Planning for biodiversity

Fallding, Martin

doi:10.1080/07293682.2004.9982389

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite the high conservation value of urban areas in Australia (Yencken and Wilkinson, 2000), systematic planning to identify land that will adequately represent species of concern is rarely undertaken at the strategic planning stage or at appropriate scales (Fallding, 2004). As a result, urban sprawl continues to lead to the loss of habitat, and populations of threatened species in many urban areas are facing extinction (Bekessy and Gordon, 2007).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…We demonstrated the use of Zonation with examples from the three stages of the development processes that occur in urban and peri-urban areas. These examples demonstrate how typical obstacles to protecting biodiversity in urban areas, such as timing and scale (Fallding, 2004), can potentially be addressed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…We have categorised these as strategic, rezoning, and development stages. Biodiversity values can be difficult to transpose and need to be considered at large scales (Briggs, 2001) and at the earliest possible juncture (Fallding, 2004). Therefore, it is especially important that biodiversity values are incorporated at the strategic planning stage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Integrating conservation planning and landuse planning in urban landscapes

Gordon

Simondson

White

et al. 2009

Landscape and Urban Planning

177

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Integrating conservation planning and landuse planning in urban landscapes

Gordon

Simondson

White

et al. 2009

Landscape and Urban Planning

177

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The method confers several advantages to the planning process. Firstly, it recognizes that the ecological foundations of a site are less portable than other considerations (Fallding, 2004). The modelling method provides a mechanism for making trade-offs in the least harmful way for biodiversity, incorporating the spatial distribution of biodiversity early on in development planning.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, its assembly would require an extended lead up period before the decision making process to ensure that seasonal detectability issues typical of grasslands are addressed (Garrard, Bekessy, & Wintle, 2008). In urban areas, biodiversity is routinely considered too late in the planning process when critical decisions about spatial arrangement of developments have already been made (Fallding, 2004). Identifying the minimum biodiversity data set required to make robust decisions for biodiversity conservation and analyzing of the impact of underlying uncertainty on the selection of priority areas for conservation in the peri-urban context will be the focus of further research.…”

Section: Scenariomentioning

confidence: 99%

Transparent planning for biodiversity and development in the urban fringe

Bekessy¹,

White²,

Gordon³

et al. 2012

Landscape and Urban Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

h i g h l i g h t sWe propose a method for embedding biodiversity planning in green-field development. We synthesize ecological and socio-economic data using spatial prioritization tools. Trade-offs between biodiversity and other development objectives are quantified. The analysis is conducted dynamically with visually compelling output. The method results in more transparent, efficient and democratic planning solutions. a b s t r a c tIn Australia, over 50% of threatened species occur within the urban fringe and accelerating urbanization is now a key threat. Biodiversity near and within urban areas brings much social benefit but its maintenance involves complex trade-offs between competing land uses. Urban design typically views biodiversity as a development constraint, not a value to be enhanced into the future. We argue that decisions could be more transparent and systematic and we demonstrate that efficient development solutions can be found that avoid areas important for biodiversity. We present a case study in the context of land use change across the city of Wyndham, a local Government west of Melbourne, Australia. We use reserve design tools in a novel way to identify priority development sites, based on a synthesis of ecological, social and economic data. Trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and other key development objectives and constraints (transport planning, flood risk and food production) are quantified. The analysis can be conducted dynamically with visually compelling output, facilitating more transparent, efficient and democratically derived urban planning solutions. We suggest that government agencies could adopt similar approaches to identify efficient planning solutions for both biodiversity and development in urban environments.

show abstract