Transparent planning for biodiversity and development in the urban fringe

• Published in: Landscape and urban planning 2012-11, Vol.108 (2-4), p.140-149
• Main Authors: Bekessy, Sarah Adine, White, Matt, Gordon, Ascelin, Moilanen, Atte, Mccarthy, Michael Andrew, Wintle, Brendan Anthony
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Animal, plant and microbial ecology; Applied ecology; Basalt plains grassland; Biological and medical sciences; Conservation planning; Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife; Development planning; Environment and sustainable development; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; General aspects; Reserve selection; Urban biodiversity; ZONATION
• ISSN: 0169-2046; 1872-6062
• DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.09.001

► We 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. In 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.