.G. and Valone, T.J. 2000. Ecological principles and
guidelines for managing the use of land. Ecological Applications, 10(3):639-670.
Davis, A.M. and Glick, T.F. 1978. Urban Ecosystems and Island Biogeography.
Environmental Conservation, 5(4):299-304.
Debinski, D.M. and Holt, R.D. 2000. A survey and overview of habitat fragmentation
experiments. Conservation Biology, 14(2):342-355.
Diamond, J.M. 1975. The island dilemma: lessons of modern biogeographic studies for
the design of natural reserves. Biological Conservation, 7(2):129-146.
Dixon, J., Connell, S., Bailey, J. and Keenan, C. 1995. The Perth Environment Project
and Inventory of Perth’s Remnant Native Vegetation. In: Scheltema, M. (Ed) 1995.
Proc. 1994 National Greening Australia Conference: A Vision for a Greener City – The
Role of Vegetation in Urban Environments. Greening Australia Limited, Canberra,
A.C.T., pp. 57-67.
Dobson, A., Ralls, K., Foster, M., Soulé, M.E., Simberloff, D., Doak, D., Estes, J.A.,
Mills, L.S., Mattson, D., Dirzo, R., Anita, H., Ryan, S., Norse, E.A., Noss, R.F. and
Johns, D. 1999. Corridors: reconnecting fragmented landscapes. In: Soulé, M.E and
Terborgh, J. (Eds). 1999. Continental Conservation: Scientific Foundations of Regional
Reserve Networks. Island Press, Washington D.C. pp 129-170.
References
237
Donald, B. J. 1997. Fostering volunteerism in an environmental stewardship group: a
report on the task force to bring back the Don, Toronto, Canada. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management, 40(4):483-505.
Dow, K. 2000. Social dimensions of gradients in urban ecosystems. Urban Ecosystems,
4:255-275.
Eldridge, D.J. and Koen, T.B. 2003. Detecting environmental change in eastern
Australia: rangeland health in semi-arid woodlands. The Science of the Total
Environment, 310:211-219.
Environment Australia (14 November 2002). Provide Support and Advice [Online],
Available
from:
<http://www.ea.gov.au/land/bushcare/about/suppadv.html>
[28
November 2002].
Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Everett, R.L. and Lehmkuhl, J.F. 1999. Restoring biodiversity on public forest lands
through disturbance and patch management irrespective of land-use allocation. In:
Baydack, R.L., Campa III, H. and Haufler, J.B. (Eds). 1999. Practical Approaches to
the Conservation of Biological Diversity. Island Press, Washington D.C. pp 87-105.
Ewing, S. 1999. Landcare and community-led watershed management in Victoria,
Australia. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 35(3):663-673.
Farina, A. 2000 a. Principles and Methods in Landscape Ecology. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, The Netherlands.
Farina, A. 2000 b. Landscape Ecology in Action. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The
Netherlands.
Florgård, C. 2000. Long-term changes in indigenous vegetation preserved in urban
areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 52:101-116.
238
References
Fox, M.D. 1990. Interactions of native and introduced species in new habitats.
Australian Ecosystems: 200 Years of Utilisation, Degradation and Reconstruction.
Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia, 16:141-147.
Fox, M.D. and Fox, B.J. 1986. The susceptibility of natural communities to invasion.
In: Groves, R.H. and Burdon, J. (Eds). 1986. Ecology of Biological Invasions.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 57-60.
Frawley, K. 1994. Evolving visions: environmental management and nature
conservation in Australia. In: Dovers, S. (Ed.) 1994. Australian Environmental History:
Essays and Cases. Oxford University Press, Melbourne, Vic., pp 55-78.
Frood, A. 2001. The weakest link. New Scientist, 171(2304):30-33.
Furze, B., De Lacy, T. and Birckhead, J. 1996. Culture, Conservation and Biodiversity.
John Wiley and Sons, England, U.K.
García-Romero, A. 2001. Evolution of disturbed oak woodlands: the case of Mexico
City’s western forest reserve. The Geographical Journal, 167:72-82.
Gibb, H. and Hochuli, D.F. 2002. Habitat fragmentation in an urban environment: large
and small fragments support different arthropod assemblages. Biological Conservation,
106:91-100.
Gibbs, D. and Jonas, A.E.G. 2000. Governance and regulation in local environmental
policy: the utility of a regime approach. Geoforum, 31:299-313.
Gilbert, F.S. 1980. The equilibrium theory of island biogeography: fact or fiction?
Journal of Biogeography, 7:209-235.
Gilbert, O.L. 1989. The Ecology of Urban Habitats. Chapman and Hall, Ltd, London,
U.K.
Gilfedder, L. and Kirkpatrick, J.B. 1998. Factors Influencing the Integrity of Remnant
Bushland in Subhumid Tasmania. Biological Conservation, 81:89-96.
References
239
Glicken, J. 2000. Getting stakeholder participation ‘right’: a discussion of participatory
processes and possible pitfalls. Environmental Science and Policy, 3:305-310.
Gobby, A.R. 1977. Management of near-city National Parks. Australian Parks and
Recreation, February 1977:33-36.
Government of Western Australia. 2000. Bush Forever Volume 1: Policies, Principles
and Processes. Western Australian Planning Commission, Perth, W.A.
Gray, M. 1999. What is local government doing? In: Tullis, K. and McLean, K. 1999.
Managing Our Bushland, Proceedings of a conference about the protection and
management of urban bushland. Urban Bushland Council WA Inc, Perth, W.A., pp.
112-116.
Groves, R.H. 1998. Ecological indicators of landscape degradation. In: Rundel, P.W.,
Montenegro, G. and Jaksic, F.M. (Eds). 1998. Landscape Disturbance and Biodiversity
in Mediterranean-Type Ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 55-62.
Grumbine, R.E., 1994. What is ecosystem management? Conservation Biology,
8(1):27-38
Grumbine, R.E., 1997. Reflections on “what is ecosystem management?” Conservation
Biology, 11(1):41-47.
Hall, J.M., Gillespie, T.W., Richardson, D. and Reader, S. 2002. Fragmentation of
Florida scrub in an urban landscape. Urban Ecosystems, 6:243-255.
Harris, J. and Scheltema, M. 1995. Introduction. In: Scheltema, M. and Harris, J. (Eds).
1995. Managing Perth’s Bushlands: Perth’s Bushlands and How to Manage Them.
Greening Western Australia, Perth, W.A., pp. 3-6.
Heddle, E.M., Loneragan, O.W. and Havel, J.J. 1980. Vegetation of the Darling System.
In: Department of Conservation and Environment, 1980. Atlas of Natural Resources,
240
References
Darling System, Western Australia. Department of Conservation and Environment,
Perth, W.A.
Henle, K., Lindenmayer, D.B., Margules, C.R., Saunders, D.A. and Wissel, C. 2004.
Species survival in fragmented landscapes: where are we now? Biodiversity and
Conservation, 13:1-8.
Hitchmough, J. 1994. The management of semi-natural and natural vegetation. In:
Hitchmough, J.D. 1994. Urban Landscape Management. Reed International Books
Australia Pty Limited, Melbourne, Vic. pp. 391-422.
Hobbs, R.J. 1991. Disturbance a precursor to weed invasion in native vegetation. Plant
Protection Quaterly, 6(3):99-104.
Hobbs, R. 1995. Fertilisers and garden refuse. In: Scheltema, M. and Harris, J. (Eds).
1995. Managing Perth’s Bushlands: Perth’s Bushlands and How to Manage Them.
Greening Western Australia, Perth, W.A. pp. 149.
Hobbs, R.J. 1998. Impact of landuse on biodiversity in southwestern Australia. In:
Rundel, P.W., Montenegro, G. and Jaksic, F.M. (Eds). 1998. Landscape Disturbance
and Biodiversity in Mediterranean-Type Ecosystems. Springer-Verlag Berlin, pp. 81106.
Hobbs, R.J. 2000. Land use changes and invasions. In: Mooney, H.A. and Hobbs, R.J.
(Eds) 2000. Invasive Species in a Changing World. Island Press, Washington D.C. pp
55-64.
Hobbs, R.J. 2003. Ecological management and restoration: assessment, setting goals
and measuring success. Ecological Management and Restoration, 4:S2-S3.
Hobbs, R.J. and Huenneke, L.F. 1992. Disturbance, diversity, and invasion:
implications for conservation. Conservation Biology, 6(3):324-337.
Holling, C.S., 1996. Surprise for science, resilience for ecosystems, and incentives for
people. Ecological Applications, 6(3):733-735.
References
241
Honnay, O., Endels, P., Vereecken, H. and Hermy, M. 1999. The role of patch area and
habitat diversity in explaining native plant species richness in disturbed suburban forest
patches in northern Belgium. Diversity and Distributions, 5:129-141.
Iyer-Raniga, U. and Treloar, G., 2000. A context for participation in sustainable
development. Environmental Management, 26(4):349-361.
Jansen, A. and Robertson, A.I. 2001. Relationships between livestock management and
the ecological condition of riparian habitats along an Australian floodplain river.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 38:63-75.
Jarvinen, O. 1982. Conservation of endangered plant populations: single large or several
small reserves (Aland)? Oikos, 38(3):301-307.
Jones, D. and Jones, B. 1999. Native Plants if Melbourne and Adjoining Areas.
Blooming Books, Hawthorn, Vic.
Jones, D., McDougall, K., Robinson, R. and Youl, R. 1986. The way we were. Trees
and Natural Resources, 28(3):6-9.
Kaplan, S. 1995. The Urban Forest as a Source of Psychological Well-Being. In:
Bradley, G.A. (Ed.), 1995. Urban Forest Landscapes: Integrating Multidisciplinary
Perspectives. University of Washington Press, Seattle, U.S.A., pp. 100-106.
Kapoor, I. 2001. Towards participatory environmental management? Journal of
Environmental Management, 63:269-279.
Kasperson, R.E. 1974. Chapter 1: Participating in public affairs: theories and issues. In:
Kasperson, R.E. and Breitbart, M. (Eds). 1974. Participation, Decentralization, and
Advocacy Planning. Association of American Geographers, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.,
pp. 1-16.
Keighery, B. 1994. Bushland Plant Survey. Wildflower Society of Western Australia,
Perth, W.A.
242
References
Kellert, S.R., Mehta, J.N., Ebbin, S.A. and Lichtenfeld, L.L., 2000. Community natural
resource management: promise, rhetoric and reality. Society and Natural Resources,
13:705-715.
Kirkpatrick, J.B. 1974. Plant invasion and extinction in a suburban coastal reserve.
Australian Geographical Studies, 12:107-118.
Kirkpatrick, J.B. 1994. A continent transformed: human impact on the natural
vegetation of Australia. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.
Kitchin, R. and Tate, N.J. 2000. Conducting Research into Human Geography: Theory,
Methodology and Practice. Pearson Education Limited, Essex, England, U.K.
Konijnendijk, C.C. 2003. A decade of urban forestry in Europe. Forest Policy and
Economics, 5:173-186.
Kostel-Hughes, F., Young, T.P. and Carreiro, M.M. 1998. Forest leaf litter quantity and
seedling occurrence along an urban-rural gradient. Urban Ecosystems, 2(4):263-278.
Kraehenbuehl, D.N. 1996. Pre-European Vegetation of Adelaide: A Survey from the
Gawler River to Hallett Cove. Nature Conservation Society of South Australia Inc.,
Adelaide, S.A.
Lambert, M.J. and Turner, J. 1987. Suburban development and change in vegetation
nutritional status. Australian Journal of Ecology, 12:193-196.
Lane, M.B. 2003. Decentralization or privatization of environmental governance?
Forest conflict and bioregional assessment in Australia. Journal of Rural Studies,
19:283-294.
Lane, M.B., McDonald, G.T. and Morrison, T.H. in press. Decentralisation and
environmental management in Australia: a comment on the prescriptions of the
Wentworth Group. Australian Geographical Studies, 41(2).
References
243
Larson, A.M. 2002. Natural Resources and Decentralization in Nicaragua: Are Local
Governments Up to the Job? World Development, 30(1):17-31.
Laurance, W.F. 1997 Hyper-disturbed parks: edge effects and the ecology of isolated
rainforest reserves in tropical Australia. In: Laurance, W.F. and Bierregaard, Jr, R.O.
(Eds) 1997. Tropical Forest Remnant:, Ecology, Management, and Conservation of
Fragmented Communities. pp 71-84.
Laurance, W.F. and Yenson, E. 1991. Predicting the impacts of edge effects in
fragmented habitats. Biological Conservation, 55:77-92.
Laurance, W.F., Bierregaard Jr., R.O., Gacon, C., Didham, R.K, Smith, A.P., Lynam,
A., Viana, V.M., Lovejoy, T.E., Sieving, K.E., Sites Jr, J.W., Andersen, M., Tocher,
M.D., Kramer, E.A., Restrepo, C. and Moritz, C. 1997. Tropical forest fragmentation:
synthesis of a diverse and dynamic discipline. In: Laurance, W.F. and Bierregaard, Jr,
R.O. (Eds). 1997. Tropical Forest Remnant:, Ecology, Management, and Conservation
of Fragmented Communities. pp 502-514
Leach, W.D. and Pelkey, N.W. 2001. Making watershed partnerships work: a review of
the empirical literature. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management,
November/December 2001:378-385.
Leishman, M.R. 1990 Suburban development and resultant changes in the phosphorus
status of soils in the area of Ku-Ring-Gai, Sydney. Proc. Linn. Soc. N.S.W., 112(1):1525.
Lenaghan, J., 1999. Involving the public in rationing decisions. The experience if
citizen juries. Health Policy, 49:45-61.
Leskinen, L.A., in press. Purposes and challenges of public participation in regional and
local forestry in Finland. Forest Policy and Economics.
Littlemore, J. and Barker, S. 2001. The ecological repsonse of forest ground flora and
soils to experimental trampling in British urban woodlands. Urban Ecosystems, 5:257276.
244
References
Loew, B. 2000. Multiple species habitat conservation planning: goals and strategies of
local governemnts. Environmental Management, 26:S15-S21.
Long, F.V. and Arnold, M.B. 1994. The Powers of Environmental Partnerships. Dryden
Press, Texas, U.S.A.
Looker, M. 1996. Assessment of the outcomes of weed management technology in
urban areas – overview. In: Shepherd, R.C.H. (Ed.) 1996. Proceedings Eleventh
Australian Weeds Conference, Melbourne. Melbourne, Vic. pp. 335-342.
Lunt, I.D. 1990. Impact of an autumn fire on a long-grazed Themeda triandra
(Kanagaroo Grass) grassland: implications for management of invaded, remnant
vegetations. The Victorian Naturalist, 107(2):45-51.
Lunt, I.D. and Morgan, J.W. 1999. Effect of fire frequency on plant composition at the
Laverton North Grassland Reserve, Victoria. The Victorian Naturalist, 116(3):84-90.
Luz, F., 2000. Participatory landscape ecology – a basis for acceptance and
implementation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 50:157-166.
MacArthur, R.H. and Wilson, E.O. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography.
Monographs in Population Biology. Princeton University Press, Princeton N.J., U.S.A.
Mahanty, S. and Russell, D., 2002. High stakes: lessons from stakeholder groups in the
biodiversity conservation network. Society and Natural Resources, 15:179-188.
Malmivaara, M., Löfström, I. and Vanha-Majamaa, I. 2002. Anthropogenic effects on
understorey vegetation in Myrtillus type urban forests in southern Finland. Silva
Fennica, 36(1):367-381.
Mather, G. and Laurence, C. 1993. Managing Your Urban Bushland, A Guide for Local
Councils. Total Environment Centre Inc., Sydney, N.S.W.
References
245
Matlack, G.R. 1993. Environmental auditing sociological edge effects: spatial
distribution of human impacts in suburban forest fragments. Environmental
Management, 17(6):829-835.
Matlack, G.R. 1997. Land use and forest habitat distribution in the hinterland of a large
city. Journal of Biogeography, 24:297-307.
Marchant, N.G. 1984. Flora of the Perth Region. In: Moore, S.A. (Ed.) 1984. The
Management of Small Bush Areas in the Perth Metropolitan Region: Proceedings of a
Seminar Held on 20 September 1983 by the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife.
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Perth, W.A., pp. 1-5.
McDonnell, MJ & Pickett, STA. 1990. Ecosystem structure and function along urbanrural gradients, an unexploited opportunity for ecology. Ecology, 71(4):1232-1237.
McDonnell, M.J., Pickett, S.T.A., Groffman, P., Bohlen, P., Pouyat, R.V., Zipperer,
W.C., Parmelee, R.W., Carreiro, M.M. and Medley, K. 1997. Ecosystem processes
along an urban-to-rural gradient. Urban Ecosystems, 1:21-36.
McIntyre, N.E., Knowles-Yánez, K. and Hope, D. 2000. Urban ecology as an
interdisciplinary field: differences in the use of “urban” between the scocial and natural
sciences. Urban Ecosystems, 4:5-24.
McLoughlin, L.C. 1998. Season of burning in the Sydney region: the historical records
compared with recent prescribed burning. Australian Journal of Ecology, 23:393-404.
Melbourne, B.A., Davies, K.F., Margules, C.R., Lindenmayer, D.B., Saunders, D.A.,
Wissel, C.A. and Henle, K. 2004. Species survival in fragmented landscapes: where to
from here? Biodiversity and Conservation, 13:125-284.
Mercer, M. and Jotkowitz, B. 2000. Local Agenda 21 and barriers to sustainability at
the local government level in Victoria, Australia. Australian Geographer, 31(2):163181.
246
References
Miles, I., Sullivan, W.C. and Kuo, F.E. 1998. Ecological restoration volunteers: the
benefits of participation. Urban Ecosystems, 2:27-41.
Miller, J.R. and Hobbs, R.J. 2002. Conservation where people live and work.
Conservation Biology, 16(2):330-337.
Moore, E.A. and Koontz, T.M., 2003. A typology of collaborative watershed groups:
citizen-based, agency-based and mixed partnerships. Society and Natural Resources,
16:451-460.
Moore, S.A., Jennings, S. and Tacey, W.H. 2001. Achieving sustainable Natural
Resource Management outcomes on the ground: the key elements of stakeholder
involvement. Australian Journal of Environmental Management, 8(2):91-98.
Morgan, J.W. 1998. Patterns of invasion of an urban remnant of a species-rich grassland
in southwestern Australia by non-native plant species. Journal of Vegetation Science,
9:181-190.
Morrison, D.A., Cary, C.J., Pengelly, S.M., Ross, D.G., Mullins, C.R., Thomas, C.R.
and Anderson, T.S. 1995. Effects of fire frequency on plant species composition of
sandstone communities in the Sydney region: Inter-fire interval and time-since-fire.
Australian Journal of Ecology, 20:239-247.
Muyt, A. 2001. Bush Invaders of South-East Australia. A Guide to the identification
and control of environmental weeds found in South-east Australia. R.G. & F.J.
Richardson, Meredith, Vic.
Natural Heritage Trust and Environment Australia, nd. Local Government and the
Environment, How the Commonwealth can assist – grants, programs and initiatives.
Natural Heritage Trust and Environment Australia Brochure, Canberra, A.C.T.
Nature Conservation Council of New South Wales (9 July 1999). Urban Bushland:
Definition [Online], Available from:
<http://nccnsw.org.au/bushland/topics/defintion/index.html> [9 December 2003].
References
247
New South Wales Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979.
New South Wales Local Government Act 1993.
New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.
Noss, R.F. 1990. Indictors for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach.
Conservation Biology, 4(4):355-364.
Noss, R.F. 1999. Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: a suggested framework
and indicators. Forest Ecology and Management, 115:135-146.
O’Byrne, M. 2003. Personal Communication. Ecoplan, Department of Conservation and
Land Management, Perth, W.A.
Oliver, I. 2002. An expert panel-based approach to the assessment of vegetation
condition within the context of biodiversty conservation Stage 1: the identification of
condition indicators. Ecological Indicators, 2:223-237.
Oliver, I., Smith, P.L., Lunt, I. And Parkes, D. 2002. Pre-1750 vegetation, naturalness
and vegetation condition: what are the implications for biodiversity conservation?
Ecological Management and Restoration, 3(3):176-178.
O’Riodan, T. 1976. Chapter 7: The politics of environmentalism. Environmentalism.
Pion Limited, London, U.K., pp. 228-263.
Papadakis, E. 1993. Politics and the Environment: the Australian Experience. Allen &
Unwin Pty Ltd, N.S.W.
Park, C. and Lee, W. 2000. Relationship between species composition and area in
breeding birds of urban woods in Seoul, Korea. Landscape and Urban Planning,
51(1):29-36.
Parkes, D., Newell, G. and Cheal, D. 2003. Assessing the quality of native vegetation:
the habitat hectares approach. Ecological Management and Restoration, 4:S29-S38.
248
References
Perth Biodiversity Project, 2002. Capacity of Perth’s Local Governments to Conserve
Biodiversity, Survey Analysis Report: 2002. Western Australian Local Government
Association, Perth, W.A.
Perth Biodiversity Project, (2003) Perth Biodiversity Projected: Councils Caring for
their Natural Communities [Online], Available from:
http://www.walga.asn.au/projServices/pbp/docs/sheet4-5.pdf [17 November 2003].
Pickett, S.T.A., Burch, W.R. and Dalton, S.E. 1997. Integrated urban ecosystem
research. Urban Ecosystems, 1:183-184.
Plant, L. 1996. Brisbane’s Urban Forest: Past influences, current trends and future
needs. Trees and Natural Resources, 30(1):6-8.
Porteous, T. 1993. Native Forest Restoration, A Practical Guide for Landowners.
Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust, Wellington, New Zealand.
Porter, E.E., Forschner, B.R. and Blair, R.B. 2001. Woody vegetation and canopy
fragmentation along a forest-to-urban gradient. Urban Ecosystems, 5:131-151.
Pouyat, R.V., McDonnell, M.J. and Pickett, S.T.A. 1997. Litter decomposition and
nitrogen mineralization in oak stands along an urban–rural land use gradient. Urban
Ecosystems, 1(2):117-131.
Press, D., Doak, D.F. and Steinberg, P. 1996. The role of local government in the
conservation of rare species. Conservation Biology, 10(6):1538-1548.
Purdie, D.M. 1976. Local Government in Australia, Reformation or Regression? The
Law Book Company Limited, Sydney, N.S.W.
Rapport D.J., Epstein P.R., Levins R., Costanza R. and Gaudet C. 1998. Ecosystem
Health. Blackwell Science, Inc., Malden, M.A., U.S.A.
References
249
Rebele, F. 1994. Urban ecology and special features of urban ecosystems. Global
Ecology and Biogeography Letters, 4:173-187.
Recher, H.F., Lunney, D. and Dunn, I. (Eds). 1986. A Natural Legacy, Ecology in
Australia. Pergamon Press. Sydney, N.S.W.
Rees, L.M. and Smith, M.G. 1996. Volunteers – can they make a difference? The value
of volunteers in rehabilitating urban bushland – survey and case study. Eleventh
Australian Weeds Conference Proceedings, Weed Science Society of Victoria Inc., pp.
366-369.
Riley, S.J. and Banks, R.G. 1996. The role of phosphorus and heavy metals in the
spread of weeds in urban bushlands: an example from the Lane Cove Valley, N.S.W.,
Australia. The Science of the Total Environment, 182:39-52.
Robinson, G.R., Yurlina, M.E. and Handel, S.N. 1994. A century of change in the
Staten Island flora: ecological correlates of species losses and invasions. Bulletin of the
Torrey Botanical Club, 12(2):119-129.
Roche, S., Dixon, K.W. and Pate, J.S. 1998. For everything a season: smoke-induced
seed germination and seedling recruitment in a Western Australian Banksia woodland.
Australian Journal of Ecology, 23:111-120.
Rose, S. 1997 a. Influence of suburban edges on invasion of Pittosporum undulatum
into the bushland of northern Sydney, Australia. Australian Journal of Ecology, 22:8999.
Rose, S. 1997 b. Integrating management of Pittosporum undulatum with other
environmental weeds in Sydney’s urban bushland. Pacific Conservation Biology, 3:350365.
Rose, S. and Fairweather, P.G. 1997. Changes in floristic composition of urban
bushland invaded by Pittosporum undulatum in northern Sydney, Australia. Australian
Journal of Botany, 45:123-149.
250
References
Ross, H., Buchy, M. and Proctor, W. 2002. Laying down the ladder: a typology of
public participation in Australian natural resource management. Australian Journal of
Environmental Management, 9:205-217.
Rudnicky, J.L. and McDonnell, M.J. 1989. Forty-eight years of canopy change in a
hardwood-hemlock forest in New York City. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club,
116(1):52-64.
Ruliffson, J.A., Haight, R.G., Gobster, P.H. and Homans, F.R. 2003. Metropolitan
natural area protection to maximize public access and species representation.
Environmental Science and Policy, 6:291-299.
Ryan, R.L., Kaplan, R. and Grese, R.E. 2001. Predicting volunteer commitment in
environmental stewardship programmes. Journal of Environmental Planning and
Management, 44 (5):629-648.
Saetersdal, M. 1994. Rarity and species/area relationships of vascular plants in
deciduous woods, western Norway – applications to nature reserve selection.
Ecography, 17(1):23-38.
Safstrom, R. and O’Byrne, M. 2001. Community volunteers on public land need
support. Ecological Management and Restoration, 2(2):85-86.
Saunders, D.A. and Hobbs, K.H. (Eds). 1991. Nature Conservation 2: The Role of
Corridors. Surrey Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton, N.S.W.
Saunders, D.A., Hobbs, R.J. and Margules, C.R. 1991. Biological consequences of
ecosystem fragmentation: a review. Conservation Biology, 5(1):18-32.
Scheltema, M. 1995. Disturbances affecting Perth’s bushland. In: Scheltema, M. and
Harris, J. (Eds). 1995. Managing Perth’s Bushlands: Perth’s Bushlands and How to
Manage Them. Greening Western Australia, Perth, W.A., pp. 25.
Scheltema, M. and Harris, J. (Eds). 1995. Managing Perth’s Bushlands: Perth’s
Bushlands and How to Manage Them. Greening Western Australia, Perth, W.A.
References
251
Shafer, C.L. 1995. Values and shortcomings of small reserves. BioScience, 45(2):80-88.
Silva Matos, D.M., Santos, C.J.F. and Chevalier, D. de R. 2002. Fire and restoration of
the largest urban forest of the world in Rio de Janeiro City, Brazil. Urban Ecosystems,
6:151-161.
Simberloff, D. and Abele, L.G. 1982. Refuge design and island biogeographic theory:
effects of fragmentation. The American Naturalist, 120(1):41-50.
Simmons, C.S., Sorrensen, C. and Walker, R. 2002. Urban rural linkages and
environmental change: addressing the human dynamics of urban ecologies. Urban
Ecosystems, 6:5-8.
Stanford, J.A, and Poole, G.C. 1996. A protocol for Ecosystem Management.
Ecological Applications, 6(3):741-744.
Stenhouse, R.N. 2001. Management of urban remnant bushlands by the community and
local government. Australian Journal of Environmental Management, 8(1):37-47.
Stoll-Kleemann, S. and O’Riordon, T., 2002. From participation to partnership in
biodiversity protection: experience from Germany and South Africa. Society and
Natural Resources, 15:161-177.
Sukopp, H. 1998. Urban ecology – scientific and practical aspects. In: Breuste, J.,
Feldmann, H. and Uhlmann, O. (Eds). 1998. Urban Ecology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
Germany, pp. 3-16.
Sukopp, H. 2004. Human-caused impact on preserved vegetation. Landscape and
Urban Planning, 68(4):347-355.
Swensen, J.J. and Franklin, J. 2000. The effects of future urban development on habitat
fragmentation in the Santa Monica Mountains. Landscape Ecology, 15:713-730.
252
References
Taylor, R. 1999. Wild Places of Greater Melbourne. CSIRO and Museum Victoria,
Collingwood, Vic.
Taylor, S.G. 1987. Conservation strategies for human-dominated land areas: the South
Australian example. In: Saunders, D.A., Arnold, G.W., Burbidge, A.A. and Hopkins,
A.J.M. (Eds). 1987. Nature Conservation: The Role of Remnants of Native Vegetation.
Surrey Beatty and Sons Pty Limited, Chipping Norton, N.S.W., pp. 313-322.
Terborgh, J. 1976. Island biogeography and conservation: strategy and limitations.
Science, 193:1029-1030.
Thomas, C.W. 1999. Linking public agencies with community-based watershed
organizations: lessons from California. Policy Studies Journal, 27(3):544-564.
Timmins, S.M. 1995. Community groups and weed control for conservation in New
Zealand. In: Saunders, D.A., Craig, J.L. and Mattiske, E.M. (Eds). 1995. Nature
Conservation 4: The Role of Networks. Surrey Beatty and Sons Pty Ltd., Chipping
Norton, N.S.W., pp. 443-450.
Turner, M.S. 2000. Biodiversity Plan for Metropolitan Adelaide. Urban Forest
Biodiversity Program, Adelaide, S.A.
UNCED, 1992. Agenda 21: UN Conference on Environment and Development. United
Nations Commission on Environment and Development Secretariat, Geneva.
Vitousek, P.M. 1990. Biological invasions and ecosystem processes: towards an
integration of population biology and ecosystem studies. Oikos, 57:7-13.
Wallis, R.L., Brunner, H. and Seebeck, J.H. 1996. Diet of Red Foxes and cats: their
impact on fauna living in parks near Melbourne. The Victorian Naturalist, 113(6):300305.
Weaver, V. and Adams, R. 1996. Horses as vectors in the dispersal of weeds into native
vegetation. In: Shepherd, R.C.H. (Ed.) 1996. Proceedings Eleventh Australian Weeds
Conference, Melbourne. Melbourne, Vic., pp. 335-342.
References
253
Webb, H. 1996. Urban Bushland Under Threat, Volume 2: Sydney’s Bushland – Status
Summary from 1993 Local Government State of the Environment Reports. Nature
Conservation Council of NSW Inc. and the Total Environment Centre Inc., Sydney,
N.S.W.
Western Australian Local Government Act 1995.
Western Australian Municipal Association nd. Local Government and Natural Resource
Management: Mechanisms Available fot the Protection and Management of Urban
Bushlands. Western Australian Municipal Association, Perth, W.A.
Whitcomb, R.F., Lynch, J.F., Opler, P.A. and Robbins, C.S. 1976. Island biogeography
and conservation: strategy and limitations. Science, 193:1030-1032.
Wild River, S. 2003. Local Government. In: Dovers, S. and Wild River, S. (Eds). 2003.
Managing Australia’s Environment. The Federation Press, Sydney, N.S.W., pp. 338362.
Williams, N.S.G., McDonnell, M.J. and Seager, E.J. 2005. Factors influencing the loss
of an endangered ecosystem in an urbanising landscape: a case study of native
grasslands from Melbourne, Australia. Landscape and Urban Planning, 71:35-49.
Williams, R.J. and Martinez, N.D. 2000. Simple rules yield complex food webs. Nature,
404:180-183.
Wondolleck, J.M. and Yaffee, S.L. 2000. Making Collaboration Work. Lessons from
Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Island Press, Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
Woodhill, J. 1996. Natural resources decision making beyond the landscape paradox.
The Australasian Journal of Natural Resources Law and Policy, 3(1):91-114.
Wycherley, P.R. 1997. Changes in suburban bush. Australian Parks and Recreation,
February 1997:19-20.
254
References
Yli-Pelkonen, V. and Nimelä, J. in press. Linking ecological and social systems in
cities: urban planning in Finland as a case. Biodiversity and Conservation.
Zacharias, D. and Brandes, D. 1990. Species-area relationships and frequency –
floristical analysis of 44 isolated woods in northwestern Germany. Vegetatio, 88:21-29.
255
APPENDIX A
Questionnaire Distributed to Volunteers in Community Bushland Care Groups
256
Volunteers’ Questionnaire
Appendix A
257
Renae Stenhouse, PhD Student
Department of Geography
The University of Western Australia
35 Stirling Highway, Nedlands. WA 6009
email: [email protected]
Ph: (08) 9380 3646
Fax: (08) 9380 1054
Community Groups Managing Urban Native Vegetation
I am a PhD student at the University of Western Australia, researching the ecology and
management of urban native vegetation. I have conducted questionnaires and interviews
nationally with local government bushland managers, and now would like to canvass
the perspective of community management group members. This will be incorporated
into two journal papers and information sent to local governments – so please take this
as an opportunity to express your opinions and experiences of coordinating with local
government in native vegetation management. Your name will not be published.
You are invited to complete this questionnaire if you fit all of the following three
categories:
 an active member of a community based group that manages native vegetation
(e.g. Bushcare, Friends group, Bush for Life group, Landcare)
 managing vegetation in the metropolitan area of Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne,
Sydney, Brisbane
 involved in management on local government land (not National Parks) or in
association with a local government authority.
If you know anyone else who would like to complete the questionnaire, please
photocopy this or contact me for more copies. I am interested in replies from different
individuals within the same group.
Please answer the first six background questions, and as many of the following
questions as possible. Please return to the address in the header at your earliest
convenience, and before September 30th 2002.
Thank you for your help.
Renae Stenhouse
Ph (08) 9380 3646, [email protected].
Background questions
1.
Your name (optional) …..……………………………………………………..….
2.
Male
Female
3.
Age group
<25
26 – 40
41 – 60
61+
4.
Name of your community group …………………………………………………
5.
Local government area ………………………….………………………………..
6.
Your city …………………………………………………………………………
258
Volunteers’ Questionnaire
Your Group
7.
Does your group work on local government land, and/or does your group have
some coordination/communication with a local council? YES
NO
8.
What is the total membership of your group? ………………(you may estimate)
9.
Approximately how many active members does this include
……………
(i.e. members that attend work days)?
10.
How much money do you (personally) put into the group per
year? (Estimate is fine. Include membership, money spent on plants or $ ……….pa
equipment, petrol to get to work days etc).
11.
How many hours do you (personally) expend on doing work for ……………
your community group (e.g. work days, newsletter
per month
preparation…) per month (or state time-frame)?
12.
How long has your group been in operation? …………………………… years
13.
Why did you join the group, and in what year did you join?
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
Your Group and the Local Council
14.
In what ways does your local government support your group? (i.e. what tools
and materials do they supply, funding, technical assistance, on-ground help,
supervision…)
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
Appendix A
259
15.
How significant is this assistance? Do you get support from other organisations
(which?) and is their support/assistance more significant than your local council’s?
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
16.
What is the relationship between your group and council like? Is it positive or
negative (or both) and why/ in what ways?
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
17.
What support would you like from your local government that is not currently
being provided?
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
18.
What is your local council’s expectation level of your group - and is it
reasonable?
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
260
Volunteers’ Questionnaire
19.
What regulations do your local council place on your group?
(e.g. volunteer manuals, training, supervision, OH&S, restrictions on tools/ herbicides
use). How do you feel about such regulations?
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
20.
What have you got out of being in a bushland management group? (i.e. why do
you stay with the group, positive and negative experiences, skills gained, conflicts,
achievements…)
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
If you have any other comments to make about community management groups and/or
local government coordination please feel free to state them here, or attach pages.
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………
Thank you.
Please email to [email protected], or print and post to:
Renae Stenhouse, Department of Geography, The University of Western Australia, 35
Stirling Highway, Nedlands, WA 6009.
Or fax it to (08) 9380 1054
Please contact me if you would like any feedback about this research.