PaRC has retrieved a flyer for the Fourteenth National School in Park Management 16–21 February, 2014 from the archives. The course was run by the Melbourne School of Land & Environment (University of Melbourne) and the City of Melbourne. We would be delighted to hear from any presenter or participant who has held onto course notes that could be repackaged for a modern audience.
In 1994, an approach was received from IFPRA ‘s to produce essays for a proposed international book on parks and recreation. The correspondence from IFPRA and from Australia’s Commissioner Peter Harrison is here.
Draft articles by David Aldous (Management perspective on parks and recreational open space in Australia) and Peter Nicholls (Hobbies and leisure pursuits accommodated in Australian parks – 1994 view) are here. They are of historical interest as snapshots of professional thinking at the time.
This narrative has been edited from a draft written for an international audience in October 1994 by Peter Nicholls, Trustee of the AIPR Trust Fund-Education. The term “parks” refers to both urban and non-urban parks.
Background
Australia is approximately the same size as the United States of America but has a population of only around 17 million people. Yet it is one of the world’s most urbanised communities, with the large majority of its peoples living on the east coast and approximately half of the population living in just two cities – Sydney and Melbourne. Also, it has been traditional for the typical Australian family to live in a bungalow style of home with a front and back area of private open space. It is however increasingly common for people to prefer high density or medium density housing.
Australians have an image of being sun-bronzed and weathered people who prefer the ‘great outdoors’. The impression that kangaroos and koalas are commonplace sights in metropolitan areas of Australia is still widely held among people of the northern hemisphere. While it may be a fact that Australians are, in reality, highly urbanised and as highly diverse in their interests as the people of other nations, they do have an innate affiliation with the countryside. But it is a harsh and often unforgiving countryside (known to Australians as ‘the bush’ or the more remote areas ‘the outback’). Yet it is a countryside of unimaginable beauty, which draws people from all walks of life, Australians and overseas visitors alike.
These facts are important background knowledge to understand the Australian culture in relation to its use of parks for recreation and leisure pursuits.
Urban parks
The earliest settlers in Australia (after arrival of Indigenous peoples perhaps 60,000 years ago) were from Britain and Europe. They found great difficulty in coming to terms with the fact of Australia’s general dry and harsh climate. This difficulty was reflected in the fact that the settlers preferred to create something of the soft lush greenery of their homelands in their development of gardens and local public open space. The typical urban park has therefore traditionally been designed along the lines of the English or European park, with large areas of manicured turf, bordered by trees and flower beds. The American parks specialist, Seymour Gold, on a trip to one of Australia’s more congenial cities, Adelaide, was heard to remark that it was the ‘mowing capital of the world’.
Whereas the main uses of the traditional ‘English-style’ park have been sitting and contemplation, the more modern park better reflects the Australian culture both in its design and its usage. Australians are now coming to recognise their country for its own special form of beauty. This is increasingly evident in parks design with greater use of brown areas, drought resistant turfs and native flora.
The ways in which urban parks are used have diversified in parallel with a growing Australian appreciation of the wide range of available recreation opportunities. Organisations such as Life. Be In It (a highly successful Australia-wide program aimed at promoting the benefits of fitness and increased activity through a ‘soft sell’ approach) has done much to bring people out to their parks for unstructured family activities such as kite flying, ball games, walking, cycling, jogging and swimming. In particular, the phenomenon of seeing hundreds of people participating in ‘Life Games’ did much to give people a new appreciation of the joys of visiting their local park.
The use of parks for public festivals has also grown in popularity. Ethnic festivals, food and drink festivals, Australian adaptations of European festivals such as the German Scheutzenfest in Adelaide, open air orchestral concerts, Christmas Carols by Candlelight evenings and free public rock music concerts are just a few examples of how urban parks are being used throughout Australia.
A modern trend in park design has been the development of linear parks. These generally follow natural corridors such as rivers or creeks, or where the opportunity arises, disused railway reserves. Linear parks suit modern leisure trends in which people look to walking, cycling, jogging, roller skating and the like as enjoyable forms of activity. Linear parks provide a means of getting from one place to another, variety in surroundings and, where they follow a natural corridor, they stimulate the modern interest in understanding and enhancing the natural environment.
Linear parks are succeeding in bringing Australians out of their houses and private gardens and encouraging them to better know and understand their neighbourhood. Creeks are again becoming status symbols instead of eyesores to be concreted and filled. Bird watching and fishing along local waterways is an emerging neighbourhood activity. Indeed it is true to say that linear parks are proving to be valuable media for community development as people who are out walking seem far more inclined to say ‘hullo’ to each other.
Regrettably, modern trends are also resulting in an increasing public perception of urban parks as being places of danger because of a perceived increase in anti-social activities taking place in parks. Public toilets in parks are avoided (and often closed) for fear of confronting antisocial activities. Fear of muggings, stabbings or bashings, excessive drinking and drug-taking are other negative reputations of urban parks which cause the general population to avoid them, particularly after dark. There is general agreement among parks managers that these fears are more a matter of perception than fact but the impact on usage is strong.
Non-urban parks
Non-urban parks are managed by a variety of agencies, most of which are in the public sector. They include the national parks and wildlife service, woods and forests agencies, water management agencies, coastal management agencies, local councils and agencies generally responsible for unallotted public lands (known as Crown land). There are also large tracts of public land – usually in the more remote regions – leased for private farming and pastoralism but still sometimes open to public access, subject to conditions. (Conditions differ between the various state-based regimes).
Most Australians have a yearning to get away from the pressures of the city life from time to time and enjoy the attractions of the Australian countryside. These getaways vary in length and intensity from the popular family drive in the car and picnic in the nearby countryside to longer and more hazardous treks into the outback.
The distances that people travel into the countryside varies but is mostly limited to the need to be home before dark. Throughout hinterlands within 1-3 hours driving time of metropolitan areas, picnic areas are abundant. One study of visitor patterns at a popular rural picnic area showed that people tended to arrive from about 11 am and the area was constantly busy until about 3 pm. By 3.30 pm the area was all but deserted.
A characteristic of Australians is that, while they enjoy the sensation of ‘roughing it in the bush’ they prefer to do so within sight of the family car. Thus problems arise in creating the illusion of a rough bush setting while providing nearby car parking. This conflict also increases environmental damage as recreationists strive to enjoy the comforts of the car with a rustic experience.
The recreation opportunities sought by the ‘day tripper’ are many and varied with the most popular being simply to drive for pleasure, using picnic areas to stop for lunch and to allow the family to get some fresh air and exercise. Short walking trails (up to an hour’s duration) are popular and opportunities to see native wildlife in safe surroundings are a strong attraction. The ubiquitous shop selling ice cream and confectionery is further evidence of the popularity of parks which combine an outdoors experience with the comforts of home.
Parks near metropolitan areas often provide a range of urban recreation facilities such as tennis courts, playground equipment, barbecues, shelter sheds, sporting ovals and seating. There is an increasing tendency to charge an entry fee into these areas – a practice which is better accepted by the public if they believe that the money collected is being put directly back into the development of that area rather than into a general revenue fund.
Travel to a rural site where it is necessary to stay overnight or longer is also highly popular. Traditionally, Australian park management agencies have provided somewhat crude camping facilities in the belief that this is what the typical Australian camper is seeking. Agencies are now beginning to acknowledge a huge and growing market for rural experiences in good quality camping and caravanning sites and that users are prepared to pay for quality.
In more remote parks, the public seeks natural recreation experiences such as bushwalking, fishing, boating, sightseeing, bird watching, camping, viewing wildlife, nature studies and photography or painting. There is also a high demand for activities which are, to a greater or lesser degree, incompatible with the natural environment. These include trail horse-riding, car rallies, trailbike riding, power boating and offroad vehicle activities.
These latter activities highlight the fact that while the Australian countryside has a rugged image that people from other countries often perceive as being harsh– and unforgiving, some natural landscapes such as water frontages are quite fragile. Funding adequate to allow park managers to control (as unobtrusively as possible and notably through park design) for recreational and leisure use is essential.
National parks are of course intended to preserve and enhance the worthier natural areas of a country and are therefore highly appropriate destinations for the growing world demands for eco-tourism opportunities. In fact by world standards Australia is slow to capture its rightful share of the ecotourism market. Some specific localities are capturing the interest of overseas visitors, such as the Great Barrier Reef off the north Queensland coast and Ayers Rock (Uluru National Park) in Central Australia. Kakadu National Park of Crocodile Dundee fame is another area gaining overseas popularity. However the potential of so many other magnificent areas of Australia’s unique natural environment are still Australia’s best kept secrets in the world ecotourism market.
Conclusion
Parks – urban and non-urban – symbolise the Australian love of the outdoors. To date they have been developed in ways that have tended to reflect the perceived traditional purpose of parks as places to look at and meditate in. It is pleasing to see that modern parks managers are becoming increasingly aware of the fact that there is a huge untapped potential to develop ‘people purpose parks’ which not only cater for outdoor recreation needs but truly reflect Australian cultural values and leisure demands.
Dr Phil Day was a lawyer and planner with top-level expertise in decentralisation of urban development, land valuation and land value taxation. These fields of speciality are relevant to the securing of public open space in localities where residential development is expanding. A brief account of his career appears in Wikipedia.
This page is under construction. It will include an archive of Dr Day’s writings and records of the influence he has had in planning policy.
Miscellaneous speeches and articles – Volume 1.
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL BONUSES: WHY NOT? Phil Day and David Perkins 1984.
APPROACHING HIGH NOON? – on qualifications and education of planners. P.D. Day 1986.
TAXING LAND OR INCOMES? – P.D. Day three articles, c.1987.
Peter Nicholls, of Adelaide, a long-term Trustee of the AIPR Trust Fund-Education (forerunner of PaRC), has described himself as “Australia’s People Gardener”. His inspiring life story has been summarised in his “Manifesto“, a challenge to people enslaved by an economic worth ethic to substitute “life enjoyment” for “work” as their purpose in life.
Peter has made his updated Manifesto available to PaRC readers. Further details of Peter’s vision may be obtained from his website, https://australiaspeoplegardener.com.au/.
In the late 1990s, the planning profession in Australia became enthusiastic about performance-based planning, by which applicants for development were supposed to justify their projects in terms of satisfaction of idealised principles, as distinct from the prescriptive planning by which applicants hitherto were required to satisfy detailed or at least specified standards. Whether by design or as an unintended consequence, this shift has been beneficial to the property industry as it placed local government officers and public servants on the defensive in attempting to condition developments so that ample public space is brought into public ownership to cater for the needs of new residents.
Practice between local governments and between states has long been disparate. In Victoria, the legislation specified a minimum charge and some local governments used the provision to extract large tracts of open space. For example, the Shire of Sherbrooke negotiated sometimes as much as 90% open space contribution, in steep or fire-prone localities of the Dandenong Ranges (such as became the Selby Bushland Reserve). By contrast, in Queensland prior to 1997, legislation specified a maximum statutory charge, reflecting the state’s pro-development ethos.
In developing localities, it’s vital that sufficiently large corridors of land are reserved for public purposes and it’s particularly important that floodplains, wetlands and ridgelines be reserved from incompatible development and (in the case of watercourses) to allow space for soft engineering works to manage stormwater.
The Land Planning Branch of the Queensland Department of Natural Resources sought to draft some guidelines for planning officers in local governments and departmental staff in dealing with development applications. The intention was to provide an authoritative benchmark to fortify officers in negotiations with developers and even perhaps in court. Jeremy Addison, a qualified planner and an officer of the Department, produced a draft working paper that was not considered finalised and was not published by the Department. It is replete with references to the statutory planning and land tenure legislation in operation in Queensland in the late 1990s-early 2000s, after the passage of the (now superseded) Integrated Planning Act 1997. It is included here because there are few known similar guidelines in public circulation and so the paper has contemporary value beyond historical interest. Its shortcomings should not be attributed to Mr Addison.
The “Parkland Surrender” paper addresses how much land should be offered up for public purposes in new subdivisions like this site of a proposed estate at Caboolture West, South East Queensland.
Surrender by developers is not the only method and perhaps not the most effective method of securing public open space. Melbourne’s metropolitan parks system, including Petty’s demonstration orchard at Templestowe, was funded by a general “metropolitan improvement” rate.
Some notes
In Queensland, performance-based planning was introduced in the Integrated Planning Act 1997, modelled on the Resource Management Act of New Zealand, although without any provisions for allocating (privatising) state land or mineral assets.
Previous legislation had specified that land taken at subdivision was to be surrendered to the Crown and then (usually) reserved for public purposes with the local government being invited to serve as trustee. Local governments objected to this safety net provision which provided a brake against disposal of the parkland, because (they argued) it was easier to rationalise their park holdings and sell isolated pockets if held as freehold. Yes, small pockets of land are inherently more expensive to maintain than a comparable acreage added to a large district park, but they are serving a different clientele.
It has been argued that land surrendered at subdivision is a tax upon the future residents, so only land of benefit to them should be taken; in other words government has no right to levy developers on behalf of users in a regional or or remote catchment. However, subdivision is a privilege, not a right, and a district- or regional-scale surrender is appropriate, so long as the levy is for a public interest purpose and is permitted by the legislation. (The precise wording of the legislation is critical).
Invitation to planners and landscape designers
Critical feedback is invited from any person with survey or planning expertise and who would like to collaborate with PaRC in building the working paper Parkland Surrender at Time of Subdivision into a modern guideline applicable across Australia, New Zealand and Pacific Islands. Please contact parc@parcaustralia.com.au. PaRC would also like to know of other comparable current or historical guidelines that can be re-published here.
During the 1990s in Queensland, guidelines were developed by policy officers for management planning of broad acre State forests with the intention of achieving multiple (and sometimes conflicting) objectives. Championed by forestry officer Brett Waring, a comprehensive kit was developed and advocated around the State. Implementation suffered through repeated departmental restructures and downsizing of the staff in engaged in non-commercial forestry. This leaflet explains the process. The “Department of Natural Resources” attribution dates it to after the 1996 restructure of departments.
Natural areas are vital to the biodiversity of Australia’s unique flora and fauna and to its unique cultural identity. With the onset of climate change protection of these values has become even more important. With the loss of habitat from wildfires, tree clearing and drought, even small patches of bushland are valuable habitat for species of plants and animals. But throughout Australia, small patches of bushland are under continual and often severe threat from introduced species not native to the area.
The most common weeds found in bushland are known as environmental weeds. These weeds are usually spread from urban gardens close to parks and reserves via bird droppings, water and wind.
The concept of environmental weeds was not recognised until the 1970s. It took some years for authorities to recognise the danger of environmental weeds. Most government research and suppression was orientated to weeds of agriculture, so environmental weeds had many decades to smother vegetation e.g. Hedera helix (English Ivy) or to establish widely spread populations.
Most bush regenerators regard the benchmark condition as the vegetation as it existed prior to European colonisation. So species such as Pittosporum undulatum (Sweet Pittosporum) native to coastal New South Wales and eastern Victoria are regarded as environmental weeds in the ranges around Melbourne. Acacia baileyana (Cootamundra Wattle), indigenous to a small area of southern inland New South Wales is now self-propagating in widespread localities around eastern Australia.
Pioneering work
In 1967 a couple of sisters in New South Wales – Eileen and Joan Bradley – wrote a small publication named Weeds and Their Control. They had found that by clearing weeds from areas of good bushland, the indigenous plants were able to regenerate and out-compete the weeds. In 1988, Joan Bradley produced a larger publication named Bringing Back the Bush – The Bradley method of bush regeneration. The Bradleys preferred not to use any poison, but to physically remove the whole plant, that way insuring the plant would not re-grow.
In Victoria the modern era of bush regeneration was launched at a seminar sponsored by the City of Nunawading in 1980, organised by the late John Brandenberg. Pioneering fieldwork commenced in the Organ Pipes National Park (initiated by the Friends of the Organ Pipes in 1972) and in Sherbrooke Forest (initiated by the Friends of Sherbrooke Forest).
Special techniques
Some weeds require specialised control techniques. For example in some situations such as Wet Forest, the lower branches of Ilex aquifolium (Holly) layer and produce small trees surrounding the parent tree. It was found that just poisoning the parent tree would not kill the layered branches, so these branches had to be physically removed or poisoned separately. This also applies to any plant that produces layers.
The Bradley technique of physical removal is not practical for large trees. Evelyn Hickey from Save the Bush, a National Trust (NSW) innovation, developed the ‘drill and fill’ method for poisoning large trees and this is the preferred method used today. Full-strength glyphosate is used as the preferred poison.
Trees such Sweet Pittosporum require the poison to be evenly spread around the trunk, preferably close to the ground to kill the whole tree. Using the drill and fill method works better than frilling. Friends groups eventually obtained funding from government grants to purchase battery powered drills.
Plants in the Asteraceae family (Daisy) produce millions of wind carried seed, so should be controlled before they flower. Trees in the Aceaceae family (Maples) have winged seeds that can be carried some distance by the prevailing winds.
One of the most important activities in weed control is follow-up. Weeds that produce a viable berry can have seed stored in the soil for many years, so if not followed up will result in the area being colonised by weedy species once again. It is more rewarding for volunteers to make small achievements in bush restoration than to tackle areas too large to allow regular follow-up.
Friends groups
Friends groups have played a significant role in the control of these weeds. Friends groups had to learn by trial and error. They not only had to learn to recognise a weed, but had to learn how to differentiate them from the indigenous vegetation that grew in their park or reserve. Before commencing removal of environmental weeds a thorough botanical survey of the area must be carried out.
Today hundreds of volunteers working on bush restoration throughout Australia. It takes only a few individuals who are enthusiastic about a particular park or reserve to form a Friends group. Groups must obtain the permission of the authority in charge of managing the area.
Further reading
Freshwater, Vivien and Diane Ward. 1993. How to Restore and Manage Bushland on an Urban Block. Leaflet.
Muyt, Adam 2001. Bush Invaders of South-East Australia.
Blood, Kate 2001. Environmental Weeds – A Field Guide for SE Australia. CRC Weed Management Systems.
Bradley, Joan. 1988. Bringing Back the Bush – The Bradley Method of Bush Regeneration.
Friends of Sherbrooke Forest and Dept. of Conservation, Forests and Lands. 1989. Weeds of Forests, Roadsides and Gardens (15MB).
Shunting yards adjoining Roma St railway terminus, on the fringe of Brisbane’s CBD, were shunted out of this prime location and a political decision was taken to develop the vacant public land as a public park. Submissions were invited and reviewed by a steering committee convened by the Department of Public Works. This leaflet outlines the strategic intention and the submission process.
The Department of Natural Resources submitted an innovative proposal for a learning centre, called “Living Waters”. A copy of this report has surfaced from the cellars where government reports go after they have served their purpose at the time and will be attached. The submission did not find favour and the committee opted for a more traditional city park. The park subsequently won design awards.
As outlined in the post on World Urban Parks, IFPRA was established in May 1957, in London, UK, at 1st World Congress in Park Administration, as International Federation of Park Administration — Fédération internationale de l’administration de parcs. It ceased in April 2015 when it merged into World Urban Parks. This membership leaflet positions the organisation.
The aims of IFPRA were: “Unite at international level persons employed in horticultural and recreational services and public, provincial and communal administration; adopt internationally acceptable training and qualification standards; distribute information regarding the profession.”
The website of the Union of International Associations explains IFPRA’s organisational structure:
“General Assembly (at Congress) elect a Governing Commission, comprising elected officers, chairmen of each regional sector and one representative of each member nation. Executive Committee; General Secretary. Regional chapters: IFPRA Europe and IFPRA Asia Pacific; they produce their own congresses and publications.”
IFPRA Asia-Pacific was founded on 1 May 1989 at Greensboro, North Carolina, USA.
We will post more material on IFPRA as it emerges from the archives. Also see the Document Library and enter “IFPRA” for some IFPRA publications.
IFPRA Management Publication
In 1994, IFPRA conceived of a “Management publication” with the objectives as outlined in this correspondence. The archives have uncovered an article by eminent parks identity David Aldous, apparently an unedited first draft of a submission for the book.
IFPRA Administration
The minutes of the World Commission of IFPRA dated 2000 show that Dr David Aldous was world President.
