Tackling communication and analytical problems in environmental planning: Expert assessment of key definitions and their relationships.

Inadequate definition of key terms and their relationships generates significant communication and analytical problems in environmental planning. In this work, we evaluate an ontological framework for environmental planning designed to combat these problems. After outlining the framework and issues addressed, we describe its evaluation by a group of experts representing a range of expertise and institutions. Experts rated their level of agreement with 12 propositions concerning the definitions and models underpinning the framework. These propositions, in turn, were used to assess three assumptions regarding the expected effectiveness of the framework and its contribution to addressing the abovementioned planning problems. In addition to point-based best estimates of their agreement with propositions, expert ratings were also captured on a continuous interval-valued scale. The use of intervals addresses the challenge of measuring and modelling uncertainty associated with complex assessments such as those provided by experts. Combined with written anonymous expert comments, these data provide multiple perspectives on the level of support for the approach. We conclude that the framework can complement existing planning approaches and strengthen key definitions and related models, thus helping avoid communication and analytical problems in environmental planning. Finally, experts highlighted areas that require further development, and we provide recommendations for improving the framework.

Social preferences for the design of biodiversity offsets for shorebirds in Australia.

Understanding the social acceptability of biodiversity offsets is important to the design of offset policy. We used a discrete choice experiment to quantify preferences of Australians for a migratory shorebird offset in the context of an oil and gas development project. We surveyed a nationally representative sample of 1371 respondents on their preferences for current and prospective offset-policy characteristics via an online questionnaire to inform policy design of the social dimensions related to offset acceptability. The majority of respondents accepted offsetting as a means to allow economic development; the option to reject development (and an offset) was selected in 13% of possible offset scenarios. Substituting protection of a species affected by the development with protection of a more endangered species was a desirable policy characteristic, as was having the offset implemented by a third party or the government rather than the company responsible for the development. Direct offset activities (e.g., improving degraded habitat) were preferred over indirect activities (e.g., a research program), and respondents were strongly against locating the offset at a site other than where the impact occurred. Positive and negative characteristics of offsets could be traded off by changing the number of birds protected by the offset. Our results show that Australians are likely to support increased flexibility in biodiversity-offset policies, particularly when undesirable policy characteristics are compensated for.

Current extent and future opportunities for living shorelines in Australia.

Living shorelines aim to enhance the resilience of coastlines to hazards while simultaneously delivering co-benefits such as carbon sequestration. Despite the potential ecological and socio-economic benefits of living shorelines over conventional engineered coastal protection structures, application is limited globally. Australia has a long and diverse coastline that provides prime opportunities for living shorelines using beaches and dunes, vegetation, and biogenic reefs, which may be either natural ('soft' approach) or with an engineered structural component ('hybrid' approach). Published scientific studies, however, have indicated limited use of living shorelines for coastal protection in Australia. In response, we combined a national survey and interviews of coastal practitioners and a grey and peer-reviewed literature search to (1) identify barriers to living shoreline implementation; and (2) create a database of living shoreline projects in Australia based on sources other than scientific literature. Projects included were those that had either a primary or secondary goal of protection of coastal assets from erosion and/or flooding. We identified 138 living shoreline projects in Australia through the means sampled starting in 1970; with the number of projects increasing through time particularly since 2000. Over half of the total projects (59 %) were considered to be successful according to their initial stated objective (i.e., reducing hazard risk) and 18 % of projects could not be assessed for their success based on the information available. Seventy percent of projects received formal or informal monitoring. Even in the absence of peer-reviewed support for living shoreline construction in Australia, we discovered local and regional increases in their use. This suggests that coastal practitioners are learning on-the-ground, however more generally it was stated that few examples of living shorelines are being made available, suggesting a barrier in information sharing among agencies at a broader scale. A database of living shoreline projects can increase knowledge among practitioners globally to develop best practice that informs technical guidelines for different approaches and helps focus attention on areas for further research.