Archives – an important requirement in environmental management

Without archives, the long-term trends in environmental performance cannot be measured. In ecosystems that are particularly dynamic, as in Australia, this is especially so. Yet most environmentalists discard raw data once their interpretations of these are complete; at best, any records remain poorly accessible. Other environmental practitioners may accumulate a lifetime of valuable raw field data, which they or their successors will sadly discard at career end unless retention is suitably arranged.¹

Strayer (1986) and other authorities overseas have emphasised that environmental history is crucial to modern environmental policy through its contribution to understanding the dynamics of the landscape. While palaeobotanical records, repeat photography, fire-scar histories from tree rings, climate records and other physical materials are used frequently, relatively few are available for wildlife population dynamics.

In the period since World War II, much field information has been gathered in Australia² with the aim of applying results to arrest any observed decline in our natural ecosystems. In more recent times, gathering ecological field data has become less affordable and less popular, and attempts to lodge any legacy at suitably interested agencies are disappointing. Already accounts are circulating about the disposal of data to landfill, although professionals are understandably reluctant to admit this.

It is basic to the efforts of all those who collect or are interested in using data that stock is taken regularly of environmental historical records (i.e. databases) to ensure there is suitably sound information on which to measure trends. We argue that the historical data on which Australia's management of ecosystems over time is based must not only be sound but also reliably available. Its selection and storage must be a deliberate, planned exercise. We illustrate from a set of field case studies which provide evidence of actions contributing to that end.

Dredging is a prominent, long-term sphere of activity which has demonstrable environmental consequences in topography and in water pollution, for example in the shipping channels of ports and in the recreational areas of harbours, respectively. Dredging records could thus show deterioration of seabed form and vegetation and be useful to sailors, fishers and bathers. Since 1788, parts of Sydney Harbour (Port Jackson, Middle Harbour, Lane Cove River and Parramatta River) have been modified substantially by dredging. McLoughlin (1999) sought to develop solutions to current environmental crises through the historical record of the quality of the waterways of Sydney Harbour. She found that dredging records, dating back more than 140 years, have not provided an adequate record. Her conclusion was that, in New South Wales, environmental records ‘which document government policy, determination and action’, ‘which embody citizens’ legal rights and document information about their existence and identity’ and ‘which are valuable for research on all aspects of the State, its communities, individuals, lands and built environs’ are not well prescribed (207). This situation is unlikely to be better in other Australian states, despite the needs recommended as early as 1909 by Elwood Mead in Victoria for ‘a vastly augmented bank of environmental data’ (Powell 2002, 107).

There are, nevertheless, some individual monitoring efforts that have spanned generations. Work on ‘Maisie’s Plots’, established in 1945 at Rocky Valley and Pretty Valley in Victoria’s Bogong High Plains, continues to enable monitoring of the impact of cattle on peatland and grassland vegetation respectively using the same points quadrat technique (Walker 2022).

The most common Australian databases are associated with mandatory Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA). These monumental amounts of regulation-directed fieldwork are for the most part unpublished, serving a one-off need. Or they move from commercial-in-confidence documentation to government files which then, paradoxically, may suffer from public knowledge of the whereabouts of scarce species. For example (as in PPK Environment & Infrastructure 2002), some orchid species can be readily located and are known to have been removed overnight for commercial sale regardless of the law.

The usual form of database currently belongs to the individual environmental practitioner – or the client – most of whom have neither the time nor the opportunity to publish or archive the considerable array of field information gathered. Any requirements of copyright or confidentiality may well be overcome when these expire over time. Only some parts of some EIA data could conceivably be of any future value, so specialist attention is needed for this selection (Lavery 2012).

The veracity and significance of the data is another on-going concern. The raw data, the methods by which these were collected, and the credentials of the data collectors are fundamental to the recorded history. The archivists’ principle of original order, by which material is stored chronologically, should still apply. We note that old raw data are often not digitised, may remain on shelves, and are at greater risk than digitised data of being overlooked or discarded.

The scale at which data are collected and saved is also critical – although, with the advent of Global Positioning Systems, having sufficiently precise geographical information should no longer be an issue for archives. Examples such as that for K’gari-Fraser Island (Srivastava 2015) indicate that modern spatial technologies can provide multiple geographical representations of real-world themes in the form of digital spatial data models that can be accessed through different portals over time. There will also continue to be access to monitoring data by way of carbon dating, optically stimulated luminescence dating and so on, but these techniques have limited application. With the passage of time, improved technologies inevitably create greater accuracy in measurements.

Already, methods of backing up records, notably by documentary film, require regular upgrading because of technological advances in the recording devices. The same undoubtedly applies to other materials being stored technologically; even now, it applies to methods of backing up voluminous records that are device-reliant for their delivery.

The archiving of data should be prioritised in accordance with environmental management need, because of the time and cost involved. The data to be archived should not be chosen simply because it is unique or unprecedented. Much money and time can be wasted through ineffectual archiving. Nor should the condition of the records be a factor in selection. Little is known of the ways archivists presently choose environmental data for archiving (Faulkner, Lu, and Chen 2021).

State archives are substantial and expertly curated but their fields of discipline for the most part avoid the subject of the environment, particularly the natural environment. The diaries of naturalists accompanying early explorers are enlightening and many of these natural history records are found in the form of books and journals. However, these are individual interpretations of field data that mostly are later discarded. Many interpretations are in accord with an academic agenda, with the data difficult to use in the field without further applied research.

Regardless of all of these considerations, selection of data sets that serve to represent protracted circumstances remains difficult. Possingham, Fullar, and Joseph (2012) have emphasised the problems of choosing among long-term ecological monitoring programs. These include selecting which are more worthwhile for the restricted resources available, and what lengths of monitoring time are most beneficial.

Carter and Ross (2013) have highlighted, among other ‘tyrannies’, the high cost of effective monitoring and evaluation. Public concern is often reflected in the media: For example, ‘The past ten years have reduced (the relevant national agencies) to mendicants, their appropriations ever shrinking in real terms, their staffs dwindling, despite missions much expanded by the priorities of digital adaptation and the clamour for social justice’ (Haigh 2022, 38). This is especially so given the expense of housing and maintaining archives, and the increasing volume of material digital and otherwise.

With limited funds, priorities are imperative. As Carter and Ross (2013) have also noted, adaptive management allowing for reflection on the results of actions, supported by monitoring and evaluation of change in conditions, is presently of low priority and poorly executed. Such decisions not only relate to the techniques of data collection but also to the areas chosen for study. In Queensland, four regions have been nominated (Lavery 2021) that may well prove to be areas worthy of primary attention for archiving and future monitoring. In focusing on particular regions, the multiplicity of challenging environmental issues overall can be set aside in favour of tackling a manageable number of top priority problems upon which full attention (and resources) can then be focussed. These include selecting which are more worthwhile for the restricted resources available, and what lengths of monitoring time are most beneficial.

While Australia has a variety of general and specific archival facilities (e.g. National Archives of Australia, National Film and Sound Archive, Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, CSIRO), costs of priority selection and storage are increasing and preference of published over unpublished material inevitably results. Specialised local collections funded by the private sector (as at the Australian Cultural Heritage Library in Rosewood, Queensland) are flourishing, however, and the challenge is to foster these in the field of environmental science and management. Meanwhile, local repositories can play a valuable role, in that data deposited in the region it relates to can continue to be accessible and useful to the community involved.

The environmental profession, individually and collectively (through the EIANZ and in many cases as members of major university and consulting organisations), is in an important position to lobby for archiving of and access to potentially important environmental datasets. We can advise on the forms archiving should take, and exercise personal judgement about the value of datasets throughout our careers.

Articles in this issue

Codes of ethics and systems of approval are very familiar in social aspects of environmental research, yet there are few codes covering outdoor research such as fieldwork, despite their potential environmental impacts. Jan McDonald and Manon Simon review current Australian ethics requirements for environmental research, 25 years after the Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council (ASEC) issued national guidelines. They argue that the guidelines remain relevant, yet find that there has been little incorporation of these guidelines into national research ethics frameworks or institutional processes. Only some environmental research, such as on the Great Barrier Reef, requires permits. The ASTEC guidelines are partially reflected in permitting requirements for research in protected area, but there are no explicit mechanisms for the ethical deliberation required. The authors encourage researchers and research organisations to consider how the deliberative procedures and substantive principles reflected in the ASTEC Guidelines might be followed in their work.

Lucy Dickie and Fabien Medvecky used a survey to study the attitudes of young adults in Aotearoa-New Zealand towards predator control, and especially a long-term program called Predator Free 2050 (PF2050). Young adults, aged 18 to 24, are important as the generation most likely to be leading, and necessary to support, these environmental efforts. Like the wider population of their country, they support predator control and PF2050, but they have particular concerns about control methods and their implications for animal welfare. The authors give advice on targeted communication for this age group, including accurate scientific information on the methods, and their humaneness.

Samindi Hewa, Jinhua Chen and Rajni Mala use stakeholder theory, particularly theory on the salience of different stakeholders, in a study of corporate responses to climate change risks in Australia. Their survey of 120 of the most senior risk managers in the Insurance and Financial Services, Agriculture, Food and Beverages, and Mining and Energy Production sectors showed that companies respond to regulatory risks, i.e. potential failures in legal compliance, more than to the physical and market risks of climate change. Overall, pressure from government, non-governmental organisations, competitors and the media affects corporate responses. Creditors and the media affect responses to physical risks such as bushfires, flooding and hail. Meanwhile, female representation on boards of directors is associated with higher response to climate change risks. The authors argue that companies should take physical risks, and market risks such as investors divesting from stocks of companies that are exposed to the risks of climate change, as seriously as they take regulatory risks.

Dung Hoang and Lan Chu examine international evidence for the interactions between income inequality and urbanisation in affecting carbon dioxide emissions. Analysis of national-level data from 95 countries between 1961 and 2015 shows that income inequality and urbanisation are both drivers of environmental quality, but they interact in a complex way. An urbanisation process influences the income levels of both producers and consumers, and hence the production and consumption patterns in that economy and so carbon dioxide emissions. At low levels of urbanisation, below 35.2 per cent, inequality is associated with low carbon emissions. However at high rates of urbanisation, especially above 55.7 per cent, inequality is associated with higher emissions. Thus overall, income inequality may have positive or negative association with environmental quality. This suggests that strategies aiming at both reducing the income gap and mitigating environmental impacts from consumption and production activities should be included in sustainable development agendas. Redistribution policies and government spending for public services could simultaneously equalise income and improve environmental quality. Meanwhile, higher taxes on luxury goods and services could discourage status-based consumption in an unequal society. In addition, stringent environmental regulations and high pollution tax would help restrain wealthy producers and consumers from environmentally damaging activities.

Ronald Beckett and Mile Terziovski explore Australian renewable energy adoption through seven longitudinal case studies in Victoria using a ‘strategic niche management’ perspective. This approach suggests that sustainable innovation can be facilitated within technological ‘niches’ that support experimentation with technology, user practices, and regulatory structures (Schot and Geels 2008). The cases covered a variety of community with partner collaborations, from philanthropic projects to community investment projects, community-developer projects, community with local government partnerships, multi-household models of community energy supply and 100 per cent renewable energy towns. In some cases, social entrepreneurs are engaging with larger corporations, while in others corporate entrepreneurs are engaging with local community groups. Beckett and Terziovski find that community engagement is helping to deliver UN Sustainable Development Goal 7, to ‘Ensure access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all’. They find similar stages in stages the cases followed, suggesting (in theoretical terms) that strategic niche management is a multi-stage process involving experiential learning and alignment of stakeholder interests.

AJEM news

Helen Ross is pleased to announce that the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand has selected Drs Animesh Gain and Oliver Fritsch of Murdoch University’s School of Environmental and Conservation Sciences as the next Managing Co-Editors of AJEM. Both are senior lecturers, Animesh in Environmental Management and Policy, and Oliver in Environmental Policy, Law and Impact Assessment. Animesh holds degrees in climate change science and management, water resources development and environmental science. His work experience in universities and research centres focuses on environmental economics, geosciences, environmental planning, geography as well as hydrology and water management. His research includes adaptation to climate change, coastal management, socio-ecological systems and environmental management more broadly. Oliver has degrees in political science and environmental social science, and throughout his career has carried out research and taught in interdisciplinary academic environments departments responsible for environmental science, environmental systems research, geography and sustainability. His research interests include the management of freshwater resources, environmental impact assessment and other forms of environmental and sustainability appraisal, environmental policy and planning. Both also have impressive records in international and national service, with Animesh contributing to the IPCC 6th Assessment report and lead author of the second assessment report of the Mediterranean Experts on Climate and Environmental Change.

Between them they have very strong editing experience, with Animesh an editor-in-chief of Natural Hazards and Earth Systems Sciences. He has guest-edited issues for five other journals. Oliver was managing editor of the European Journal of Political Research for a decade until 2021. He has guest-edited for a water journal and is currently editing a handbook on water resources for a major publisher. Both are on other editorial advisory boards. They are also used to working together in research and teaching.

We will enter a handover period from 1 July, during which we will share editing roles for some months. We thank the existing Associate Editors and Editorial Advisory Board members for continuing with us, and supporting this process.

Editor’s tip

Confusing academic and report-writing styles

In this practitioner-focused journal, we often receive manuscripts which seem to confound the writing styles common in reports for clients, with the expectations of academic English associated with refereed journals. We sometimes see large numbers of headings with very short paragraphs between them, often with more reliance on the headings than the prose to carry the message. This may lead to many truncated points, at the expense of building up arguments supported by evidence. Further, we sometimes see long sets of dot points, as though the author finds it easier to make a list than to develop points in turn. Another feature is colloquial language, and truncations such as ‘isn’t’. Academic writing uses plain, but somewhat more formal, English. In contrast to report styles, it uses long sections in which argument can be built up steadily. Elegant academic English uses signals in the prose, rather than many sub-headings, to mark stages in the argument. Paragraphs are apt to be longer: a paragraph should contain a single ‘thought’, usually following the format of assertion with evidence and perhaps examples. Many report writers seem uncomfortable with long paragraphs, starting new ones every few lines. We acknowledge it can be difficult to change writing styles for different types of readership, but doing so is necessary for effective communication.

Notes

1 These issues are pertinent to both authors. In a professional career spanning 65 years, with direct field experience plus supervision of field researchers in both public and private sectors, Hugh Lavery has accumulated related books, papers and unpublished documents. As an example, his disciplined ecological surveys over a long period of time using Ecole Polytechnicians on their Stages throughout Queensland have yielded abundant raw field data that favour future replication and should be archived. A specific archival task is exemplified in the case of the greater bilby (Macrotis lagotis). Considered officially to be endangered, many thousands of its active burrows were precisely plotted by the global positioning system in the early to mid-1990s (Lavery and Kirkpatrick 1997). It is now time for these stored records to be re-examined to determine the permanence – or otherwise – of this major population of the species. In the face of no other appropriate repository, a pilot program is now being contemplated by the Wetlands and Grasslands Foundation – headquartered near Townsville – to create a ‘field management archive’ based on raw data. It aims to be designed to supplement the more academic libraries at nearby James Cook University, Australian Institute of Marine Science and CSIRO. For administration of this heritage material, a business model with compelling appeal is that of the community-led Australian Cultural Library in Rosewood, Queensland. Meanwhile Helen Ross has recently returned from a visit to the Kimberley, where she was able to donate her original set of cassette recordings of Warmun community elders’ accounts of over a century of social impacts (Ross 1990; Ross and Bray 1989) to an Aboriginal language centre which – in partnership with a university – is in a position to have them all digitised and take over their custody. The complete set Helen had given to the community at the end of fieldwork in 1987 would not have survived tropical heat and a flood. Her PhD data (Ross 1987) are archived by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, hence in principle available in perpetuity to family members who may be interested. Her visit enabled reconnection with younger members of several families, who are very keen to find out more, hear recordings and see old photographs – now that some decades have gone by and cultural sensitivities have abated.

2 The authors apologise for their lack of capacity to include Aotearoa-New Zealand in this editorial.