Advertisement

Assessing Water Quality Impacts of Community Defined Land Use Change Scenarios for the Douglas Shire, Far North Queensland

  • Iris Bohnet
  • Jon Brodie
  • Rebecca Bartley
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)

Abstract

The Douglas Shire is promoted as the only place in the world where two world heritage areas meet — the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) and the Wet Tropics of Far North Queensland. Over 80% of the shire's land area is World Heritage listed. On the remaining 20%, economic pressureson primary industries coupled with development pressures to subdivide agricultural land for urban and rural residential expansion provide a challenge not only for local people living in the shire, but also for planners and natural resource managers who have a responsibility to implement the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan (Reefplan) (Commonwealth and Queensland Governments 2003). The purpose of the Reefplan is to develop actions, mechanisms and partnerships to halt and reverse the decline in the quality of water flowing in the Great Barrier Reef lagoon.

The research presented in this chapter contributes to this goal by applying a social—ecological framework that links biophysical and social science data and is based on partnerships and local collaboration to achieve sustainability outcomes. This chapter focuses, in accordance with the Reefplan, on water quality and summarises the water quality impacts resulting from six spatially explicit land use change scenarios that were developed in col laboration with the local community in the Douglas Shire for the year 2025, based on their aspirations for a sustainable future. The spatially explicit land use change scenarios were used as input into the Sediment River Network Model (SedNet) to assess and compare the water quality outcomes of the current situation with the community developed scenarios for the future, with the aim of identifying actions to improve water quality.

The model results show that the changes in land use proposed in all scenarios lead to no or a relatively small reduction in sediment loads exported from the Douglas Shire, indicating that the SedNet model, which was applied for the whole of catchment, is insensitive to land use changes in the floodplain part of the landscape. Despite the fact that the SedNet results did not support community discussion about potential actions to achieve improvements in water quality, the application of the social—ecological framework proved to be an important mechanism to build community capacity for participation in planning for sustainable future landscapes and seascapes.

Keywords

Change Scenario Great Barrier Reef Improve Water Quality Water Quality Impact World Heritage Area 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Al-Kodmany K (1999) Using visualisation techniques for enhancing public participation in planning and design: process, implementation, and evaluation. Landscape Urban Planning 45:37–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker A (2005) Capacity building for sustainability: towards community development in coastal Scotland. Journal of Environmental Management 75:11–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bartley R, Henderson A, Prosser IP, Hughes AO, McKergow L, Lu H, Brodie J, Bainbridge Z, Roth CH (2003) Patterns of erosion and sediment and nutrient transport in the Herbert River catchment, Queensland. CSIRO, Canberra, available at http://www.clw.csiro.au/publications/consultancy/2004Google Scholar
  4. Bartley R, Henderson A, Baker G, Bormans M, Wilkinson S (2004) Patterns of erosion and sediment and nutrient transport in the Douglas Shire catchments. CSIRO Land and Water, Atherton, pp 61Google Scholar
  5. Bohnet I (2004) Sustainable landscape planning in the Wet Tropics. Retrieved 25 July 2007, from http://www.cse.csiro.au/research/landscapescenarios/Google Scholar
  6. Bohnet I, Smith DM (2007) Planning future landscapes in the Wet Tropics of Australia: A social-ecological framework. Landscape Urban Planning 80:137–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brodie J, Mitchell AW (2005) Nutrients in Australian tropical rivers: changes with agricultural development and implications for receiving environments. Marine and Freshwater Research 56(3):279–302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brodie JE, Christie C, Devlin M, Haynes D, Morris S, Ramsay M, Waterhouse J, Yorkston H (2001) Catchment management and the Great Barrier Reef. Water Science and Technology 43:203–211Google Scholar
  9. Commonwealth and Queensland Governments (2003) Reef water quality protection plan: for catchments adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Australian Government and Queensland GovernmentGoogle Scholar
  10. Countryside Commission (1993) Landscape assessment guidance. Countryside Commission, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  11. Douglas Shire Council (2006)Douglas Shire local area planning scheme. Douglas Shire Council, QueenslandGoogle Scholar
  12. FNQNRM (2004) Sustaining the Wet Tropics: a regional plan for natural resource management. Far North Queensland Natural Resource Management Ltd, and Rainforest Corporate Research Centre, CairnsGoogle Scholar
  13. Furnas M (2003) Catchments and corals, terrestrial runoff to the Great Barrier Reef. Australian Institute of Marine Science, CRC Reef Research Centre, TownsvilleGoogle Scholar
  14. Hulse DW, Branscomb A, Payne SG (2004) Envisioning alternatives: using citizen guidance to map future land and water use. Ecological Applications. 14:325–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hulse DW, Gregory S, Baker J (2002) Willamette River Basin planning atlas. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OregonGoogle Scholar
  16. Jessel B, Jacobs J (2005) Land use scenarios development and stakeholder involvement as tools for watershed management within the Havel River Basin. Limnologica 35:220–233Google Scholar
  17. Kasemir B, Jaeger J, Jaeger CC, Gardner MT (2003) Public participation in sustainability science – a handbook. Cambridge, University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Lange E (1999) Realitä und computergestützte visuele Simulation. Eine empirische Untersuching über den Realitätsgrad virtueller Landschaften am Beispiel des Talraums Bunnen-Schwyz. ORL-Berichte Nr. 106, VDF, ZürichGoogle Scholar
  19. Luz F (2000) Participatory landscape ecology – A basis for acceptance and implementation. Landscape Urban Planning 50:157–166Google Scholar
  20. Luz F, Weiland U (2001) Wessen Landschaft planen wir? Kommunikation in Landschafts- und Umweltplanung. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 33:69–76Google Scholar
  21. McDonald G, Weston N (2004) Sustaining the Wet Tropics: a regional plan for natural resource management, Vol. 1: Background to the plan. Rainforest Corporate Research Centre and Far North Queensland Natural Resource Management Ltd, CairnsGoogle Scholar
  22. McKergow LA, Prosser IP, Hughes AO, Brodie J (2005). Regional scale nutrient modelling: exports to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Marine Pollution Bulletin 51(1–4):186–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Merritt WS (2002). Biophysical considerations in integrated catchment management: a modelling system for northern Thailand. Unpublished PhD thesis, Australian National University, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  24. Metcalfe DJ, Westcott DA (in prep) Distribution of biodiversity and ecosystem processes in a fragmented tropical floodplainGoogle Scholar
  25. Nassauer JI, Corry RC (2004) Using normative scenarios in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology 19:343–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Palang H, Alumäe H, Mander ü (2000) Holistic aspects in landscape development: a scenario approach. Landscape Urban Planning 50:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rayment G (2003) Water quality in sugar catchments of Queensland. Water Science and Technology 48:35–47Google Scholar
  28. Roebeling PC, Bohnet IM, Smith DM, Westcott D, Kroon F, Hartcher M, Hodgen M, Vleeshouwer J (2005) Landscapes toolkit for triple-bottom-line assessment of land-use scenarios in Great Barrier Reef catchments. In: Proceedings of MODSIM 2005 Conference, 12–15 December 2007, Melbourne, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  29. Schmid W (2001) The emerging role of visual resource assessment and visualisation in landscape planning in Switzerland. Landscape Urban Planning 54:213–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Silverman D (2000) Doing qualitative research — a practical handbook. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  31. Swanwick C (2002) Landscape character assessment – guidance for England and Scotland. A report by Land Use Consultants for The Countryside Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage, Wetherby, West Yorkshire and EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  32. Tress B, Tress G (2003) Scenario visualisation for participatory landscape planning – a study from Denmark. Landscape Urban Planning 64:161–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wilkinson SN, Henderson A, Chen Y, Sherman BS (2004) SedNet: user guide Version 2.0.0. CSIRO, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  34. Williams J, Read C, Norton A, Dovers S, Burgman M, Proctor W, Anderson H. (2001) Biodiversity, Australia State of the Environment Report 2001 (Theme Report), CSIRO Publishing on behalf of the Department of the Environment and Heritage, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  35. Wilson PR (1991) Agricultural land suitability of the wet tropical coast, Mossman and Julatten area. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Iris Bohnet
    • 1
  • Jon Brodie
    • 2
  • Rebecca Bartley
    • 3
  1. 1.CSIRO Sustainable EcosystemsTropical Forest Research CentreAthertonAustralia
  2. 2.Australian Centre for Tropical Freshwater ResearchJames Cook UniversityTownsvilleAustralia
  3. 3.CSIRO Land and WaterIndooroopillyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations