Building blue infrastructure: assessing the key environmental issues and priority areas for ecological engineering initiatives in Australia's metropolitan embayments

E. M. A. Strain, R. L. Morris, M. J. Bishop, E. Tanner, P. Steinberg, S. E. Swearer, C. MacLeod, K. A. Alexander

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Ecological engineering principles are increasingly being applied to develop multifunctional artificial structures or rehabilitated habitats in coastal areas. Ecological engineering initiatives are primarily driven by marine scientists and coastal managers, but often the views of key user groups, which can strongly influence the success of projects, are not considered. We used an online survey and participatory mapping exercise to investigate differences in priority goals, sites and attitudes towards ecological engineering between marine scientists and coastal managers as compared to other stakeholders. The surveys were conducted across three Australian cities that varied in their level of urbanisation and environmental pressures. We tested the hypotheses that, relative to other stakeholders, marine scientists and coastal managers will: 1) be more supportive of ecological engineering; 2) be more likely to agree that enhancement of biodiversity and remediation of pollution are key priorities for ecological engineering; and 3) identify different priority areas and infrastructure or degraded habitats for ecological engineering. We also tested the hypothesis that 4) perceptions of ecological engineering would vary among locations, due to environmental and socio-economic differences. In all three harbours, marine scientists and coastal managers were more supportive of ecological engineering than other users. There was also greater support for ecological engineering in Sydney and Melbourne than Hobart. Most people identified transport infrastructure, in busy transport hubs (i.e. Circular Quay in Sydney, the Port in Melbourne and the Waterfront in Hobart) as priorities for ecological engineering, irrespective of their stakeholder group or location. There were, however, significant differences among locations in what people perceive as the key priorities for ecological engineering (i.e. biodiversity in Sydney and Melbourne vs. pollution in Hobart). Greater consideration of these location-specific differences is essential for effective management of artificial structures and rehabilitated habitats in urban embayments.

LanguageEnglish
Pages488-496
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Environmental Management
Volume230
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 15 Jan 2019

Fingerprint

ecological engineering
environmental issue
infrastructure
Managers
Biodiversity
stakeholder
Pollution
habitat
environmental priority
Marine engineering
biodiversity
quay
pollution
Ports and harbors
Remediation
environmental economics
urbanization
harbor
remediation

Cite this

Strain, E. M. A. ; Morris, R. L. ; Bishop, M. J. ; Tanner, E. ; Steinberg, P. ; Swearer, S. E. ; MacLeod, C. ; Alexander, K. A. / Building blue infrastructure : assessing the key environmental issues and priority areas for ecological engineering initiatives in Australia's metropolitan embayments. In: Journal of Environmental Management. 2019 ; Vol. 230. pp. 488-496.
@article{275edd9f522f4c8a8f3d7717ed786fb0,
title = "Building blue infrastructure: assessing the key environmental issues and priority areas for ecological engineering initiatives in Australia's metropolitan embayments",
abstract = "Ecological engineering principles are increasingly being applied to develop multifunctional artificial structures or rehabilitated habitats in coastal areas. Ecological engineering initiatives are primarily driven by marine scientists and coastal managers, but often the views of key user groups, which can strongly influence the success of projects, are not considered. We used an online survey and participatory mapping exercise to investigate differences in priority goals, sites and attitudes towards ecological engineering between marine scientists and coastal managers as compared to other stakeholders. The surveys were conducted across three Australian cities that varied in their level of urbanisation and environmental pressures. We tested the hypotheses that, relative to other stakeholders, marine scientists and coastal managers will: 1) be more supportive of ecological engineering; 2) be more likely to agree that enhancement of biodiversity and remediation of pollution are key priorities for ecological engineering; and 3) identify different priority areas and infrastructure or degraded habitats for ecological engineering. We also tested the hypothesis that 4) perceptions of ecological engineering would vary among locations, due to environmental and socio-economic differences. In all three harbours, marine scientists and coastal managers were more supportive of ecological engineering than other users. There was also greater support for ecological engineering in Sydney and Melbourne than Hobart. Most people identified transport infrastructure, in busy transport hubs (i.e. Circular Quay in Sydney, the Port in Melbourne and the Waterfront in Hobart) as priorities for ecological engineering, irrespective of their stakeholder group or location. There were, however, significant differences among locations in what people perceive as the key priorities for ecological engineering (i.e. biodiversity in Sydney and Melbourne vs. pollution in Hobart). Greater consideration of these location-specific differences is essential for effective management of artificial structures and rehabilitated habitats in urban embayments.",
keywords = "marine urban development, eco-engineering, spatial planning, artificial structures, coastal and marine habitats",
author = "Strain, {E. M. A.} and Morris, {R. L.} and Bishop, {M. J.} and E. Tanner and P. Steinberg and Swearer, {S. E.} and C. MacLeod and Alexander, {K. A.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.047",
language = "English",
volume = "230",
pages = "488--496",
journal = "Journal of Environmental Management",
issn = "0301-4797",
publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Building blue infrastructure : assessing the key environmental issues and priority areas for ecological engineering initiatives in Australia's metropolitan embayments. / Strain, E. M. A.; Morris, R. L.; Bishop, M. J.; Tanner, E.; Steinberg, P.; Swearer, S. E.; MacLeod, C.; Alexander, K. A.

In: Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 230, 15.01.2019, p. 488-496.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Building blue infrastructure

T2 - Journal of Environmental Management

AU - Strain,E. M. A.

AU - Morris,R. L.

AU - Bishop,M. J.

AU - Tanner,E.

AU - Steinberg,P.

AU - Swearer,S. E.

AU - MacLeod,C.

AU - Alexander,K. A.

PY - 2019/1/15

Y1 - 2019/1/15

N2 - Ecological engineering principles are increasingly being applied to develop multifunctional artificial structures or rehabilitated habitats in coastal areas. Ecological engineering initiatives are primarily driven by marine scientists and coastal managers, but often the views of key user groups, which can strongly influence the success of projects, are not considered. We used an online survey and participatory mapping exercise to investigate differences in priority goals, sites and attitudes towards ecological engineering between marine scientists and coastal managers as compared to other stakeholders. The surveys were conducted across three Australian cities that varied in their level of urbanisation and environmental pressures. We tested the hypotheses that, relative to other stakeholders, marine scientists and coastal managers will: 1) be more supportive of ecological engineering; 2) be more likely to agree that enhancement of biodiversity and remediation of pollution are key priorities for ecological engineering; and 3) identify different priority areas and infrastructure or degraded habitats for ecological engineering. We also tested the hypothesis that 4) perceptions of ecological engineering would vary among locations, due to environmental and socio-economic differences. In all three harbours, marine scientists and coastal managers were more supportive of ecological engineering than other users. There was also greater support for ecological engineering in Sydney and Melbourne than Hobart. Most people identified transport infrastructure, in busy transport hubs (i.e. Circular Quay in Sydney, the Port in Melbourne and the Waterfront in Hobart) as priorities for ecological engineering, irrespective of their stakeholder group or location. There were, however, significant differences among locations in what people perceive as the key priorities for ecological engineering (i.e. biodiversity in Sydney and Melbourne vs. pollution in Hobart). Greater consideration of these location-specific differences is essential for effective management of artificial structures and rehabilitated habitats in urban embayments.

AB - Ecological engineering principles are increasingly being applied to develop multifunctional artificial structures or rehabilitated habitats in coastal areas. Ecological engineering initiatives are primarily driven by marine scientists and coastal managers, but often the views of key user groups, which can strongly influence the success of projects, are not considered. We used an online survey and participatory mapping exercise to investigate differences in priority goals, sites and attitudes towards ecological engineering between marine scientists and coastal managers as compared to other stakeholders. The surveys were conducted across three Australian cities that varied in their level of urbanisation and environmental pressures. We tested the hypotheses that, relative to other stakeholders, marine scientists and coastal managers will: 1) be more supportive of ecological engineering; 2) be more likely to agree that enhancement of biodiversity and remediation of pollution are key priorities for ecological engineering; and 3) identify different priority areas and infrastructure or degraded habitats for ecological engineering. We also tested the hypothesis that 4) perceptions of ecological engineering would vary among locations, due to environmental and socio-economic differences. In all three harbours, marine scientists and coastal managers were more supportive of ecological engineering than other users. There was also greater support for ecological engineering in Sydney and Melbourne than Hobart. Most people identified transport infrastructure, in busy transport hubs (i.e. Circular Quay in Sydney, the Port in Melbourne and the Waterfront in Hobart) as priorities for ecological engineering, irrespective of their stakeholder group or location. There were, however, significant differences among locations in what people perceive as the key priorities for ecological engineering (i.e. biodiversity in Sydney and Melbourne vs. pollution in Hobart). Greater consideration of these location-specific differences is essential for effective management of artificial structures and rehabilitated habitats in urban embayments.

KW - marine urban development

KW - eco-engineering

KW - spatial planning

KW - artificial structures

KW - coastal and marine habitats

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85055914196&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.047

DO - 10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.09.047

M3 - Article

VL - 230

SP - 488

EP - 496

JO - Journal of Environmental Management

JF - Journal of Environmental Management

SN - 0301-4797

ER -