River Health Auditing

Just this week the federal government released its River Health Audit. Out of the 23 river valleys listed, only one is gets a positive tick. The quality of other major rivers in Australia is deemed 'poor' and 'very poor' - 13 river systems are described as 'very poor'.

The government's first solution is to blame the previous government while allocating $3.1 billion to buy back water towards restoring the health of the waterways. Buy back water?

The bigger issue of combatting climate change is also part of the restoration program - but there was no discussion of how this is to be achieved. With less rain, reduced water flow, lowered water quality, and a demand for irrigation, what is the future for these wild rivers?

River water is valuable - so valuable in fact that it is sold off. This means that for the river itself, and the ecosystem services that depend on a health water flow, are under threat from severe degradation.

River revival projects are underway all over the country. What is crucial about these projects is support from local residents and water users. Ecological and scientific experts are working with the community, first gauging knowledges the community holds about the riverine ecosystem, their attitudes towards the stakeholder engagement process, and the values held about the river and river environment quality.

Important in this process is an understanding of community values on issues such as aesthetics, water quality, recreational amenity, pollution, riverbank health, native vegetation and wildlife. For example, a study of river attitudes about restoration on the Cooks River in NSW by Andrews and Smith (2006) found that the community was generally aware of the link between the presence of vegetation and river health and most understood the connection between dense vegetation and river quality when compared to more open space river surroundings.

The study also showed that residents thought that native vegetation along the river added to the river's beauty in comparison to their attitudes about 'enhancing the ecology of the place'. And of interest to Brisbane River environs, the study found that while most residents held a positive attitude towards the recolonisation of mangroves along the river, others were 'displeased' about loss of view and river access due to the dense growth.

Reference
Andrews V and L Smith, 2006, A community-based survey: the knowledge and attitudes towards urban biodiversity
of the residents and users of the Cooks River Corridor, Final report for an Urban Ecology Project at the University of Technology Sydney, October 2006

A Field of Blue

Along the trail I meet Susan walking her black and white sheep dog. The first thing she remarks on is the quality of the sky, its clarity, its intensity and its depth of colour. The seasons are changing. Mornings are cooler and the cloying humidity has dropped.

In the summer months Brisbane is bathed in a sweltering humidity which covers the city in a sheer film of water vapour that seems to dull or blur the colours of nature.

As the Kookaburras call in the background, Susan remarks on the refreshing cooling breeze. It's been quite a while since tufts of wind have murmured across the trees and rippled the usually smooth smooth river. 'But,' she says, 'it's so dry.' I agree. I'd been lying on the tough yellowing grass taking pictures of the sky and saw how sparse the grass was becoming. It was as if the drought had not really gone away but had just been hiding during the few wet weeks. Now it was back and the plants had begun to suffer. And Susan had noticed.

So I began to wonder - what makes someone aware and observant about the river's ecoclimate? And could this awareness be translated in any way to river care?

To help me answer these questions I turn to Helen Dunn's article 'Defining the ecological values of rivers: the views of Australian river scientists and managers' (2004). She recommends that the first step towards protecting a river is 'to define the particular values and attributes that describe [its] conservation significance' (413). Dunn surveyed river scientists and found, perhaps not surprisingly, that what they valued about rivers was their naturalness, rarity and diversity of ecosystems and endemic species.

Rivers valued for their naturalness such as wild rivers or rivers in remote areas are considered a high priority for conservation although Dunn's respondents did mention the significance of pockets of the wild as ecological value in already 'disturbed rivers'. They also noted 'the role of rivers in providing corridors for dispersal and migration, and refuges in times of drought'. Dunn mentions that in the past rivers have been protected because of their high scenic value and their wildness but her survey pointed to current emphasis on the importance of ecological and conservation values of river systems.

Other studies outline that the vital values influencing river conservation are recreational, cultural, economic, social and environmental. According to the Victorian Department of Natural Resources and Environment (2002), rivers are valued for their 'assets' including 'environmental assets' such as rare species, sites of significance, naturalness, health; 'economic assets' which relate water supply and industry's reliance on river health; and 'social assets' such as sites for recreation and those of special significance for indigenous and European (only?) cultures.

So what does the Brisbane River offer by way of values, especially in the urban area? A paper by Lauren Schroeder (2002) about the values arising from the restoration of the Mahoning River Watershed in the US sheds a different light on definitions of conservation values. Schroeder defines river values in more socially engaged terms. These relate to the benefits that future generations will enjoy from a fully restored river, to residents' increased quality of life, and to the pride residents will feel by living near 'a restored, beautiful river'.

She surmises that these values are likely to engender a sense of social wellbeing manifest in a greater sense of 'social cohesion, social conscience and self-esteem'. She suspects that these outcomes could lead to a reduction in crime and a rise in work performance and productivity. She agrees it's hard to assess these values in monetary terms but says this shouldn't be a reason not to seriously consider social impacts and beneficial outcomes. In fact she comments that the process of restoring the Mahoning River system 'invites' local citizens 'to speak with pride of the river as a symbol of beauty, and of how we care for our environment, how we value and care for our heritage may prove to be the most valuable asset that we have...'.

Studies on local rivers tend to focus on water quality, allocation and flow and not on the social impacts of these issues. But the Brisbane River is more than its scientific value; it is an interdependent network of people, places and natural amenity. Thus, to incorporate this concept of interconnectedness, studies on the ecological and economic value of the river system need to be expanded to embrace social and spiritual values.

References:
Dunn H, 2004, Defining the ecological values of rivers: the views of Australian river scientists and managers, Aquatic Conservation, Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 14, 4, 413–433.
Schroeder L, 2002, The Value of a River: How the Mahoning River’s Restoration Will Impact Our Quality of Life & Economic Vitality, http://www.ysu.edu/mahoning_river/Research%20Reports/river_value.htm

Ecologies of Care

Caring for the place where you live/love - how does that happen? Is the quality of caring something we only hold in the mind? Or does caring for place entail a practical engagement with that place? And does it involve a sense of responsibility and/or some kind of action to look after that place?

When I started this blog I knew little about this place, the original custodians of the land, the life of the colonists, and the changes that white settlement brought (and wrought). Learning about the historicity of this place has come about through meeting a local historian and other long-time residents along the trail, reading local histories, and peering through the undergrowth for signs of former riverbank uses - sugar cane farm, cattle raising, bird sanctuary, golf course, recreation - when there were swimming baths and sandy beaches along the river, when people used to live in boats moored to jetties, and when the river was clear and fishing abundant.

Caring for the river has encouraged this research and engagement. And I have learnt much from the river itself and the creatures who dwell here. The highlight was the flurry of Brahaminy Kites as they came, built their nest, laid eggs, hunted and watched over the river but the sadness as they were eventally chased away by a barrage of maurauding birds.

Each day there is something new to see and experience. Willie Wagtails shift location and their dancing flows with the river's tides. Red Wrens make way for their Blue cousins. Pardalotes dig their small tunnels into the muddy embankment and find home. Dozens of Cockatoos forage in the treetops. Black Ducks bark from their vantage point above in the Eucalypts. Sacred Kingfishers come and go. Each day another layer is peeled away; each day something more is revealed; this place is a veritable jewell of the Brisbane River.

And yet this vital natural corridor is under increasing pressure to change. The surrounding natural habitat, so essential for protecting water quality, is threatened especially by rapid development and the desire for water views. As a consequence, natural capital is displaced by other forms of capital.

When development is mooted local residents need to be consulted about how they perceive changes to the river valley and their views need to be taken into account. Caring needs to go both ways - so sustainable residential developments are created, ones which blend trees and natural amenity with eco-friendly construction.

Studies on how people perceive rivers and their preferences for particular riverscapes has shown they prefer rivers which curve and wind offering a sense of mystery and views through open trees (Levin, 1977 in Ryan, 1998). Another study found that the knowledge that 'nature' was present near to one's home was a strong indicator of residents' satisfaction (Talbot et al, 1987), while other research suggested people living near an 'unkempt creek' felt more affinity for a creek further away which was kempt and 'park-like' (Ryan, 1998: 226-227).

Robert Ryan (1998) surveyed residents in a rural region of the American midwest. And perhaps like here, they commented on the river's quality, pollution and the damage of agricultural runoff. One resident said: 'The river has been turned into a giant sewer, the farm pesticide and herbicide has killed most of the fish species, muskrats are non-existent. The amount of birdlife and habitat is way down.' (234).

Farmers and residents, long term and recent arrivals had differing perceptions about riverscapes and natural amenity with newly arrived folks being more attracted to local natural settings (the river and woods) than longer term residents who had more affinity with domesticated farmscapes (235).

When development threatens the river valley planners could take residents' values and perceptions into account. Robert Ryan says: 'Understanding how rural residents perceive river corridors ... is only half the battle. The more difficult task is for planners and local communities to develop plans which are senstitive to both human and environmental concerns (236).

Which brings me back to caring for place. If the Brisbane River valley is threatened by more and more development, to what extent are local people's perceptions canvassed? And if they care, and want to oppose habitat and river bank damage, will their caring voice be heard?

In contrast, where the public has been involved in consultation on river restoration, a UK study showed that local residents valued the river highly, used it increasingly, and attached great importance to the consultation and feedback process (Tunstall et al, 2000).

References:
Levin JE, 1977, Riverside Preference: On-site and Photographic Reactions, Unpublished Masters thesis, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Ryan RL, 1998, Local Perceptioins and Values for a Midwestern River Corridor, Landscape and Urban Planning, 42, 225-237.
Talbot JF, Bardwell LV, Kaplan R, 1987, The Function of Urban Nature: Uses and Values of Different Types of Urnam Nature Settings, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 4, 47-63.
Tunstall SM, Penning-Roswell EC, Tapsell SM and Eden SE, 2000, River Restoration: Public Attitudes and Expectations, JCIWEM, 14, 363-370.