Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-n8gtw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-09T07:39:26.513Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Computer-based Method of Wilderness Evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 August 2009

Robert G. Lesslie ,
Brendan G. Mackey  and
Kathryn M. Preece
Robert G. Lesslie
Affiliation:
Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University, GP0 Box 4, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
Brendan G. Mackey
Affiliation:
Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, Australian National University, GP0 Box 4, Canberra ACT 2601, Australia
Kathryn M. Preece
Affiliation:
Arthur Rylah Institute for Environmental Research, Department of Conservation, Forests and Lands, Victoria, 123 Brown Street, Heidelberg, Victoria 3084, Australia.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

With ever-increasing demands being made on remote and natural lands, planners and managers require more detailed information than hitherto to assist them in monitoring the status of this wilderness resource and developing appropriate and effective management prescriptions. These requirements are addressed by a computer-based wilderness evaluation procedure that has been developed for a national wilderness survey of Australia.

The methodology, based on the wilderness continuum concept (Lesslie & Taylor, 1985), places emphasis on measuring variation in wilderness quality by using four indicators that represent the two essential attributes of remoteness and naturalness. This permits a precise assessment to be made of the wilderness resource, revealing those factors which contribute to or compromise wilderness quality. The computer-based storage and analysis of data enables surveys to be conducted over large, even continental, areas, yet at a relatively fine level of resolution that is appropriate to localized planning needs.

Trial application to the State of Victoria, Australia, demonstrates that the survey procedure can be successfully adapted to a wide range of environments, use-patterns, data-base characteristics, and management objectives, which should be applicable and very widely useful elsewhere.

Information

Type
Main Papers
Information
Environmental Conservation , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , Autumn 1988 , pp. 225 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation for Environmental Conservation 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Australia, Committee of Inquiry into the National Estate (1974). Report of the National Estate. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra ACT, Australia: 415 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Australia, Council of Nature Conservation Ministers (1986). Identification and Management of Wilderness Areas in Australia: A Report by the CONCOM Working Group on Management of National Parks. Department of Arts, Heritage and Environment, Canberra ACT, Australia: 7 pp.Google Scholar
Feller, M., Hooley, D., Dreher, T., East, I. & Jung, R. (1979). Wilderness in Victoria: An Inventory. Monash University Geography Department, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: ix + 84 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Hawes, M. & Heatley, D. (1985). Wilderness Assessment and Management. The Wilderness Society, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia: 31 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Helman, P.M., Jones, A.D., Pigram, J.J. & Smith, J.M. (1976). Wilderness in Australia: Eastern New South Wales and South-eastern Queensland. University of New England Geography Department, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia: 147 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, J.B. (1979). Hydroelectric Development and Wilderness in Tasmania. Tasmania Department of the Environment, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia: 31 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, J.B. & Haney, R.A. (1980). The quantification of developmental wilderness loss. Search, 11, pp. 331–5, illustr.Google Scholar
Lesslie, R.G. & Taylor, S.G. (1983). Wilderness in South Australia: An inventory of the State's relatively high-quality wilderness areas. Occ. Pap. University of Adelaide, Centre for Environmental Studies, 1, 87 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Lesslie, R.G. & Taylor, S.G. (1985). The wilderness continuum concept and its implications for wilderness preservation policy. Biological Conservation, 32, pp. 309–33, illustr.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lesslie, R.G., Mackey, B.G. & Preece, K.M. (1987). A Computer-based Methodology for the Survey of Wilderness in A ustralia. Unpublished report to the Australian Heritage Commission, Canberra ACT, Australia: 41 pp., illustr. (mimeogr.).Google Scholar
Messer, J. & Mosley, J.G. (1980). The Value of National Parks to the Community. Australian Conservation Foundation, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: 223 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Preece, K.M. & Lesslie, R.G. (1987). A Survey of Wilderness Quality in Victoria. Ministry for Planning and Environment, Victoria, and Australian Heritage Commission, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia: viii + 67 pp., illustr.Google Scholar
Russell, J.A., Matthews, J.H. & Jones, R. (1979). Wilderness in Tasmania. Occ. Pap. University of Tasmania, Centre for Environmental Studies, 10, 103 pp., illustr.Google Scholar