State of the Environment

2006

Human settlements

Theme commentary
Professor Peter W. Newton, Swinburne University of Technology
prepared for the 2006 Australian State of the Environment Committee at CSIRO, 2006

External pressures on human settlements

External processes can significantly shape the future state of human settlements. They include flows of population, financial capital and trade, and an increasing spectrum of environmental risks.

Population dynamics

Natural increase and migration are the two factors driving aggregate population change. In recent years, both have contributed in relatively equal proportion to national population increases . Migration , however, constitutes the major driving force in the growth and decline of individual urban centres.

International migration

There has been a huge increase in total movements over the period 1993 to 2004: this is a significant contributor to increases in total consumption.

Permanent arrivals are significant from a human settlements perspective because they tend to gravitate to the capital cities—especially Sydney and Melbourne. This has put significant pressure on Sydney, in particular, and on its housing market, leading to calls by the New South Wales Government for significant cuts in international migration (McDonald and Temple 2003).

A response by commonwealth and state governments has been to devise policies to encourage immigration to rural and regional Australia through new visa classes that give special consideration to applicants (ranging from humanitarian and refugee to employee-sponsored skilled migrants) who are prepared to locate in urban centres other than the major capitals. Recent data suggest that the policy is having an effect: in 2004, two-thirds of immigrants to Australia settled in capital cities, compared with some 80 per cent during the 1990s. Notwithstanding, Sydney and Melbourne combined continue to attract half of all permanent immigrants.

The most striking changes over the course of the past decade have been in relation to temporary migration, driven by two key categories: students and temporary business entrants (the 457 visa, see Khoo et al. 2003). In both of these categories, destinations favour the cities: the educational institutions that attract foreign students are primarily located there, as are the high-skilled jobs (McDonald and Temple 2004). Initial locations chosen by immigrants are significant, since surveys (Richardson et al. 2002) suggest that once in Australia, migrants tend to stay in their place of first settlement.

Internal Migration

The movement of people within and between states and territories is an important determinant of population increase and decline in Australia’s settlements. During 2002–03, for example, approximately 400 000 people were estimated to have moved interstate (ABS 2004a). Overall, the three east coast states generate four-fifths of the nation’s population growth. Recent increases in sunbelt migration to Queensland are generally attributable to quality-of-life drivers, employment opportunities (linked to south-eastern Queensland growth opportunities), and a major loss of population from New South Wales due to cost-of-living effects in Sydney (especially housing).

Smart growth policies need to be a core element of urban planning in these jurisdictions.

Tourism

International and domestic visitors  bring with them massive benefits to local economies and employment but, depending on the destinations chosen for holidaying, an additional layer of population is added to pressures and costs on infrastructure, services and the environment. For example, in 2004, international visitor numbers (131 million visitor days) equated to 364 000 permanent residents.

International and domestic visitor survey data provide insights that run counter to the popular conception that Australia relies on its natural assets (flora, fauna and landscapes) as the key drawcard for international tourism. Tourists’ revealed preferences—where they actually visited while in Australia—suggest that it is Australia’s cities that are the principal attractions. Cities like Melbourne and Sydney now feature a year-round calendar of sporting, arts and entertainment events that are proving increasingly attractive drawcards for tourism (ABS 2002 c, p. 19). Capital city and contiguous regions continue to dominate domestic tourism as destinations, capturing three-quarters of total visitor nights.

Australia is devoid of studies that attempt to assess the triple-bottom-line impacts of tourism—partly because tourism does not constitute an industry in the traditional sense (as defined by ANZIC—the Australian and New Zealand Industrial Classification). This is because tourism is an amalgam of parts of many industries (for example, transport and accommodation) that supply goods and services to tourists. Where studies have been undertaken, the environmental impacts have been significant (Foran 2003 reports that nearly one-quarter of New Zealand’s natural energy and greenhouse gas emissions were related to tourism activities). Governments are responding in many ways, as reflected in the Steps to Sustainable Tourism programme (DEH 2004b).

Population futures

The projected increase  in Australia’s population to 26.4 million in 2051 reflects a ‘business-as-usual’ view of Australia’s population future; it occupies a middle ground between environmentally-favoured lower targets and industry-favoured higher targets (Foran and Poldy 2002). The most recent summit on Australia’s population future (Vizard et al. 2003) captures the mix of drivers for the various scenarios and preferred views of different interest groups. Industry generally argues for higher migrant intake targets from the perspectives of labour supply (current concerns relate to the tightness of labour markets and the availability of skilled workers) and the size of the domestic market (consumption). Some commentators see this as a suggestion that governments have failed to develop policies to encourage higher levels of fertility (that is, family policy designed to ‘grow our own population’), and to address potential skill shortages through enhanced training policies and programmes (Birrell 2003).

All of the capital cities will experience larger percentage growth than the rest of their states, resulting in further concentration of Australia’s population within the capital cities. Sydney and Melbourne will remain the two largest cities, followed by Brisbane, Perth, Adelaide, Canberra, Darwin and Hobart (see Appendix 1).

Settlement futures

Recent data suggest that the big cities in Australia continue to act as the key magnets for population, through natural increase, internal migration, international migration and tourism. Other classes of settlement that are attractors of population are the high amenity coastal regions—especially those located within the boundaries of the capital cities—and the larger regional centres (both coastal and inland). Smaller centres in the more climatically marginal farming regions, and those associated with mining, are the most vulnerable economically (fly-in-fly out schemes are a response to this reality in the case of mining).

Large cities

Australia’s large cities provide an increasing diversity of urban environments in which to live, ranging from the inner cities, to the suburbs, and to the peri-urban fringe and beyond. Intra-urban mobility  is the process that continues to redistribute approximately 15 per cent of the population within cities each year.

Inner city growth

Until the 1990s, most of the inner suburbs of Australia’s cities were associated with consistent population loss. The process of re-urbanisation that was identified by Newman et al. (1996) has subsequently intensified as the supply of inner-city dwellings has increased to meet (and run ahead of, according to some commentators) demands from a group of consumers that includes students and single and dual person households at both ends of the family lifecycle, although most are in the 20–30 year bracket (DoI 1998). Despite high rates of growth in percentage terms for the inner suburbs, the absolute levels of growth remain modest, except for the east coast capitals.

Although inner cities continue to gain population, the flows of people to the suburbs has been dominant. Residential densities are highest in the inner suburbs, but they are increasing across middle suburbia. Reasons include the ‘compact city’ policies of state governments and the relatively recent process of infill housing. Despite the list of environmental and other benefits associated with higher density development (this report) there are growing challenges identified recently by Birrell et al. (2005) and Searle (2003)—infrastructure and land capacity constraints, underlying market demand, social isolation, and destruction of neighbourhood character. In addition, there is debate about the long-term sustainability of these recent levels of high rise growth. It is viewed by some as a response to long pent-up demand for inner-city apartment living; but it is not a recipe that can be applied en masse to the middle-ring suburban (activity) centres of Sydney and Melbourne under current ‘compact city’ state planning strategies (Salt 2004; Birrell et al. 2005).

Suburban growth

‘[Inner city living is] fine for a component of the community, but it is not as pivotal to grass roots Australian values as is the quest for space, for independence, for privacy and for low density living…’ (Salt 2004, p. 6)

It is the middle and outer suburbs that continue to accommodate the majority of Australia’s urban population growth . These data, and the research by O’Connor (1999), indicate that suburbs offer opportunities for matching both housing and jobs. Transport indicators suggest that this match is far from optimal and it is possibly becoming more difficult to satisfy—as revealed by continued high growth in car usage.

Peri-urban growth and mega-metro regions

With continued growth of the major capital cities, their peri-urban extensions are beginning to merge with their surrounding second-tier urban centres and provincial regional centres, forming what have been termed mega-metropolitan regions (O’Connor and Stimson 1996, Forster 2004). Four principal mega-metropolitan regions have emerged in Australia (see Appendix 2):

Useful as they may be as demographic absorbers (Willis and Fry 2001), mega-metropolitan regions, by virtue of their sheer size, create complex and multi-faceted planning and governance challenges on scales never experienced before in Australia. They represent regions where there is greatest pressure to convert native bushland and productive farming and horticulture land to urban use (there appears to be no mechanism in Australia for monitoring the loss of quality agricultural land and the loss of biodiversity to urban uses). They also provide opportunities for a new class of resource-based industries that are capable of delivering more sustainable metropolitan areas through eco-industrial clusters (refer to ‘Waste’ section). Long-term planning strategies have been developed for each of the mega-metropolitan regions in an attempt to achieve more sustainable outcomes than would be possible under laissez-faire alternatives (see, for example, Melbourne 2030 [DoI 2002]and the Draft South East Queensland Regional Plan [OUD 2004]).

Coastal high amenity regions

Next to Australia’s cities, the regions that experience the most sustained growth over the past 20 years have been the high amenity coastal regions (the so-called ‘sea change’ areas), which mostly extend far enough inland to pick up many of the high amenity ‘hill change areas’ as well. Examples include the Blue Mountains and Southern Highlands (New South Wales), Gold Coast Hinterland, Victoria’s goldfield towns and Yarra Valley (Burnley and Murphy 2004).

O’Connor’s (2001) analysis of coastal population growth between 1976 and 2000 separates growth in metropolitan areas from that in other coastal regions outside of the cities. The data revealed that the coastal municipalities of cities had experienced a three-fold increase in population from 1976 to 2000, compared with an increase of 70 per cent in the non-metropolitan coastal regions. More recent data indicate that coastal municipalities within capital cities continue to grow faster than their counterparts outside the capitals (Table 1). ‘Coastal city’ has emerged as the most sought after residential address in Australia. ABS (2005b) indicates that the largest growth outside capital cities also occurred in coastal Australia.

Table 1: Size and density changes in estimated resident population of coastal areas in Australia, 1996–2004a b
Coastal areas (as defined by Statistical Local Areas)a Areab
(‘000 kmē)		 Estimated resident population
(‘000s)		 Population change (%c) Population density (persons/kmē)
1996 2001 2004p 1996-2001 2001-2004 1996 2001 2004p
All coastal areas 2 163.1 7 482.0 7 971.7 8 283.5 1.3 1.3 3.5 3.7 3.8
Coastal areas excluding capital cities 2 149.2 2 977.7 3 193.4 3 339.6 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.6
Coastal areas within capital cities 13.8 4 504.4 4 778.3 4 943.9 6.1 3.5 325.6 345.4 357.4
Australia 7 705.3 18 310.7 19 413.2 20 111.3 1.2 1.2 2.4 2.5 2.6

Notes:
a Coastal areas are all Statistical Local Areas (SLAs) with a boundary adjoining the sea, including those with boundaries adjoining harbours and rivers, such as Leichhardt (A) in Sydney harbour and South Perth (C) on the Swan River in Perth. Note that many SLAs extend inland for large distances (for example, East Pilbara Shire in Western Australia has a coastline of roughly 80 kilometres and an area of over 350,000 square kilometres)
b Based on 2004 Australian Standard Geographic Classification (ASGC) boundaries
c Average annual growth rate
p Provisional numbers

Rural and resource settlements

The persistent, long-term movement of labour out of agriculture presents continuing threats to the social and economic viability of rural service centres. Figure 2 dramatically illustrates the difference in population fortunes between the ‘bleeding bush’ and the ‘booming beach’ (Salt 2004). During the past two decades, the number of farmers has declined (at an average rate of 2.2 per cent each year) and fewer younger people have been entering agriculture as a vocation. Greater farm losses have been offset by increased dependence on off-farm income. Beer and Keane (2000) have clearly modelled the vicious cycle of rural settlement dynamics: employment loss >> services loss >> disincentive for in-migration >> disincentive for business >> employment and population loss… It is a scenario that is broadly evident across Australia, especially in the smaller rural service centres.

National Institute of Economic and Industry Research analyses (Shepherd 2003, p. 161) indicate how widespread the population loss has been across rural municipalities  between 1991 and 2001. Sixty-three per cent of all rural municipalities lost population during this period. This is a major contrast to all other regional groupings, with only the resource-based centres—the other group of settlements associated with extractive industry—also losing population. The Australian Natural Resources Atlas (NLWRA 2000a) forecasts a decline of between 30 and 55 per cent in farmer numbers to 2020 and a further increase in median farmer age, peaking in 2011. The regions that are experiencing the greatest threat are the dryland (wheat and sheep) farming regions (Hugo 2002). It is these regions that have been identified as highly vulnerable under future climate change scenarios of reduced rainfall (Fisher 2005).

The larger rural regional and provincial centres in most states and territories, however continued to gain population (ABS 2005b, p. 6) by serving a larger market catchment and by providing a higher order and broader range of goods and services, and employment.

Figure 2: Projected population change across Australia from 2002 to 2011

Figure 2: Projected population change across Australia from 2002 to 2011

Source: Department of the Environment and Heritage 2005, based on population projection data provided by the Department of Health and Aged Care.

Environmental risk to human settlements

Climate change

Reports on the impact of global climate change on Australia (Pittock 2003; Pearman 2005; Allen Consulting Group 2005) indicate that many Australian ecosystems, regions and industries are vulnerable to climate change in the coming decades (see ‘Climate change’). Key impacts on human settlement implications include:

Urban salinity

Salinity not only adversely affects the environment and economy of rural Australia; it is also causing damage to the nation’s urban infrastructure—its housing, roads and bridges (NLWRA 2000b).

Natural hazards—extreme events

Natural hazards that impact on Australia’s urban communities include extreme events such as cyclones, severe winds, storm surges, flooding and landslides; severe thunderstorms and hailstorms; earthquakes and tsunamis; and bushfires (Natural Disasters Organisation  1992). Natural hazards cannot be averted, but loss can be minimised by understanding the potential risks in each region and developing appropriate mitigation strategies (Allen Consulting Group 2005, such as in relation to appropriateness of building codes in particular jurisdictions). Geoscience Australia , through its Natural Risk Assessment project, has undertaken extensive assessments of South East Queensland and Perth in this regard (Granger and Hayne 2000). Macquarie University, through its Risk Frontiers programme, has estimated the risks of building damage by natural hazards to develop a nationwide ‘rating of postcodes’. A more detailed description of risk maps for Australia’s major cities are found in SoE2001.