Conservation and development tug-of-war: The Australian government vetoes plans for the port of Tounda
In April 2024, the Australian government announced its rejection of the Toondah port development plan. Behind this decision are important issues of environmental protection and international conventions, as well as how to strike a balance between development and protection. Originally a sand mining industrial barge terminal, the port of Tuenda was once planned for a major renovation to include commercial facilities such as apartments, hotels and retail outlets (Figures 1-3).
Fig.1 Port of Tuenda before development
Fig.2 The proposed development plan involves land reclamation (rendering)
Figure 3 Proposed port development plan for Tuenda including apartments and retail facilities (rendering)
However, the port of Tuenda is located within the Ramsar Protected Area under the Ramsar Convention, which protects wetlands that are the migratory habitat of many migratory birds, including the endangered bar-tailed godw (Figure 4). Environmental groups and the public have reacted strongly to the Tuenda port development plan, questioning and protesting concerns about its damage to the local ecology and the migratory habitat of migratory birds. In the face of opposition from the public and environmental groups, the Australian government ultimately rejected the plan for the port of Tounda.
Fig.4 The Bar-tailed Godwit is one of the most important migratory birds in the port area of Tuenda, Queensland
The Australian government said the project could have unacceptable impacts on endangered birds and other wildlife, in violation of Australian environmental protection and biodiversity laws and the Ramsar Convention. Australia is a signatory to the Ramsar Convention, an international treaty that aims to protect wetlands of global importance. There are 67 Ramsar sites in Australia so far, and in the past, large development projects in protected areas have been largely rejected. Despite this, the Australian government has also said that it will strengthen communication and coordination with all parties to jointly find feasible solutions that balance the interests of developers, local residents and environmental groups.
Information sources:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-21/qcat-rulling-means-toondah-harbour-document-to-stay-secret/100081612;https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2024-04-22/developers-keep-trying-to-build-in-australian-wetlands-toondah/103312736;https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-10-12/toondah-harbour-environmental-impact-statement-moreton-bay/101525966;https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-04-09/qld-plibersek-refuses-toondah-harbour-wetland/103684674 Related Cases: Biodiversity Conservation Practices: (2) Melbourne Biodiversity Conservation Practices
Occupancy-proof design of urban public facilities: a controversy from Perth, Australia
In the planning and design of urban public space, planners and designers often adopt some unfriendly design or hostile architecture strategies for public service facilities. This anti-occupancy design deliberately discourages homeless people and other vulnerable people from staying overnight or staying in these areas for long periods of time by incorporating specific physical elements into public spaces, such as seats that are not suitable for long stays, sharp protrusions on the ground, etc. In Perth, Australia, this urban design strategy has sparked widespread controversy because they provide public safety and convenience while exposing vulnerable groups to unfair treatment (Figures 5–7).
Fig.5 On High Street in Perth, public seating is designed to make it difficult for vulnerable people to lie down
Figure 6 The image on the left, taken in March 2024, shows how the area around the trees outside the Perth train station has been repurposed to prevent people from sitting; In contrast, the picture on the right was taken in 2021, when people were still sitting by trees
Fig.7 The Perth government is deploying anti-occupancy designs to prevent homeless people from occupying seats
Shane Grieve, a lecturer in regional urban planning at Curtin University, and Kath Snell, chief executive of Shelter WA, a Western Australian non-profit that helps the homeless, pointed out that ways to improve the situation include redesigning public services to be more inclusive and humane, such as designing benches for sleeping and not activating sprinkler systems in parks where people sleep at night. Occupancy prevention design in urban public facilities may be a temporary response to some problems, but in the long run, more design strategies based on empathy and inclusion are needed to truly solve social problems, rather than simply shifting or hiding them. Urban planners and decision-makers should pay more attention to the impact of design on people, and strive to create an accessible and exclusion-free urban environment where everyone has a place to be. Perth's example shows us that the design of urban public spaces must strike a balance between ensuring public safety and protecting the vulnerable. UPI
Source: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-29/perth-councils-homeless-strategies-hostile-architecture/103630950 The above information is edited by Liang Luquan of the Australian station of this journal | Xu Mei typesetting | Gu Chunxue
This article was originally written by this subscription account