- Email: [email protected]
Ultimate Environmental Threshold (UET) method in a marine environment (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in Australia)
Landscape and Urban Planning, 15 ( 1988) 327-336 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands
327
Ultimate Environmental Threshold (UET) Method in a Marine Environment (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in Australia) JERZY
KOZLOWSKI’,
JOHANNA
ROSIER’
and GREG
‘Department qfRegiona1 and Town Planning and ‘Department of GeographicalSciences, Queensland 406 1 (Australia)
HILL2
Universit.v of Queensland, St. Lucia,
(Accepted for publication 23 July 1987)
ABSTRACT
Kozlowski, J., Rosier, J. and Hill, G., 1988. Ultimate Environmental Threshold @JET) method in a marine environment (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in Australia). Landscape Urban Plann.,
15: 327-336
The article concentrates on problems which result from tourism development in attractive and fragile natural environments and presents a planning method which may assist developers and managers to reduce the possible environmental damage to a realistic minimum. The method, based on the concept of “Ultimate Environmental Thresholds” (UETs), has been recently tested in a marine environment on a group of islands in the Capricornia Section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) in Australia. Major development problems can be identi,fied in the GBRMP: (I) zoning plans lack detailed assessment of spatial allocation of development on islands; (2) the need to ensure that the development of activities and facilities is sustainable are not satisfactorily met. In the discussed application only “territorial” UETs are derived from the analysis of interrelation-
0169~2046/88/$03.50
ships between tourist activities/facilities and major environmental elements: geomorphological structure: vegetation and fauna followed by the analysis of uniqueness; resistance and transformation of these elements. This is the first application of the UET method to a group of islands (previous applications have been carried out for mountain environments andfor single islands). The process is described in some detail along with the principles leading to the definition ofUETs. In conclusion the validity of the method in its application to a group of islands is confirmed and directions.forfirther research, derived,from the problems encountered, are identified and presented. The need to develop computer graphics for more complex applications is emphasized as is the needfor more empirical research so that other types of constraints can be defined on a sound ecological base. There is also a strong indication that the most important advancement of the UET method could eventuate if it is used in conjunction with other methods such as Siro-Plan or Recreation Opportunity Spectrum which determine optimum suitability of resources for vurious activities/facilities.
0 1988 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
338
INTRODUCTION Tourism development is realized through specific activities and facilities which depend on various natural and man-made resources. The Great Barrier Reef islands or coral cays are particularly attractive as a destination for tourism and recreation because of the reef itself. Activities are mainly water based (e.g. fishing, diving and research on the reefs) with the islands being used as a base (e.g. camp, resort, research station). The coral cays are unstable land forms and the whole fragile marine ecosystem is characterized by a low resistance to some tourist activities and to most facilities which usually require the erection of permanent structures. Consequently the most accessible reefs and their cays are suffering increasing degradation (GBRC, 1977 ). Sustainable management of the resource base is the only effective measure which may prevent the ultimate degradation of this totally unique (on a global scale) ecosystem. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) has developed zoning plans for each section of the Park providing a framework for development within the park. Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service (QNPWS ) have joint responsibility and control day to day decisions regarding the use of the islands through the provisions of a draft management plan for the whole section in which uses are allocated to each island as a whole. Heron Island differs in that it has its own management plan (QNPWS, 1983). PROBLEMS There are two major problems facing further development of the islands in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP). The first arises from the use of zoning plans for the Ma-
rine Park. Although a zoning plan is essential for effective management, further more detailed assessment of spatial allocation of development on islands is necessary so that decisions may be made regarding the degree to which specific areas are to be exploited for different activities/facilities. The second is related to the need to ensure that the development of activities or facilities on the islands is sustainable and does not denigrate the ecological values of the islands on which activities depend. It should be noted that the World Conservation Strategy’s (IUCN, 1980) underlying theme is that sustainable development cannot take place without conserwhich in turn fails without vation development. This paper presents an attempt to contribute towards solving these problems by applying the Ultimate Environmental Threshold (UET) method to the Capricornia Group of islands in the GBRMP (Fig. 1 ). It is hoped that the method can facilitate a move into more detailed planning of particular islands or cays, and thereby assist in achieving their sustainable development. An initial application of the UET method on Heron Island (Rosier et al.. 1986) assessed the spatial compatibility of current development with limitations imposed by the original environment. The Heron Island analysis provided a guide to the definition of the territorial UETs for the island group as a whole. The territorial threshold is the first of four dimensions within which development should be framed to ensure it is sustainable (Kozlowski et al., 1986 ). The initial analysis indicates that to successfully deal with the problem, an analysis of relationships between activities and resources is initially required. Once completed, this could help answer how activities should best be man-
.-., [;
iNORTH
:&‘ITRYON ‘,“‘! :,. I\ NORTHWEST ::e -.
‘~ ‘..
:
WILSONd..
.._._.___.---~ .“‘>.WRECK y$ ,I . ....
N
:. 1
---y
“-‘ERSKINE MASTHEA_~__..-.. :-
‘. ,---*~‘....._, \.
-._.
_:
,
,; ONE
TREE
T CAPRICORN
GROUP
Fig. 1.Location map.
aged within an area of a particular island or cay. Can they be admitted to its whole area? Should they be severely restricted or even excluded from specific locations? Finally, are there any additional factors, derived from resource analysis regarding quantitative, qualitative or temthat should also be poral restrictions introduced?
METHODOLOGY When defining environmental dimensions the Ultimate Environmental Threshold can be seen as: “The stress limit beyond which a given ecosystem becomes incapable of returning to its original condition and balance. Where these limits are exceeded as a result of the functioning or development of particular activities a
chain reaction is generated leading towards irreversible environmental damage of the whole ecosystem or of its essential parts.” (Kozlowski, 1985, pp. 148-149). Kozlowski argues that a resource analysis would permit the identification of the four dimensions (territorial, quantitative, qualitative and temporal) and the resulting constraints determine “where and which activities should be developed, up to what quantitative level, with what quality of output, and at what rate or over what time period so that sustainable development is promoted and safeguarded” (Kozlowski, 1985, p. 148). From the analysis of the general principles of the UET method and its major applications (Kozlowski, 1985; Kozlowski et al., 1986) three major phases are identified for carrying out this study (see Fig. 2 ) .
330
Dhase
1:
DERIVATION
OF
THE
gained is then used to define the task and to assist in analysing resistance and transformation in Phase 2.
TASK
Step 2: setting the task
Phase
DEFINITION
2:
OF TERRITORIAL
UETS
Critical negative consequences that may result from the continuing presence or further development of some activities and of most facilities are the greatest determining factors here. They set the task which is to indicate which facilities (and possibly activities) may be excluded, or at least restricted, from certain areas. Phase 2: establishing
Phase
3:
SYNTHESIS
CAPRlCORNlA Frmge
core
t
f
AND
INTERPRETATION
SECTION ,nncr
core
SYNTHESIS Whde
f
,sklnd
t 1
Phase 1: Derivation
qfthe
task
Step I: analysis of the role of resources for activities
Environmental threats are identified by completing a matrix in live steps (see Fig. 3 ). The role of natural and man-made resources and the side effects of activities are compiled, then the sensitivity of resources and possible consequences of development are derived. The final analysis of conflict between activities assists in defining preferred areas for activities and facilities. The matrix for the Capricornia Section was developed using data gathered for the Northwest (Kozlowski et al., 1986, pp. 6061 ) and Heron applications (Rosier et al., 1986, matrix unpublished). The information
territorial
UETs
Territorial UETs are determined by various degrees of “uniqueness”, “resistance” and “transformation”, of the key natural resources in the study area, which are described according to the following criteria. - Uniqueness can be determined by the frequency of occurrence of a given natural environmental element or, more often, of its particular components within a whole country or in particular regions. The spatial differentiations of this occurrence are characterized by three classes: “unique”, “rare” and “common”. - Resistance of a given environmental element to damage from specific forms of tourist activities is evident in its ability both to withstand negative effects and to self-regenerate, with the help of natural forces, allowing this element to return to its previous state. It is essential to note, firstly, that each component may have a different degree of resistance to damage at a different time (of the year, month or day) and from different causes and, secondly, that the very location of this component affects the increase or decrease in the degree of its resistance. - Transformation indicates how far any given environmental elements or their components have changed as compared with the original state, that is, the state in which self-regulating
331 RESOURCES OF THE GE0GRAt’t-W
ENVIRONMENT
USE OF RESOURCES
NATURALRESOURCES
Source: J. Kozlowski, Fig. 3. Analysis of relationships:
resources-activities,
a general guide.
natural mechanisms are working and the balance between biotic and abiotic factors is maintained. Three distinct degrees of transformation can be distinguished: “minimal”, “partial” and “total”. The last can be further subdivided into “reversible” and “irreversible”. Phase 3: interpretation and discussion
The results of Phase 2 are, in the form of exclusion zones, synthesised for interpretation and for the discussion of development implications. Further directions for research which are derived from this individual application are also included. APPLICATION GROUP
19%
IN THE CAPRICORN
The Capricorn group of islands lies between 20 and 35 km off the Queensland coast, northeast of Gladstone, the main port from which the islands are serviced. The islands are grouped around Heron Island which (because
it is the largest, permanently inhabited island) is the focal point of activity. Access to Heron is provided by shallow draught vessels, helicopters and sea plane services. Access to other islands is limited to an infrequent barge service for campers and boats with shallow draught. All islands are sand or shingle cays, located on platform reefs. The cays are small, ranging in size from North, the smallest at approximately 0.5 ha, to Northwest, the largest at approximately 95 ha. The geomorphological characteristics of the groups have been well documented by Flood (1977, 1981a, 1981b, Gourlay and Flood ( 1981) and Gourlay (1983); vegetation by Cribb ( 1969, 1975, 1979) and Heatwole ( 1984); and fauna by Hulsman ( 1984), Kikkawa ( 1982) and Limpus ( 1980). The Capricorn and the adjoining Bunker group of islands are in the Capricornia Section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park which extends for over 2000 km along the north-eastern coast of Australia up to Cape York (refer to Fig. 1). The group is an important seabird breeding site and is also a principle breeding area for the Green and Loggerhead
333
TRYON
MASTHEAD
MB1TB8
O?
200
400
Metres
0
100
200
!&tree
NORTH
LiiiPzz
INNER CORE
-- HIGH TIDE LINE 0
NORTHWEST
200
400
mtres
VEGETATION
LINE
~_ ~. _ __
Fig. 4. Generalized
vegetation zones
turtles (GBRC, 1977 ). Two islands are omitted from the analysis: Wreck Island, which is a principal nesting area for the Loggerhead turtle and is closed to public access and One Tree Island which supports a scientific research station. Although both are important, difficulties of access precludes their inclusion in the current study.
In this study the determination of territorial UETs is based on three major environmental elements: geomorphological structure, vegetation and fauna, which was further disaggregated so that each major seabird and turtle species nesting in the group could be assessed separately before being incorporated in the general analysis. Because of the number of is-
333
lands involved and their varying sizes, it is necessary to introduce a further means of integrating the UET results in an overall framework. This is done by subdividing the islands into parts common to all or some of the islands (Fig. 4). Thus, the islands are categorized according to their ability to support a stable “core” of vegetation, mainly Pisonia (Pisonia grandis) forest. Northwest, due to its size, has a central or “inner core”, characterized by larger Pisonia and other canopy trees developed to a height of approximately 30 m. The area of fringing or strand vegetation around the cays called “fringe” varies in width and vegetation type according to whether they are on the windward or leeward side of the island. New marginal areas are also included as fringe where they are colonized by grasses and Casuarina (Casuavina equisetifilia ), The smaller islands North, Erskine and Wilson are considered in their entirety as “Whole Islands” as they are dominated by fringing vegetation (refer to Fig. 4). For the purpose of this analysis it is assumed that the cay area is that portion of land which is above the high tide line, although it is acknowledged that the cay and its reef are one ecosystem (Kikkawa, 1982). Core
Masthead and Northwest Islands both support large, well-developed stands of Pisonia forest, the sizes of which are rare on Great Barrier Reef cays (GBRC, 1977). The core vegetation enhances stability of the islands and provides the main nesting areas for White Capped Noddies (Anous minutus) and Wedgetailed Shearwaters (Puffinus pacificus). Both islands may be considered to be “rare” in that Masthead, Heron and Northwest support 98% of the breeding population of Noddies and Masthead and Northwest support the principle colonies of Wedgetailed Shearwaters in eastern Australia (AERF, 1978; Hulsman, 1984). The density of Shearwater burrows also
means that the resistance to human intrusion is “low” because of the danger of collapsing burrows. On Northwest and Masthead in areas where the density exceeds 30 burrows 100 m-2 (M. Vanek, personal communication, 1984) resistance is “nil/minimal” as damage caused by human intrusion in the nesting season is inevitable and severe. Transformation has occurred where camping areas and footpaths have resulted in compaction of soil. However, it is reversible so affected areas may become suitable digging sites after a period of weathering. Inner core
Only Northwest Island has the well-developed inner forest. Some transformation has occurred in that the area has been partially mined for guano (Cribb, 1969). However the area differs from its surroundings in both soil and forest character. The area is classified as “unique” in that Northwest is the only island of sufficient width and size to protect a central forest. The area is classified as having “nil/ minimal” resistance because of its dependence on the outer core for protection (Cribb, 1969). Although the Pisonia forest is resilient and its ability to recover from storm damage is notable, little research has been carried out on the long-term impact of extensive clearing for other forms of development (Hatheway, 1953 ). Fringe
On Tryon, Masthead, Heron and Northwest, the most important element is geomorphological structure. The three largest cays are “rare” on the Great Barrier Reef because of their size. The variability of the margins of the islands due to seasonal movement as well as long-term change alters shape and orientation, thus resulting in the fringe being classified as having “nil/minimal” resistance to human interference. Heron Island is the only one which has undergone considerable transformation to
334
its geomorphological structure (Gourlay and Flood, 198 1 ). The fringe areas of Tryon and Masthead Islands and to a lesser degree Northwest are also “rare” in that they support important breeding colonies of various species of Tern (Sterna anuethetus, S. bergii, S. bengalensis and S. &ugallii). Hulsman ( 1984) and Lavery and Grimes ( 197 1 ) have both assigned values to the nesting sites to denote whether each cay is a principle or major colony on the basis of numbers of nesting birds. Resistance of the nesting colonies (including appropriate buffer zones) is considered to be “nil/minimal” due to their extreme sensitivity to human disturbance (Hulsman, 1984). This is particularly the case on the islands used for camping where human activities and generator noise is greatest in the nesting season (Walker, 1985 ). Because of its importance as one of four major nesting sites in north-eastern Australia for the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas), the fringe area of Northwest is classified as “unique”. The nesting areas of Masthead and Heron are con-
sidered “rare” because of their secondary role in what is really an island system of nesting areas. Resistance to human disturbance is “low” and transformation is judged to be “total” where camp sites are located. In other areas transformation is partial due to interruptions to nesting caused by buried rubbish and direct human intervention. Whole islands North and Wilson islands are considered to be “unique” in that they support the “most significant colonies” of the Roseate Tern (5’. dougallii) and the Crested Tern (S. bergii) (Hulsman, 1984; Lavery and Grimes, 197 1). Erskine Island is rated as “rare” because it supports a “major” colony of the Roseate Tern. Resistance is “nil/minimum”, particularly as the Roseate Tern is extremely sensitive to disturbance and no longer nests on larger inhabited or semi-inhabited islands where humans are active. Because visits to smaller islands are infrequent (e.g. Wilson Island is a site for
TABLE I Summary of exclusion zones Island North
Erskine
Wilson
Fringe
Masthead
Heron
Northwest
Geo/struct rare Terns unique
Geo/struct rare Terns unique
Geo/struct rare
Geo/struct rare Terns rare
Wt. Shearwater rare
Core
Wt. Shearwater rare/unique Vegetation unique
Inner core
Whole island
Tryon
Terns unique
Terns rare
Terns unique
The three major environmental elements determining UETs are: ( 1 ) Geomorphological structure (geo/struct) (2) Vegetation (3) Fauna subdivided into four types: White Capped Noddies ( WCN ), Wedgetailed Shearwaters (Wt. Shear-water), turtles (turtle ), terns (terns). In the areas defined as exclusion zones all elements included have nil/minimal resistance. Transformation on all islands except Heron is considered to be negligible or reversible. Therefore it is not a factor determining UETs in this application.
335
picnics organized by the Heron Island Resort and North Island is visited by lighthouse inspectors and some yachtsmen), transformation is judged to be “nil/minimal”. Exclusion zones
From the analysis it is determined that UETs occur where any of the environmental elements have “nil/minimal” resistance and are “rare” or “unique”. Those areas contained within the UET are considered as exclusion zones. Table I provides a summary of exclusion zones on all islands considered. DISCUSSION The analysis indicates that more detailed assessment of spatial allocation of development on a group of islands, which is the first of the two problems outlined initially, can be successfully addressed by the UET method. From the interpretation of its results it can be seen that the whole of the smaller islands and the fringe and core forests on the major islands contain one or more important environmental elements which are particularly sensitive to human disturbance. This knowledge is also essential to ensure sustainability of development which is the second problem of major concern. It must be noted, however, that a decision regarding the degree to which these areas are exploited would need to be supported by assessment of activities/facilities of individual elements (normally done by referring to matrix) and by further assessment of quantitative and temporal thresholds. These thresholds may change the nature of areas judged to be exclusion zones. For example, visitors to small islands may be prohibited during the nesting season for terns, thus converting an exclusion zone into a temporal restriction. However, the construction of facilities in the fringe areas and on smaller islands would have to be prohibited on the basis that geomorphological variability of
the exclusion zone is a permanent feature and may not be altered to a temporal or quantitative restriction. Other management practices may alter exclusion zones. For example, the construction of a boardwalk over the Shearwater nesting area may permit restricted usage by walkers; however clearing of vegetation and construction of facilities would remain prohibited. Two major conclusions may be drawn concerning a general applicability of the method to the marine environments. First, the method works in its simple form to derive territorial UETs and it is applicable to one island or to a group after some adjustments. Second, further research is required to reline the method and to remove its most obvious shortcomings. The directions for research derived from the problems encountered in completing the current study are the following. (a) The matrix analysing the relationship between activities/facilities and resources becomes unmanageable as the lists increase. The application of computer graphics in more complex ecological systems would be essential. (b) There needs to be further development of the means of dealing empirically with the identification of quantitative, qualitative and temporal dimensions. In the Capricorn Group the lack of data is the main obstacle which prohibits more in-depth analysis. However, it is suspected that this is a common problem in planning for sustainable development of areas with high natural resource values. Most certainly empirical research in this respect is urgently needed. (c) Further development of the theoretical base is required to adequately clarify definitions and process. For example, the definition of the Ultimate Environmental Threshold itself requires clarification in that it is applicable over four dimensions, each of which covers different aspects of the natural resource base. Finally, the most important development of the method (within the context of the whole planning process) should be to increase its usefulness as a base for other methods which
336
may deal more specifically with the suitability of the resource base for certain types of development. Siro-Plan and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum are two such methods which appear to be able to be used in conjunction with the UET method. A guide should also be developed to permit wider dissemination of the method and to enable its wider testing in the field. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The article presents results of a research project funded by the Social Science Research Grant of the University of Queensland. The authors also acknowledge the contribution of Mr. Hugh Stewart-Killick for cartographic work and Mrs. Penny Carrick for typing the paper. REFERENCES Australian Environmental Research Foundation Pty. Ltd. (AERF). 1978. The Offshore Islands of Queensland. Migratory Birds and their Habitats in Australia. Part II. Vol. 1. pp. 5-6. Cribb, A.B., 1969. Notes on the North West Expedition (various articles). Queensl. Nat., 19: 82-l 14. Cribb, A.B.. 1975. Notes on Masthead Expedition (various articles). Queens]. Nat., 21: 65-83. Cribb. A.B.. 1979. Notes on Tyon Excursion (various articles). Queensl. Nat., 22: 112-l 39. Flood. P.G., 1977. Coral cays of the Capricorn and Bunker Groups, Great Barrier Reef Province, Australia. Atoll Res. Bull.. 195: l-23. Flood, P.G.. 198 la. A Record of the shoreline changes to 1980 on cays of the Capricorn Group, Southern Great Barrier Reef Australia. Report to GBRMPA, Townsville, 50 pp. Flood, P.G.. I98 1b. Variability of shoreline position on five uninhabited islands of the Capricornia Section, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Report to GBRMPA, Townsville. 20 pp.
Gourlay, M.. 1983. Accretion and erosion of coral cays and some consequent implications for the management of marine parks, In: Proceedings of the Inaugural Great Barrier Reef Conference. Townsville 1983. J.C.U. Press. pp. 475482. Gourlay. M.R. and Flood. P.G.. 198 1. Impact of coastal engineering upon a coral cay: Heron Island. Institute of Engineers. National Conference, No. 6/8 I. pp. 159-l 63. Great Barrier Reef Committee. 1977. Conservation and use of the Capricorn and Bunker groups of islands and coral reefs. Report to the Queensland State Government. 33 pp. Hatheway. W.H.. 1953. The land vegetation of Arno 4toll. Marshall Islands. .4toll. Res. Bull.. 1952-53. No. 16. Heatwole. H.. 1984. Terrestrial vegetation of the coral cays. Capricornia Section Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. In: The Capricornia Section of the Great Barrier Reef Past, Present and Future. Royal Society of Queensland, pp. 87140. Hulsman. K., 1984. Survey of seabird colonies in the Capricornia Section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Report to GBRMPA, Townsville, 38 pp. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources), 1980. World Conservation Strategy. Gland: IUCN-UNEP-WWF. Kikkawa, J.. 1982. The birds of the Great Barrier Reef. In: GA. Jones and R. Endean (Editors), Biology and Geology of Coral Reefs. Vol. 3. Biology 2. Academic Press. London. pp. 279-34 I Kozlowski, J., 1985. Threshold approach in environmental planning. Ekistics. 3 I 1: 146-l 53. Kozlowski, J.. Hill, Cr. and Rosier. J., 1986. Planning with the Environment. LJniversity of Queensland Press, Brisbane. 82 pp. Lavery, H.J. and Grimes, R.J.. I97 1. Seabirds of the Great Barrier Reef. Queensl. Agric. J., 97: 106-l 13. Limpus, C.J.. 1980. The Green Turtle, C‘hdoniu nq&s (L) in eastern Australia. In: Management of Turtle Resources. Proceedings of a Seminar. James Cook University. Townsville 28.6.79, pp. 5-22. QNPWS, 1983. Heron Island Management Plan. QNPWS, 45 PP. Rosier, J.. Hill. G. and Kozlowski. J.. 1986. Environmental limitations: a framework for development on Heron Island, Great Barrier Reef. J. Environ. Manage.. 23: 59-73. Walker, T., 1985. Survey of Campers on the Capricorn and Bunker Islands. QNPWS Report, Queensland, 16 pp.
327
Ultimate Environmental Threshold (UET) Method in a Marine Environment (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in Australia) JERZY
KOZLOWSKI’,
JOHANNA
ROSIER’
and GREG
‘Department qfRegiona1 and Town Planning and ‘Department of GeographicalSciences, Queensland 406 1 (Australia)
HILL2
Universit.v of Queensland, St. Lucia,
(Accepted for publication 23 July 1987)
ABSTRACT
Kozlowski, J., Rosier, J. and Hill, G., 1988. Ultimate Environmental Threshold @JET) method in a marine environment (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park in Australia). Landscape Urban Plann.,
15: 327-336
The article concentrates on problems which result from tourism development in attractive and fragile natural environments and presents a planning method which may assist developers and managers to reduce the possible environmental damage to a realistic minimum. The method, based on the concept of “Ultimate Environmental Thresholds” (UETs), has been recently tested in a marine environment on a group of islands in the Capricornia Section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP) in Australia. Major development problems can be identi,fied in the GBRMP: (I) zoning plans lack detailed assessment of spatial allocation of development on islands; (2) the need to ensure that the development of activities and facilities is sustainable are not satisfactorily met. In the discussed application only “territorial” UETs are derived from the analysis of interrelation-
0169~2046/88/$03.50
ships between tourist activities/facilities and major environmental elements: geomorphological structure: vegetation and fauna followed by the analysis of uniqueness; resistance and transformation of these elements. This is the first application of the UET method to a group of islands (previous applications have been carried out for mountain environments andfor single islands). The process is described in some detail along with the principles leading to the definition ofUETs. In conclusion the validity of the method in its application to a group of islands is confirmed and directions.forfirther research, derived,from the problems encountered, are identified and presented. The need to develop computer graphics for more complex applications is emphasized as is the needfor more empirical research so that other types of constraints can be defined on a sound ecological base. There is also a strong indication that the most important advancement of the UET method could eventuate if it is used in conjunction with other methods such as Siro-Plan or Recreation Opportunity Spectrum which determine optimum suitability of resources for vurious activities/facilities.
0 1988 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.
338
INTRODUCTION Tourism development is realized through specific activities and facilities which depend on various natural and man-made resources. The Great Barrier Reef islands or coral cays are particularly attractive as a destination for tourism and recreation because of the reef itself. Activities are mainly water based (e.g. fishing, diving and research on the reefs) with the islands being used as a base (e.g. camp, resort, research station). The coral cays are unstable land forms and the whole fragile marine ecosystem is characterized by a low resistance to some tourist activities and to most facilities which usually require the erection of permanent structures. Consequently the most accessible reefs and their cays are suffering increasing degradation (GBRC, 1977 ). Sustainable management of the resource base is the only effective measure which may prevent the ultimate degradation of this totally unique (on a global scale) ecosystem. The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) has developed zoning plans for each section of the Park providing a framework for development within the park. Queensland National Parks and Wildlife Service (QNPWS ) have joint responsibility and control day to day decisions regarding the use of the islands through the provisions of a draft management plan for the whole section in which uses are allocated to each island as a whole. Heron Island differs in that it has its own management plan (QNPWS, 1983). PROBLEMS There are two major problems facing further development of the islands in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (GBRMP). The first arises from the use of zoning plans for the Ma-
rine Park. Although a zoning plan is essential for effective management, further more detailed assessment of spatial allocation of development on islands is necessary so that decisions may be made regarding the degree to which specific areas are to be exploited for different activities/facilities. The second is related to the need to ensure that the development of activities or facilities on the islands is sustainable and does not denigrate the ecological values of the islands on which activities depend. It should be noted that the World Conservation Strategy’s (IUCN, 1980) underlying theme is that sustainable development cannot take place without conserwhich in turn fails without vation development. This paper presents an attempt to contribute towards solving these problems by applying the Ultimate Environmental Threshold (UET) method to the Capricornia Group of islands in the GBRMP (Fig. 1 ). It is hoped that the method can facilitate a move into more detailed planning of particular islands or cays, and thereby assist in achieving their sustainable development. An initial application of the UET method on Heron Island (Rosier et al.. 1986) assessed the spatial compatibility of current development with limitations imposed by the original environment. The Heron Island analysis provided a guide to the definition of the territorial UETs for the island group as a whole. The territorial threshold is the first of four dimensions within which development should be framed to ensure it is sustainable (Kozlowski et al., 1986 ). The initial analysis indicates that to successfully deal with the problem, an analysis of relationships between activities and resources is initially required. Once completed, this could help answer how activities should best be man-
.-., [;
iNORTH
:&‘ITRYON ‘,“‘! :,. I\ NORTHWEST ::e -.
‘~ ‘..
:
WILSONd..
.._._.___.---~ .“‘>.WRECK y$ ,I . ....
N
:. 1
---y
“-‘ERSKINE MASTHEA_~__..-.. :-
‘. ,---*~‘....._, \.
-._.
_:
,
,; ONE
TREE
T CAPRICORN
GROUP
Fig. 1.Location map.
aged within an area of a particular island or cay. Can they be admitted to its whole area? Should they be severely restricted or even excluded from specific locations? Finally, are there any additional factors, derived from resource analysis regarding quantitative, qualitative or temthat should also be poral restrictions introduced?
METHODOLOGY When defining environmental dimensions the Ultimate Environmental Threshold can be seen as: “The stress limit beyond which a given ecosystem becomes incapable of returning to its original condition and balance. Where these limits are exceeded as a result of the functioning or development of particular activities a
chain reaction is generated leading towards irreversible environmental damage of the whole ecosystem or of its essential parts.” (Kozlowski, 1985, pp. 148-149). Kozlowski argues that a resource analysis would permit the identification of the four dimensions (territorial, quantitative, qualitative and temporal) and the resulting constraints determine “where and which activities should be developed, up to what quantitative level, with what quality of output, and at what rate or over what time period so that sustainable development is promoted and safeguarded” (Kozlowski, 1985, p. 148). From the analysis of the general principles of the UET method and its major applications (Kozlowski, 1985; Kozlowski et al., 1986) three major phases are identified for carrying out this study (see Fig. 2 ) .
330
Dhase
1:
DERIVATION
OF
THE
gained is then used to define the task and to assist in analysing resistance and transformation in Phase 2.
TASK
Step 2: setting the task
Phase
DEFINITION
2:
OF TERRITORIAL
UETS
Critical negative consequences that may result from the continuing presence or further development of some activities and of most facilities are the greatest determining factors here. They set the task which is to indicate which facilities (and possibly activities) may be excluded, or at least restricted, from certain areas. Phase 2: establishing
Phase
3:
SYNTHESIS
CAPRlCORNlA Frmge
core
t
f
AND
INTERPRETATION
SECTION ,nncr
core
SYNTHESIS Whde
f
,sklnd
t 1
Phase 1: Derivation
qfthe
task
Step I: analysis of the role of resources for activities
Environmental threats are identified by completing a matrix in live steps (see Fig. 3 ). The role of natural and man-made resources and the side effects of activities are compiled, then the sensitivity of resources and possible consequences of development are derived. The final analysis of conflict between activities assists in defining preferred areas for activities and facilities. The matrix for the Capricornia Section was developed using data gathered for the Northwest (Kozlowski et al., 1986, pp. 6061 ) and Heron applications (Rosier et al., 1986, matrix unpublished). The information
territorial
UETs
Territorial UETs are determined by various degrees of “uniqueness”, “resistance” and “transformation”, of the key natural resources in the study area, which are described according to the following criteria. - Uniqueness can be determined by the frequency of occurrence of a given natural environmental element or, more often, of its particular components within a whole country or in particular regions. The spatial differentiations of this occurrence are characterized by three classes: “unique”, “rare” and “common”. - Resistance of a given environmental element to damage from specific forms of tourist activities is evident in its ability both to withstand negative effects and to self-regenerate, with the help of natural forces, allowing this element to return to its previous state. It is essential to note, firstly, that each component may have a different degree of resistance to damage at a different time (of the year, month or day) and from different causes and, secondly, that the very location of this component affects the increase or decrease in the degree of its resistance. - Transformation indicates how far any given environmental elements or their components have changed as compared with the original state, that is, the state in which self-regulating
331 RESOURCES OF THE GE0GRAt’t-W
ENVIRONMENT
USE OF RESOURCES
NATURALRESOURCES
Source: J. Kozlowski, Fig. 3. Analysis of relationships:
resources-activities,
a general guide.
natural mechanisms are working and the balance between biotic and abiotic factors is maintained. Three distinct degrees of transformation can be distinguished: “minimal”, “partial” and “total”. The last can be further subdivided into “reversible” and “irreversible”. Phase 3: interpretation and discussion
The results of Phase 2 are, in the form of exclusion zones, synthesised for interpretation and for the discussion of development implications. Further directions for research which are derived from this individual application are also included. APPLICATION GROUP
19%
IN THE CAPRICORN
The Capricorn group of islands lies between 20 and 35 km off the Queensland coast, northeast of Gladstone, the main port from which the islands are serviced. The islands are grouped around Heron Island which (because
it is the largest, permanently inhabited island) is the focal point of activity. Access to Heron is provided by shallow draught vessels, helicopters and sea plane services. Access to other islands is limited to an infrequent barge service for campers and boats with shallow draught. All islands are sand or shingle cays, located on platform reefs. The cays are small, ranging in size from North, the smallest at approximately 0.5 ha, to Northwest, the largest at approximately 95 ha. The geomorphological characteristics of the groups have been well documented by Flood (1977, 1981a, 1981b, Gourlay and Flood ( 1981) and Gourlay (1983); vegetation by Cribb ( 1969, 1975, 1979) and Heatwole ( 1984); and fauna by Hulsman ( 1984), Kikkawa ( 1982) and Limpus ( 1980). The Capricorn and the adjoining Bunker group of islands are in the Capricornia Section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park which extends for over 2000 km along the north-eastern coast of Australia up to Cape York (refer to Fig. 1). The group is an important seabird breeding site and is also a principle breeding area for the Green and Loggerhead
333
TRYON
MASTHEAD
MB1TB8
O?
200
400
Metres
0
100
200
!&tree
NORTH
LiiiPzz
INNER CORE
-- HIGH TIDE LINE 0
NORTHWEST
200
400
mtres
VEGETATION
LINE
~_ ~. _ __
Fig. 4. Generalized
vegetation zones
turtles (GBRC, 1977 ). Two islands are omitted from the analysis: Wreck Island, which is a principal nesting area for the Loggerhead turtle and is closed to public access and One Tree Island which supports a scientific research station. Although both are important, difficulties of access precludes their inclusion in the current study.
In this study the determination of territorial UETs is based on three major environmental elements: geomorphological structure, vegetation and fauna, which was further disaggregated so that each major seabird and turtle species nesting in the group could be assessed separately before being incorporated in the general analysis. Because of the number of is-
333
lands involved and their varying sizes, it is necessary to introduce a further means of integrating the UET results in an overall framework. This is done by subdividing the islands into parts common to all or some of the islands (Fig. 4). Thus, the islands are categorized according to their ability to support a stable “core” of vegetation, mainly Pisonia (Pisonia grandis) forest. Northwest, due to its size, has a central or “inner core”, characterized by larger Pisonia and other canopy trees developed to a height of approximately 30 m. The area of fringing or strand vegetation around the cays called “fringe” varies in width and vegetation type according to whether they are on the windward or leeward side of the island. New marginal areas are also included as fringe where they are colonized by grasses and Casuarina (Casuavina equisetifilia ), The smaller islands North, Erskine and Wilson are considered in their entirety as “Whole Islands” as they are dominated by fringing vegetation (refer to Fig. 4). For the purpose of this analysis it is assumed that the cay area is that portion of land which is above the high tide line, although it is acknowledged that the cay and its reef are one ecosystem (Kikkawa, 1982). Core
Masthead and Northwest Islands both support large, well-developed stands of Pisonia forest, the sizes of which are rare on Great Barrier Reef cays (GBRC, 1977). The core vegetation enhances stability of the islands and provides the main nesting areas for White Capped Noddies (Anous minutus) and Wedgetailed Shearwaters (Puffinus pacificus). Both islands may be considered to be “rare” in that Masthead, Heron and Northwest support 98% of the breeding population of Noddies and Masthead and Northwest support the principle colonies of Wedgetailed Shearwaters in eastern Australia (AERF, 1978; Hulsman, 1984). The density of Shearwater burrows also
means that the resistance to human intrusion is “low” because of the danger of collapsing burrows. On Northwest and Masthead in areas where the density exceeds 30 burrows 100 m-2 (M. Vanek, personal communication, 1984) resistance is “nil/minimal” as damage caused by human intrusion in the nesting season is inevitable and severe. Transformation has occurred where camping areas and footpaths have resulted in compaction of soil. However, it is reversible so affected areas may become suitable digging sites after a period of weathering. Inner core
Only Northwest Island has the well-developed inner forest. Some transformation has occurred in that the area has been partially mined for guano (Cribb, 1969). However the area differs from its surroundings in both soil and forest character. The area is classified as “unique” in that Northwest is the only island of sufficient width and size to protect a central forest. The area is classified as having “nil/ minimal” resistance because of its dependence on the outer core for protection (Cribb, 1969). Although the Pisonia forest is resilient and its ability to recover from storm damage is notable, little research has been carried out on the long-term impact of extensive clearing for other forms of development (Hatheway, 1953 ). Fringe
On Tryon, Masthead, Heron and Northwest, the most important element is geomorphological structure. The three largest cays are “rare” on the Great Barrier Reef because of their size. The variability of the margins of the islands due to seasonal movement as well as long-term change alters shape and orientation, thus resulting in the fringe being classified as having “nil/minimal” resistance to human interference. Heron Island is the only one which has undergone considerable transformation to
334
its geomorphological structure (Gourlay and Flood, 198 1 ). The fringe areas of Tryon and Masthead Islands and to a lesser degree Northwest are also “rare” in that they support important breeding colonies of various species of Tern (Sterna anuethetus, S. bergii, S. bengalensis and S. &ugallii). Hulsman ( 1984) and Lavery and Grimes ( 197 1 ) have both assigned values to the nesting sites to denote whether each cay is a principle or major colony on the basis of numbers of nesting birds. Resistance of the nesting colonies (including appropriate buffer zones) is considered to be “nil/minimal” due to their extreme sensitivity to human disturbance (Hulsman, 1984). This is particularly the case on the islands used for camping where human activities and generator noise is greatest in the nesting season (Walker, 1985 ). Because of its importance as one of four major nesting sites in north-eastern Australia for the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas), the fringe area of Northwest is classified as “unique”. The nesting areas of Masthead and Heron are con-
sidered “rare” because of their secondary role in what is really an island system of nesting areas. Resistance to human disturbance is “low” and transformation is judged to be “total” where camp sites are located. In other areas transformation is partial due to interruptions to nesting caused by buried rubbish and direct human intervention. Whole islands North and Wilson islands are considered to be “unique” in that they support the “most significant colonies” of the Roseate Tern (5’. dougallii) and the Crested Tern (S. bergii) (Hulsman, 1984; Lavery and Grimes, 197 1). Erskine Island is rated as “rare” because it supports a “major” colony of the Roseate Tern. Resistance is “nil/minimum”, particularly as the Roseate Tern is extremely sensitive to disturbance and no longer nests on larger inhabited or semi-inhabited islands where humans are active. Because visits to smaller islands are infrequent (e.g. Wilson Island is a site for
TABLE I Summary of exclusion zones Island North
Erskine
Wilson
Fringe
Masthead
Heron
Northwest
Geo/struct rare Terns unique
Geo/struct rare Terns unique
Geo/struct rare
Geo/struct rare Terns rare
Wt. Shearwater rare
Core
Wt. Shearwater rare/unique Vegetation unique
Inner core
Whole island
Tryon
Terns unique
Terns rare
Terns unique
The three major environmental elements determining UETs are: ( 1 ) Geomorphological structure (geo/struct) (2) Vegetation (3) Fauna subdivided into four types: White Capped Noddies ( WCN ), Wedgetailed Shearwaters (Wt. Shear-water), turtles (turtle ), terns (terns). In the areas defined as exclusion zones all elements included have nil/minimal resistance. Transformation on all islands except Heron is considered to be negligible or reversible. Therefore it is not a factor determining UETs in this application.
335
picnics organized by the Heron Island Resort and North Island is visited by lighthouse inspectors and some yachtsmen), transformation is judged to be “nil/minimal”. Exclusion zones
From the analysis it is determined that UETs occur where any of the environmental elements have “nil/minimal” resistance and are “rare” or “unique”. Those areas contained within the UET are considered as exclusion zones. Table I provides a summary of exclusion zones on all islands considered. DISCUSSION The analysis indicates that more detailed assessment of spatial allocation of development on a group of islands, which is the first of the two problems outlined initially, can be successfully addressed by the UET method. From the interpretation of its results it can be seen that the whole of the smaller islands and the fringe and core forests on the major islands contain one or more important environmental elements which are particularly sensitive to human disturbance. This knowledge is also essential to ensure sustainability of development which is the second problem of major concern. It must be noted, however, that a decision regarding the degree to which these areas are exploited would need to be supported by assessment of activities/facilities of individual elements (normally done by referring to matrix) and by further assessment of quantitative and temporal thresholds. These thresholds may change the nature of areas judged to be exclusion zones. For example, visitors to small islands may be prohibited during the nesting season for terns, thus converting an exclusion zone into a temporal restriction. However, the construction of facilities in the fringe areas and on smaller islands would have to be prohibited on the basis that geomorphological variability of
the exclusion zone is a permanent feature and may not be altered to a temporal or quantitative restriction. Other management practices may alter exclusion zones. For example, the construction of a boardwalk over the Shearwater nesting area may permit restricted usage by walkers; however clearing of vegetation and construction of facilities would remain prohibited. Two major conclusions may be drawn concerning a general applicability of the method to the marine environments. First, the method works in its simple form to derive territorial UETs and it is applicable to one island or to a group after some adjustments. Second, further research is required to reline the method and to remove its most obvious shortcomings. The directions for research derived from the problems encountered in completing the current study are the following. (a) The matrix analysing the relationship between activities/facilities and resources becomes unmanageable as the lists increase. The application of computer graphics in more complex ecological systems would be essential. (b) There needs to be further development of the means of dealing empirically with the identification of quantitative, qualitative and temporal dimensions. In the Capricorn Group the lack of data is the main obstacle which prohibits more in-depth analysis. However, it is suspected that this is a common problem in planning for sustainable development of areas with high natural resource values. Most certainly empirical research in this respect is urgently needed. (c) Further development of the theoretical base is required to adequately clarify definitions and process. For example, the definition of the Ultimate Environmental Threshold itself requires clarification in that it is applicable over four dimensions, each of which covers different aspects of the natural resource base. Finally, the most important development of the method (within the context of the whole planning process) should be to increase its usefulness as a base for other methods which
336
may deal more specifically with the suitability of the resource base for certain types of development. Siro-Plan and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum are two such methods which appear to be able to be used in conjunction with the UET method. A guide should also be developed to permit wider dissemination of the method and to enable its wider testing in the field. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The article presents results of a research project funded by the Social Science Research Grant of the University of Queensland. The authors also acknowledge the contribution of Mr. Hugh Stewart-Killick for cartographic work and Mrs. Penny Carrick for typing the paper. REFERENCES Australian Environmental Research Foundation Pty. Ltd. (AERF). 1978. The Offshore Islands of Queensland. Migratory Birds and their Habitats in Australia. Part II. Vol. 1. pp. 5-6. Cribb, A.B., 1969. Notes on the North West Expedition (various articles). Queensl. Nat., 19: 82-l 14. Cribb, A.B.. 1975. Notes on Masthead Expedition (various articles). Queens]. Nat., 21: 65-83. Cribb. A.B.. 1979. Notes on Tyon Excursion (various articles). Queensl. Nat., 22: 112-l 39. Flood. P.G., 1977. Coral cays of the Capricorn and Bunker Groups, Great Barrier Reef Province, Australia. Atoll Res. Bull.. 195: l-23. Flood, P.G.. 198 la. A Record of the shoreline changes to 1980 on cays of the Capricorn Group, Southern Great Barrier Reef Australia. Report to GBRMPA, Townsville, 50 pp. Flood, P.G.. I98 1b. Variability of shoreline position on five uninhabited islands of the Capricornia Section, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Report to GBRMPA, Townsville. 20 pp.
Gourlay, M.. 1983. Accretion and erosion of coral cays and some consequent implications for the management of marine parks, In: Proceedings of the Inaugural Great Barrier Reef Conference. Townsville 1983. J.C.U. Press. pp. 475482. Gourlay. M.R. and Flood. P.G.. 198 1. Impact of coastal engineering upon a coral cay: Heron Island. Institute of Engineers. National Conference, No. 6/8 I. pp. 159-l 63. Great Barrier Reef Committee. 1977. Conservation and use of the Capricorn and Bunker groups of islands and coral reefs. Report to the Queensland State Government. 33 pp. Hatheway. W.H.. 1953. The land vegetation of Arno 4toll. Marshall Islands. .4toll. Res. Bull.. 1952-53. No. 16. Heatwole. H.. 1984. Terrestrial vegetation of the coral cays. Capricornia Section Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. In: The Capricornia Section of the Great Barrier Reef Past, Present and Future. Royal Society of Queensland, pp. 87140. Hulsman. K., 1984. Survey of seabird colonies in the Capricornia Section of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Report to GBRMPA, Townsville, 38 pp. IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources), 1980. World Conservation Strategy. Gland: IUCN-UNEP-WWF. Kikkawa, J.. 1982. The birds of the Great Barrier Reef. In: GA. Jones and R. Endean (Editors), Biology and Geology of Coral Reefs. Vol. 3. Biology 2. Academic Press. London. pp. 279-34 I Kozlowski, J., 1985. Threshold approach in environmental planning. Ekistics. 3 I 1: 146-l 53. Kozlowski, J.. Hill, Cr. and Rosier. J., 1986. Planning with the Environment. LJniversity of Queensland Press, Brisbane. 82 pp. Lavery, H.J. and Grimes, R.J.. I97 1. Seabirds of the Great Barrier Reef. Queensl. Agric. J., 97: 106-l 13. Limpus, C.J.. 1980. The Green Turtle, C‘hdoniu nq&s (L) in eastern Australia. In: Management of Turtle Resources. Proceedings of a Seminar. James Cook University. Townsville 28.6.79, pp. 5-22. QNPWS, 1983. Heron Island Management Plan. QNPWS, 45 PP. Rosier, J.. Hill. G. and Kozlowski. J.. 1986. Environmental limitations: a framework for development on Heron Island, Great Barrier Reef. J. Environ. Manage.. 23: 59-73. Walker, T., 1985. Survey of Campers on the Capricorn and Bunker Islands. QNPWS Report, Queensland, 16 pp.