Final Project Report - Port Phillip and Westernport ... Final Report.pdf · LIVING LINKS PROJECT 1 – ASSET IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS Final Project Report Developed for the Port

LIVING LINKS PROJECT 1 – ASSET IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSIS

Final Project Report

Developed for the Port Phillip and Westernport CMA

July 2009 Prepared by: Spatial Vision Innovations Pty Ltd ABN 28 092 695 951 in partnership with Beca Pty Ltd Level 2 170 Queen Street Melbourne 3000 Victoria Australia Tel +61 3 9691 3000 Fax +61 3 9691 3001 Email [email protected] Web www.spatialvision.com.au

Living Links Project 1 – Asset Identification and Analysis Spatial Vision & Beca Final Project Report

Ref: SV002322 13/07/09 Commercial-in-Confidence Page 2 of 67 Spatial Vision

Document Control

Client Name Port Phillip and Westernport CMA

Project Name Living Links Project 1 – Asset Identification and Analysis

Document Type Final Project Report

Project Number SV002322

File Name SV002322_LL_Project_1_Final_Project_Report_Draft_2.0_09_07_09.doc

Version Date 11 July 2009

Produced by Stephen Farrell

Reviewed by Milos Pelikan

Authorised by Stephen Farrell

Document Revision History

Revision Date Author Version Change Reference & Summary

16/06/2009 Stephen Farrell 1.0 First Draft to PPWCMA for review.

09/07/2009 Stephen Farrell 2.0 Final version incorporating feedback received.

This report has been prepared in accordance with the scope of services described in the contract or agreement between Spatial Vision Innovations Pty Ltd (ABN 28 092 695 951) and the Client. It may rely upon information supplied by the Client and potentially other sources. All findings, conclusions or recommendations only apply to the aforementioned circumstances and no greater reliance should be assumed or drawn by the Client. This report has been prepared solely for the use of the Client and Spatial Vision accepts no responsibility for its use by other parties.



Acronyms

AAV Aboriginal Affairs Victoria

AHP Analytical Hierarchy Process

CMA Catchment Management Authority

DOJ Department of Justice

DPI Department of Primary Industries

DSE Department of Sustainability and Environment

GA Geoscience Australia

GIS Geographic Information System

LGA Local Government Area

PPWCMA Port Phillip Westernport CMA

PV Parks Victoria

SII Spatial Information Infrastructure

SV Spatial Vision

Vicmap Digital map base for Victoria managed by DSE

Acknowledgments

The authors of this report would like to acknowledge the significant contribution made to the project by Port Phillip and Westernport CMA representatives (particularly Viv Charalambous, Shane Scanlon, and Chris Lewis), members of the Living Links Steering Committee, and agency and community workshop participants.





Contents

1. Introduction.................................................................................................................10

1.1 This Report.................................................................................................................................... 10 1.2 The Living Links Master Plan....................................................................................................... 10 1.3 Study Area..................................................................................................................................... 12 1.4 Project One – Asset Identification and Analysis .......................................................................... 14 1.5 Project Outcomes ........................................................................................................................ 14 1.6 Project Deliverables ..................................................................................................................... 15 1.7 Methodology Overview.................................................................................................................. 15

2. Assets..........................................................................................................................17

2.1 Key Concepts ................................................................................................................................ 17 2.2 Asset Definitions and Classification System ............................................................................... 18 2.3 Data Collation and Organisation Approach ................................................................................. 22 2.4 Outcomes ...................................................................................................................................... 26

3. Landscape Significance ...............................................................................................31

3.1 Concepts and Definitions.............................................................................................................. 31 3.2 Asset Representation ................................................................................................................... 31 3.3 Asset Significance Definition........................................................................................................ 32 3.4 Significance Assessment Process ............................................................................................... 33 3.5 Landscape Significance Dataset .................................................................................................. 37

4. Agency and Community Consultation Outcomes ..........................................................44

4.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................... 44 4.2 Consultation objectives ................................................................................................................ 44 4.3 First Round Consultation Outcomes............................................................................................ 45 4.4 Second Round Consultation Outcomes ....................................................................................... 45

5. Recommendations.......................................................................................................47



APPENDICES

Appendix 1 General Terms and Definitions......................................................................49

Appendix 2 Spatial data provision contacts......................................................................53

Appendix 3 Asset and Asset Setting Classes Data Provision Summary ............................55

Appendix 4 Full List of Spatial Data in Master Library .....................................................57

Appendix 5 Report List.....................................................................................................59

Appendix 6 Landscape Significance Dataset Views ..........................................................61

Appendix 7 Consultation Outcomes..................................................................................63

Appendix 8 The Analytic Hierarchy Process.....................................................................65



List of Tables

Table 1. Four broad Asset Groups categories used in the definition and organisation of spatial asset information ....................................................................................................................................... 20

Table 2. Asset Setting Group categories used in the definition and organisation of spatial asset setting information ....................................................................................................................................... 21

Table 3. Full list of asset classes adopted in the classification of spatial data setting information .......... 27 Table 4. Full list of asset setting classes adopted in the classification of spatial data setting information28 Table 5. Volume of spatial data residing in the Master Data Library broken down by Asset Groups and

Asset Setting Groups........................................................................................................................ 29

List of Figures

Figure 2. Idealised depiction of possible nodes ad links across the Living Links study area ...................... 17 Figure 3. Diagrammatic representation illustrating the relationship between Assets and Asset Settings.22 Figure 4. Diagrammatic representation of the spatial data library developed for Project One to support

asset information, and the flow of raw data obtained from agencies and organisations into this library................................................................................................................................................ 24

Figure 5. Screen views of the source data repository and master data library that supported all spatial asset and asset setting showing the directory and file naming conventions adopted.................. 24

Figure 6. Diagrammatic representation illustrating two examples of how spatial data was organised in the Master Data Library. .................................................................................................................. 25

Figure 7. Screen view of some of the spatial datasets contributing to the Natural Asset Group illustrating how file naming conventions are used in applying the classification hierarchy described earlier in this report. .................................................................................................................................... 26

Figure 8. Asset Representation – Asset derived from data provided in GIS format ..................................... 32 Figure 9. Conceptual Relationship between the three components of Landscape Significance ................. 33 Figure 10. Illustration of landscape units (comprising areas 250m by 250m) across a section of the Living

Links study area ............................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 11. Landscape Significance assigned to the Natural Asset Group, where the darker color represents

greater landscape significance on the basis of these assets......................................................... 38 Figure 12. Landscape Significance assigned to the Recreational Asset Group, where the darker color

represents greater landscape significance on the basis of these assets. .................................... 39 Figure 13. Landscape Significance assigned to the Cultural Asset Group, where the darker color

represents greater landscape significance on the basis of these assets. .................................... 40 Figure 14. Landscape Significance assigned to the Social Asset Group, where the darker color represents

greater landscape significance on the basis of these assets......................................................... 41 Figure 15. Landscape Significance assigned on the basis of all Asset Groups, where the darker color

represents greater landscape significance on the basis of all assets. ......................................... 42 Figure 16. Landscape Significance assigned on the basis of all Asset Groups together with possible links

(in olive green) and nodes (in green) identified during Project One consultation with agency and community groups concerning assets. The darker color represents greater landscape significance on the basis of all assets............................................................................................. 43





Living Links Project 1 – Asset Identification and Analysis – Final Project Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

‘Living Links’ is a large-scale, long term collaborative program, initiated by Port Phillip and Westernport CMA.

Its vision is to create a world-class urban ecosystem spanning Melbourne’s south-east by improving connectivity between the region’s natural assets, and many social, cultural and recreational features.

‘Living Links’ is actively supported by a Steering Committee comprising major government and non-government environmental agencies, and 10 municipal councils.

In late 2008 the Steering Committee initiated the Living Links Master Plan to help achieve its vision. The basis of the Master Plan is that these ‘living links’ of connectivity should focus on the natural assets in the landscape and use other assets which provide opportunities for integration within the urban environment.

By protecting and connecting natural areas the Master Plan aims to make them more functional as habitat for native wildlife, and more accessible for local communities to enjoy.

The Living Links Master Plan is being developed in three phases –

• Project 1: Asset Identification and Analysis

• Project 2: Corridor Identification and Analysis

• Project 3: Final Master Plan development.

This is the final report of Master Plan Project 1: Asset Identification and Analysis.

Master Plan Project 1 has established an extensive spatial data library containing asset-related information sourced from many agencies and community groups, and a literature library through collation of relevant documents from interested parties.

Master Plan Project 1 also developed a method for assessing the relative significance of areas of land based on the location and number of the various assets identified. This process involved applying a grid of standard ‘landscape units’ across the program area. Each landscape unit comprises a geographical area that is 250 metres by 250 metres (or 6.25 hectares) in size.

The application of this grid of 14,503 landscape units enabled a consistent assessment of the relative significance of each unit according to the presence or absence of natural, cultural, social or recreational assets. A weighting formula was then applied based to the significance value assigned to each asset group (ie. natural, social, cultural or recreational) to generate an overall landscape rating based on all assets

The Living Links Master Plan Project 1 report provides a clear and transparent method and supporting asset data to utilise in Living Links Master Plan Project 2: Corridor Identification and Analysis; and ultimately to Project 3: Final Master Plan Development. It also provides a repeatable process for identifying and analysing assets in other environments or for a range of other planning purposes. The report is supported with the resultant landscape significance datasets together with more detailed individual asset data organised on the basis of an agreed asset classification framework, and provided in the form of a digital spatial data library.



1. Introduction

1.1 This Report

This document describes the key outcomes of Project One of the Living Links Master Plan initiative. This project was undertaken by Spatial Vision, in partnership with Beca Pty Ltd, for the Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority (PPWCMA) on behalf of Living Links partners.

The Living Links Master Plan will identify a web of living corridors connecting conservation reserves, parks, wetlands, pathways, open spaces, recreation facilities, fragmented patches of native vegetation and sites of cultural significance.

Project One was concerned with the collation of spatial datasets and supporting information that identifies assets and their functions within the Living Links study area. It also involved the collation of registers, reports, management plans, master plans, strategies and other materials of value to the identification of suitable living links within the study area..

This report should be read in conjunction with the key deliverables of this project, particularly spatial data, provided separately to PPWCMA.

Supporting documentation to this report includes the Project Consultation Plan and Project Information Sheet documentation prepared during Project One.

This project commenced in January 2009 and was completed in June 2009.

1.2 The Living Links Master Plan

Living Links Living Links is a large scale program. Over 25 years, it aims to deliver significant natural, social, cultural, recreation and economic benefits for Melbourne’s south east.

Key goals of Living Links are to:

• Increase connectivity of native flora and fauna communities.

• Reduce the total length of waterways in Melbourne’s south east in poor and very poor condition and increase those in moderate and good condition, where this is possible through riparian vegetation management.

• Improve connectivity between natural, social, cultural and recreational assets / features.

• Increase community participation, knowledge and investment in natural, social and cultural protection and restoration projects.

To achieve this ambitious goal a Master Planning approach has been adopted as the mechanism for providing strategic direction for planning.

The Master Plan will be developed as a catchment wide approach to linking natural, cultural, social and recreational assets. The Master Plan will therefore be developed with support from a diverse range of partners including; Melbourne Water, South East Water, City of Kingston, Shire of Yarra Ranges, City of Whitehorse, City of Maroondah, City of Monash, City of Casey, City of Greater Dandenong, Knox City Council, Bayside City Council, Frankston City Council, Dandenong Development Board, Bushwalking Victoria, Landcare Australia Limited, Parks Victoria, Bicycle Victoria, Gould Group, Wurundjeri Tribe Land Council, Victorian Boonerwrung Elders Land Council and Bunurong Land Council.



A Living Links Committee was established in December 2006 to provide high-level, strategic support and direction for the program, and provide a link between government, investors and local action.

Living Links Master Plan

The Living Links Master Plan will establish a collaborative blue print for the future connectivity of the regions urban and natural environments. It will help to set standards for and attract the most sustainable 21st century investments and development.

Key objectives of the master plan are to:

• Provide a diverse range of corridors that meet a variety of needs ranging from environmental protection to recreational, cultural and social needs;

• Provide a connectivity solution for native flora and fauna communities and unlock appropriate corridors for all members of the community;

• Provide a series of corridors that create certainty about the future of the region whilst retaining sufficient flexibility to alter aspects of the plan as natural, cultural, recreational or social conditions change over time;

• Provide a living document that is flexible, adaptive and easily updated over time. The master plan will recognise that corridors will differ in their structure and function depending on their location within the landscape. All corridors will predominately be on public land. It is anticipated the master plan will establish a diverse range of corridors that meet one, or a combination of the following:

o Connect isolated patches of native vegetation and encourage the movement of native fauna through the landscape, providing animals with shelter, food and protection from predators. Birds, reptiles, amphibians, mammals and insects, otherwise isolated in one patch of native vegetation, may move between patches with relative ease and safety.

o Provide connectivity between sites of cultural heritage (Aboriginal and European) scattered across Melbourne’s south east. Provide the community with a greater understanding of, and respect for the customs and rich heritage of the local aboriginal groups.

o Provide connectivity between sporting facilities, pubic open spaces, parks and picnic areas. These areas can be used as a means of getting to a particular destination, or as a recreational or social experience unto itself. Walking, running, off-road cycling, picnics and BBQ’s are examples of recreation and social activities that may be in these corridors.



The Master Plan is to be delivered in three consecutive projects:

Project One Asset Identification and Analysis

Project Two Corridor Identification and Analysis

Project Three Final Master Plan Development

This report describes the process and outcomes of Project One. After receipt of this report and other developments, the PPWCMA, in consultation with the Living Links Committee, will review the process to be undertaken for Project Two and Three.

1.3 Study Area

Situated in Melbourne’s south-east the Living Links area is bordered by St Kilda and Belgrave in the north and Cranbourne and Frankston in the south.

Significant commercial and industrial development in recent years has seen it become one of the strongest economic regions within Australia, and the vibrant business centre of Victoria. It is home to approximately half of Victoria’s manufacturing sector and more than a quarter of Victoria’s businesses support a qualified, experienced and rapidly growing workforce.

The region has become the location of choice for industry and high technology business, supported by leading edge research and development. An extensive network of institutions provide excellent government and private schooling while tertiary level options are also impressive, with Monash Universities largest campus located in the region.

However, this economic and institutional prowess has come at a cost to the local environment. Fragmentation of many natural environments has occurred, placing significant pressure on some of the most attractive and accessible areas of remnant native vegetation across metropolitan Melbourne. The region still features disconnected natural features of regional, national and international significance, including foothill forests, large parks, tree-lined roadsides, bush blocks, meandering creeks, reedy wetlands and coastal foreshores.

Several regional parks along the Dandenong Creek, including Jells Park, Shepherd’s Bush and the Bushy Park Wetlands are well connected providing an intricate network of shared bicycle and walking paths. Other major areas such as Braeside Park, Lysterfield Park, Cranbourne Royal Botanic Gardens and the Edithvale-Seaford Wetlands are relatively isolated from one another.

Waterways in the region are under increasing pressure from high levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, litter and excess loads of suspended solids generated from land clearance. Seventy–six per cent of the region’s waterway length is rated as being in poor or very poor condition. Pollutants originate from a range of sources including septic tanks, roadsides, building and construction sites, illegal dumping and erosion caused by the removal of riparian vegetation and excess flows following major storm events.

Extensive road and rail networks service the region, which is home to a new Transit City in Dandenong, creating new public transport access for commuters and business. Also recently opened is Australia’s largest roadway (EastLink) connecting residential suburbs in the north with the manufacturing belt in the south east. New transport infrastructure continues to improve accessibility in the region, however it comes as a cost to the local environment.



Figure 1. Living Links study area situated in Melbourne’s south-east bordered by St Kilda and Belgrave in the north and Cranbourne and Frankston in the south



1.4 Project One – Asset Identification and Analysis

This report presents the finding of Project One of the Living Links Master Plan initiative which involved the following key components:

• Comprehensive consultation with all government departments, agencies and authorities (involved in Living Links) to ensure they are directly involved in identifying assets (features of the area that could be key parts of corridors).

• Research and review past / present registers, reports, management plans, master plans, strategies and other materials to identify assets and existing corridors. Develop a series of spatial datasets that will store all information gathered.

• Consultation with community groups, friends groups and local residents to gain local knowledge and ensure they are involved in identifying assets.

• Develop criteria (presented to the Living Links Committee for comment) to determine asset significance in relation to its community importance and natural, social, recreation and cultural significance.

• Assess assets with criteria developed above.

• Final report delivered to the Living Links Committee.

1.5 Project Outcomes

To support the identification of potential living links, Project One of the Living Links Master Plan initiative, sought:

• information regarding registers, studies, planning information or other material of general relevance to the Living Links Master Plan Project, and

• provision of spatial data held by participating organisations that may be of assistance in depicting existing assets or contextual information for the region.

The following sections of this report outline the project outcomes in relation to these two areas.

This report has been prepared as a supporting document to the project DVD that contains key outputs of Project One, including:

• Spatial data library containing asset and asset related information sourced from a large number of agencies and community groups.

• Metadata that describes the spatial data provided in the form of a summary table; and

• Literature library which contains all reports and other non-spatial data based documents provided by agencies and community groups.

A separate DVD containing raw spatial data provided by agencies and community groups to support the project was also prepared and provided to PPWCMA.



1.6 Project Deliverables

More specifically the key deliverables of this project were:

• A suite of spatial datasets (in ESRI ArcGIS 9.3 Shapefile format, and GDA 1994 projection) for the study area that delineate, and provide basic descriptive information concerning:

o Assets

o Land Status

o Natural Features

o On-ground works

o Social, recreational and cultural features

o Environmental corridors (existing and planned)

• Consultation Plan • Final project report displaying the location of all high rating assets, their function and

significance, where the report is to include: o Name and description (including function) of each asset and explanation of its

significance. o Address / location of each asset. The address / location details need to be

sufficiently detailed to enable the place to be locatable. o All information collected on each asset

• Two presentations to the Living Links Committee

1.7 Methodology Overview

The approach adopted in implementing this project involved three broad phases:

PHASE ONE: Inception, Review and Planning

The objective of this first phase was to carefully define the framework in which the project was to operate. This involved confirmation of the project plan and deliverables, timelines for project reporting, and provision by PPWCMA of any documentation that should be considered by the Spatial Vision team in relation to the project.

This phase was delivered through three stages:

o Stage 1: Project Setup & Planning

o Stage 2: Consultation Plan & Asset Information Review

o Stage 3: Asset Definition and Evaluation Methodology

PHASE TWO: Consultation and Collection

This phase encompassed consultation with the identified stakeholders of this project - Agencies and Community Groups. Workshops were held with the Agency stakeholders to introduce the project, outline their data provision requirements and present the revised evaluation methodology. Workshops were held with Community Groups to present and obtain feedback on this evaluation methodology. Material collected from these workshops was used to develop four information libraries.

This phase was delivered through three stages:

o Stage 4: Agency Consultation & Asset Information Collation



o Stage 5: Community Consultation & Asset Information Collation

o Stage 6: Information Library Development

PHASE THREE: Data Analysis and Report

This phase involved assigning criteria to asset categories and evaluating relative significance in relation to importance and natural, social, recreation and cultural significance. It also involved the compilation and presentation of the final report and delivery of the relevant GIS data compiled.

This phase was delivered through two stages:

o Stage 7: Asset Analysis – Evaluation of Relative Significance

o Stage 8: Report and Information Handover



2. Assets

This section describes the approach undertaken to define, identify and depict assets across the study area. It includes a definition of the asset classification adopted and the way in which information relating to assets was organised.

2.1 Key Concepts

The Living Links Master Plan initiative is concerned with the development of a web of living corridors connecting conservation reserves, parks, wetlands, pathways, open spaces, recreation facilities, fragmented patches of native vegetation and sites of cultural significance.

A key outcome of Project One is the building of a data repository that contains asset information which will be used to identify both the key nodes to be linked by living links, and to support the possible alignment of these links on the basis of regional assets.

Figure 2. Idealised depiction of possible nodes ad links across the Living Links study area

For the purposes of supporting improved discussion and communication in relation to this initiative the terms ‘links’ and ‘nodes’ have been defined in this project. These definitions are briefly outlines in this section.

Links are defined as areas comprising one or more (natural, cultural, social, recreational) assets or networks that provide a physical basis for management and planning in the urban/rural interface.

Links provide connectivity and pathways for natural, cultural, social and recreational interactions

Living Links might consider two type of links:

• Regional Network – which would form the primary link network

• Local Sub-networks - or secondary network



Nodes are the key anchor points in a linked landscape.

Nodes are points of interest or importance (natural, cultural, social, recreational), destination/departure points and points of access to the network.

Living Links might consider two types of Nodes:

• Regional Nodes – or primary nodes

• Local Nodes - or secondary nodes

2.2 Asset Definitions and Classification System

For the purposes of this project ‘assets’ and other relevant information concerning assets were defined and a classification hierarchy of assets developed to support collation and asset information management, in addition to ensuring maximum value is obtained from such information in later stages of the Living Links Master Plan initiative. Asset definitions are provided in the following sections.

Assets

Assets are defined as objects, things and locations that are of value to the community and are represented by a spatial feature(s) in the landscape. Assets are viewed in the context of corridor planning

Assets may currently exits or be considered as opportunities (potential assets)

Four broad groups of assets were identified:

• Natural

• Social

• Cultural

• Recreational

In relation to the broader objectives of the Living Links initiative educational opportunities were considered as a by-product of any of the above Asset Groups.

Each Asset Group is subsequently broken down further into a set of Asset Classes that provide the fundamental descriptive units for asset representation.

Asset Settings

In relation to other relevant information concerning assets, the term asset setting was adopted.

Asset Settings are defined as that set of information that describes, measures and/or evaluates a class of asset to provide a context for the planning of corridors.

Asset Settings are divided into five broad Asset Setting Groups:

• Works Programs

• Land Use / Tenure

• Planning Frameworks

• Status Measures

• Threatening Processes



As with Asset Groups, each Asset Setting Group is broken down further into a set of Asset Setting Classes which are used as a fundamental descriptive unit to represent each asset setting group.

Asset Classification Hierarchy

Applying the asset definitions described earlier in this report, the three tier asset classification hierarchy adopted for this project comprised three levels: Group, Class and Category

The relationship between these three levels is presented below:

Group

• Broad set of asset types with similar or related functions and/or services

• Example – Natural (Group Code: 001)

Class

• Primary thematic or descriptive definition for assets – fundamental unit for asset organisation and significance rating assignment

• Example – Natural; Native Vegetation (Class Code: 001-001)

Category

• Primary spatial data collation level for assets - Enables differentiation of a class based on feature type and/or source

• All categories in the same class treated the same with respect to significance rating assignment

• Example – Natural; Native Vegetation; DSE (Category Code: 001-001a) dataset name = DSE_Nat_NativeVeg

• Example – Natural; Native Vegetation; MONASH (Category Code: 001-001b) dataset name = MON_Nat_NativeVeg

Assets Group Definitions

In general terms, Project One is concerned with collating any spatial information (GIS format) on the four Asset Groups identified. These Asset Groups are defined in Table 1, which also provides an example of the assets within each group.



Table 1. Four broad Asset Groups categories used in the definition and organisation of spatial asset information

Asset Group Description Examples Might Include

Natural Assets Assets with a primary function and/or service that provides an environmental benefit

Flora and/or Fauna, Native Vegetation, Aquatic information (beaches, estuaries, wetlands, waterways, water bodies, pondages/dams, floodways)

Social Assets Assets with a primary function and/or purpose that provides social infrastructure or facilitates social interaction

Access networks, activity hubs, mass transit points, churches, schools, halls, clubs, commercial, industrial, rural production, parks and gardens, play grounds, day care centres, age care centres

Cultural Assets Assets with a primary function and/or service that provides cultural infrastructure or facilitates cultural interaction

Libraries, religious centres, activity hubs, mass transit points, halls, schools, clubs, commercial, industrial and rural production, parks and gardens

Recreational Assets

Assets with a primary function and/or service that provides recreational infrastructure or facilitates recreation opportunities

Sporting and recreational clubs, tourist beaches, cinemas, tourist related activity centres and attractions, parks and gardens with a recreational aspect, bikeways, walkways, etc

Asset Setting Definitions

In addition to the asset groups identified, Project One was also interested in obtaining datasets that provide context or supplementary information concerning regional assets.

The Asset Setting Groups adopted in the organisation of spatial information that depicted asset setting related information are described in Table 2. The table also provides examples for each of the Asset Setting Groups identified.

Relationship between Assets and Asset Settings

The relationship between Assets and Asset Settings is illustrated in Figure 3. This figure illustrates how the Asset Settings identified on the left of the matrix can be thought of as providing additional contextual or descriptive information concerning the assets identified across the top of the matrix. This matrix illustrates how, for example, a works plan, tenure, or status measure provide supplementary information concerning an asset. The approach allows for both asset and asset setting information to be used either separately or in combination in decision making concerning the development of living links.



Table 2. Asset Setting Group categories used in the definition and organisation of spatial asset setting information

Context Group Description Examples Might Include:

Works Programs Information on any current or planned activities across waterways and/or landscapes that may either impact or be beneficial to the development of Living Link Corridors

Federal, State, Local government programs, community group activities, public-private partnerships and private works

Land Use and/or Tenure

Information on land use and/or tenure.

Information on disused, vacant, degraded areas, quarries, etc) that may be considered in the Living Links concept.

Information on the existing and or planned conservation network in your area of interest (including Federal, State, Local and Private networks)

Planning Information in the current planning scheme and overlay frameworks that are relevant to Living Link Corridor development*.

Future development areas (residential, commercial, industrial, roads).

Status/Rating Information on the:

Conservation significance or value of native vegetation and or specific flora / fauna species

The status of Social Activity assets.

The status of Cultural Activity assets.

The status of Recreational Activity assets.

Bioregional Conservation Status rating assigned to native vegetation.

Visitor numbers, site condition or importance

Corridor Networks

Information on any existing (established) corridors or plans that may be of relevance for consideration in the Living Links Project.

Rail, utility, riparian, flood ways, etc.

Threatening Processes

Information on threatening processes that may be relevant or impact on corridor development.

Land uses, subdivision, farming practices, recreation, waterway degradation, clearing, 4wd, coastal development, demographics, waste, rainfall, fire, pests, etc

Boundary Information

Information on any relevant administrative, natural or other boundaries that may be relevant to the Living Links Project.

Catchments, planning areas, community group boundaries, activity zones, transport zones, etc



Figure 3. Diagrammatic representation illustrating the relationship between Assets and Asset Settings.

2.3 Data Collation and Organisation Approach

Data Collation

The process of sourcing spatial data involved a three stage process that comprised:

Stage 1- Committee and key organisation contact follow up

This stage involved contacting organisation representatives already involved with the project to obtain spatial data or contact details of those in their organisation who could assist with data access. This stage involved the following steps:

o Letter to organisation Director or CEO (from CMA) advising of project and general requirements

o Data request letter to Committee members outlining detailed project requirements

o Follow up phone call to Committee members (to discuss request) and obtain GIS data or data contact, as appropriate

o Contact GIS staff as required to arrange data transfer and licencing

o Independent requests to key State Government agencies, including:

- DSE (Vicmap & other divisions)

- Parks Victoria

- DHS

- DPI

- AAV

- Heritage Victoria

- Royal Botanical Gardens



Stage 2 & 3 – Follow up based on Workshop series 1 & 2

This stage involved use of agency and community workshops to reinforce information requirements, clarify gaps in the data obtained to date, and encourage the provision of any outstanding data and supporting information.

Organisations and individuals consulted

A list of organisations and individuals contacted during the process of obtaining spatial data and relevant supporting documents is provided in Appendix 2.

Spatial Data Library

A process was required to take source data from agencies and transfer it into a set of information that will be of value in the subsequent stages of the Living Links Master Plan initiative. These later stages of the project will be primarily concerned with corridor or living link delineation.

The final repository for spatial data obtained during Project One was termed the ‘Master data Library’. This library was structured in line with the asset types and associated information identified earlier in this report. This information framework and supporting library can be conceptualised as a matrix that consists of:

• Assets as spatial features

• The Setting of Assets as spatial features

A diagrammatic representation of the spatial data library developed for Project One to support asset information, and the flow of raw data obtained from agencies and organisations into this library is provided in Figure 4.

This figure illustrates how data obtained from agencies or organisations, termed ‘raw data’ was transferred into a ‘source data’ repository structured on the basis of the source from which data was obtained, prior to being transferred into the final master data library for the project.

A key aspect of the source data repository was that it contained data in a consistent and standardised spatial format (which was an ESRI file geodatabase format), and consistent data projection and datum (where the VicGrid 94 projection and datum was adopted).

Since the source data repository was structured along agency or organisational lines it also provided an easy way of clarifying who had contributed what data at any point during Project One.

A screen view shows the structure of the source data repository and master data library that supported all spatial asset and asset setting data is presented in Figure 5. This figure shows the directory and file naming conventions adopted in these two components of the spatial data library.



Figure 4. Diagrammatic representation of the spatial data library developed for Project One to support asset information, and the flow of raw data obtained from agencies and organisations into this library

Figure 5. Screen views of the source data repository and master data library that supported all spatial asset and asset setting showing the directory and file naming conventions adopted.

In addition to comprising separate file geodatabases for each Asset Group and Asset Setting Group, spatial data in the master library was organised on the basis of the Asset Classes that comprised an Asset Group.

Individual spatial datasets were assigned to an Asset Class where the actual dataset was viewed to constitute an individual Asset Category. Hence, Asset Categories adopted a



naming convention that identified both the Asset Class and the organisation from where the dataset was sourced.

No source dataset attributes were removed, but several project related attributes to support data management and relating to the asset classification system and source organisation were added.

Figure 6 illustrates two examples of how spatial data was organised in the Master Data Library. Figure 6a shows how native vegetation data obtained from the Department of Sustainability and Environment was given the file name DSE-NatVeg and placed into the Native Vegetation Asset Category Feature Class Dataset within the ‘Natural’ geodatabase. Figure 6b shows the same approach in relation to the DSE land use dataset which resides in the ‘Land Use Tenure’ geodatabase.

Figure 6. Diagrammatic representation illustrating two examples of how spatial data was organised in the Master Data Library.



A screen view of some of the spatial datasets contributing to the Natural Asset Group are presented in Figure 7. This figure shows how file naming conventions are used in applying the classification hierarchy described earlier in this report,

In the example provided only one spatial dataset, termed an Asset Category, is identified under for each of the ‘Flora Sp’ and ‘Fauna Sp’ Asset Classes, while five spatial datasets are identified under the ‘Native Vegetation’ Asset Class.

Figure 7. Screen view of some of the spatial datasets contributing to the Natural Asset Group illustrating how file naming conventions are used in applying the classification hierarchy described earlier in this report.

Literature Library

In addition to spatial information on assets and asset settings, Project One also involved obtaining any electronic copies of regional plans, strategies or assessments that are of relevance to the Living Links Master Plan initiative. In some instances these studies identified assets that may not have been mapped and available in spatial data format, or alternatively provide background information on the assets or context for the setting of assets. A literature library was created to store the information obtained from interested parties. This Literature library was structured along agency or organisational lines. Documents were generally provided in Adobe Acrobat PDF or MS Word format.

The Literature Library forms a living repository for documents that will assist to inform subsequent stages of the broader Living Links Master Plan initiative.

2.4 Outcomes

This section outlines the final structure and other details concerning the outcomes delivered for the project in relation to asset spatial data and supporting documentation.



Spatial Data Library Structure

The full list of asset classes adopted in the classification of spatial data in the Master Data Library are presented in Table 3. The table identifies the codes assigned at the asset group and asset class level to uniquely identify assets.

The full list of asset setting classes adopted in the classification of spatial data in the Master Data Library are presented in Table 4.

Table 3. Full list of asset classes adopted in the classification of spatial data setting information

ASSET GROUP Class Number

ASSET CLASS Class Code

NATURAL-001 Assets with a primary function and/or service that provides an environmental benefit

001 001 Flora Sp 001-001

001 002 Fauna Sp 001-002

001 003 Native Vegetation 001-003

001 004 Other Vegetation 001-004

001 005 Aquatic-Foreshore 001-005

001 006 Aquatic-Wetland/Estuary/Waterbody 001-006

001 007 Aquatic-Major Waterway 001-007

SOCIAL-002 Assets with a primary function and/or service that provides an environmental benefit

002 001 Access Networks 002-001

002 002 Activity Hubs and Mass Transit Locations 002-002

002 003 Religious Centres 002-003

002 004 Educational Facilities 002-004

002 005 Clubs and Community Services 002-005

002 006 Economic Activity 002-006

002 007 Parks & Gardens 002-007

CULTURAL-003 Assets with a primary function and/or service that provides social infrastructure or facilitates social interaction

003 001 Libraries / Educational Facilities 003-001

003 002 Religious Centres 003-002

003 003 Indigenous Cultural Centres/Networks 003-003

003 004 Indigenous Sites / Register(Current and Historic) 003-004

003 005 Significant Sites/Register - Historic / Post-settlement 003-005

003 006 Parks and Gardens 003-006

003 007 Galleries and Museums 003-007

RECREATIONAL-004

Assets with a primary function and/or service that provides cultural infrastructure or facilitates cultural interaction

004 001 Parks and Gardens 004-001

004 002 Beaches 004-002

004 003 Bikeways, Tracks and Trails 004-003

004 004 Sports Facilities 004-004

004 005 Aquatic Activity (Boating / Fishing) 004-005

004 006 Camping/Caravan Facilities 004-006

004 007 Tourism Centres 004-007



Table 4. Full list of asset setting classes adopted in the classification of spatial data setting information

ASSET SETTING GROUP

Class Number

ASSET SETTING CLASS Class Code

Works Programs-001

Past, Present and Future works that relate or impact on any asset class

001 001 Current Works 001-001

001 002 Future Works 001-002

Land Use / Tenure-002

The land use and/or tenure frameworks and/or context of the living links study area

002 001 Public / Private Tenure 002-001 002 002 General Land Use & Conservation Networks 002-002

002 003 Vacant Land 002-003 002 004 Extractive Industries 002-004 002 005 Utilities and Easements 002-005 Planning Frameworks-003

The planning scheme/overlay frameworks, current and potential corridor (rail, utility, etc) networks of the study area

003 001 Current Zoning 003-001 003 002 Current Planning Overlays 003-002 003 003 Urban Growth Planning 003-003 003 004 Boundaries 003-004

003 005 Corridor Networks 003-005 003 006 Community Participation 003-006

Status Measures-004

Any ratings, measures or other types of qualitative or quantitative measures that assess the landscapes and or assets of the study area

004 001 Assessments 004-001

004 002 Social Activity / Usage 004-002 004 003 Cultural Activity / Usage 004-003 004 004 Recreational Activity / Usage 004-004

Threatening Processes-005

Any threatening processes that may impact on asset classes, landscapes or the development of corridors within the study area

005 001 Pest Plants and Animals 005-001

005 002 Salinity 005-002

005 003 Erosion 005-003

005 004 Water Quality 005-004

005 005 Pollution 005-005

Spatial Data Library Content

A summary of the Asset Classes and Asset Setting Classes for which spatial data was obtained and placed into the Master Library, together with the agency or organisation from where the data was obtained, is provided in Appendix 3. Spatial data was sourced for a total of 27 Asset Classes (comprising 152 Asset Categories) and 16 Asset Setting Classes (comprising 27 Asset Setting Categories).

A full listing of all spatial datasets residing in the Master Data Library and supporting metadata is provided in Appendix 4



Spatial Data Volumes

The volume of spatial data residing in the Master Data Library broken down by Asset Groups and Asset Setting Groups is presented in Table 5. The table also identifies the volume of data residing in the Raw Data repository.

Table 5. Volume of spatial data residing in the Master Data Library broken down by Asset Groups and Asset Setting Groups

Data type Data Volume

Raw Data - Total 3.02 GB

Assets Cultural 33.7 MB

Assets Natural 174 MB

Assets Recreational 29.5 MB

Assets Social 98.8 MB

Setting LanduseTenure 563 MB

Setting PlanningFramework 34.4 MB

Setting StatusMeasures 57.2 MB

Setting ThreateningProcesses 32.5 MB

Setting WorksProgram 1.73 MB

Summary AssetSignificance 24.9 MB

Summary ReferenceTables^ 1.54 MB

Domain Tables* 226 KB

Data Library - Total 1.81 GB

* Domain tables include tables used to define valid dataset attribute values. ^ Reference tables include all reference tables and metadata tables

Literature library A listing of all reports and other documents obtained in Project One are presented in Appendix 5. This table identifies the type of document, title, author, date and subject area where this could be readily determined. Reports that were received in the final two weeks of the project were not fully categorised. In excess of 160 documents were identified and included in the literature library.

DVD Directory Structure The final project DVD provided a digital version of the Master Data library and supporting project documentation. The DVD also contained the landscape significance datasets described in later sections of this report.



The DVD comprised the following directory structure:

Data_Library

Spatial_data

Contains:

Asset geodatabases

Asset setting geodatabases

Significance geodatabases

Spatial data metadata

Spatial data licences

Literature

Contains:

Summary table

Documents by agency/community group

Documents

Technical_Notes

Project_Information



3. Landscape Significance

3.1 Concepts and Definitions

The following sections of this report outline the approach adopted by the project to create a spatial dataset that includes an assigned significance value that will assist in the identification of possible living links.

To assist with the concept of assigning a significance rating to assist with possible corridor or living link development, the project identified the need to clarify several additional concepts in relation to the overall master planning project.

The most critical of these was to clarify the focus of living links themselves. The following definition was subsequently identified and applied in the assignment of a significance rating:

Living Links focus on the natural assets in the landscape and use other assets which provide opportunities for integration within the urban environment.

A key challenge for Project One was to provide a way of integrating or summarising the significant volume of asset and asset setting information described in the previous sections in a meaningful way to assist the next stages of the Living Links Master Plan in the delineation of living links.

In addition to the issue of data volumes there were also the issues of:

• multiple datasets depicting the same asset class or asset setting class, and

• assets being represented in multiple ways (ie. as points, or as polygons).

The development of an asset significance methodology and the subsequent translation of this into the form of a spatial dataset for the Living Links project was underpinned by three key concepts:

• Asset Representation

• Asset Significance Definition

• Significance Assessment Process

These concepts and processes are described in the following sections.

3.2 Asset Representation

Assets are represented by vector features (points, lines or polygons) within a Geographic Information System (GIS). These features were collated from a variety of agencies that use GIS to represent and manage these assets. Figure 8 illustrates the spatial representation of assets over two locations in the Living Links study area.



Figure 8. Asset Representation – Asset derived from data provided in GIS format

In the Living Links project, assets were represented using spatial data provided by agencies. The depiction of any given asset type was generated by extracting all or a subset of those features that meet the definition requirement of a particular asset class. These features represent the “raw data” from which significance was derived.

3.3 Asset Significance Definition

A key deliverable of Project One was the assignment of significance to assets. The approach used in the project to assign significance involves consideration of two key questions:

• Significance of what?

• Significance to what purpose and or value?



In addressing these questions significance was defined for the purposes of the project to mean the following.

Significance in the context of living links is a representative measure of capacity, attractiveness, usefulness and/or value to the creation of a network of links across

the study area.

It follows that for the purposes of this project significance was not assessed for individual assets but instead for a landscape (or land unit). This landscape approach involved assessing the significance of a particular landscape as a potential components of a Living Link network.

Using this approach the attractiveness, usefulness and/or value of a particular landscape was measured by assessing the combined contribution of assets found in that landscape. The assessment process is outlined in the following section.

3.4 Significance Assessment Process

Under the approach outlined above the assessment of significance required resolution of three issues:

• Normalisation of Assets

• Definition of a Landscape

• Selection of a Assessment Methodology

The conceptual relationship between these issues is illustrated in the Figure 9.

Figure 9. Conceptual Relationship between the three components of Landscape Significance

Normalisation of Assets

Assets are represented in the GIS as point, line and polygon geographic features. The representation of assets is dependent on the original needs of the custodian from who the information has been obtained. Analysis or assessment that involves integration of



information represented in these forms is problematic and generally a transformation to a common geography (or representation) is required.

In the context of an assessment of assets for the purposes of creating living links “normalisation of assets” was defined as the process by which assets are represented in a common geography that enables them to be compared and or combined for analysis or assessment purposes.

An additional issue related to asset representation was that a single asset may be represented in more than one dataset. For example, native vegetation mapping was provided from different sources. The reason for duplication in the representation of assets will vary. For example, it may be due to different geographic representation or different mapping resolutions. As a consequence of this the Living Links project assessed assets at the Asset Class level such that where an asset was represented in multiple datasets for the same location (or landscape) it was considered only once in the assessment of significance.

To accommodate both the normalisation (to a common geography) requirement for assessing significance and the multiplicity of features that represent an asset class a simple presence or absence concept was implemented using the following business rules:

• Where an asset class feature dataset intersects a landscape that landscape was “turned on” or assigned as present; and

• An asset class was only assigned once to a landscape (such that multiple records of the same asset were treated as only the one record)

In this way each landscape unit was assigned a full summary of the presence (or absence) of an asset class.

Definition of a Landscape

For the purposes of this project a landscape was defined as the fundamental unit of the common geography used to integrate asset information to enable assessment of significance. Key considerations in the selection of this fundamental unit of the analysis were:

• Living Links represent a strategic or regional concept to planning and as such the landscape should reflect this notion. In other words, the unit needs to have a resolution that was small enough to provide geographic distinction between major asset accumulations but large enough to allow for such accumulations to become apparent.

• Landscape delineation is essentially arbitrary.

For the purposes of this project a standard landscape was a square grid of 250m by 250m (or 6.25ha). This grid cell size produced 14,053 landscape units across the Living Links study area. Figure 10 illustrates the resolution of landscapes for the purposes of the assessment of significance.



Figure 10. Illustration of landscape units (comprising areas 250m by 250m) across a section of the Living Links study area

Assessment Methodology Selection

Having defined a landscape approach and assigned the presence of assets to those landscapes the next conceptual component was the selection of a methodology to combine or assess the integrated asset profile at the landscape level.

Key considerations in selection of the methodology included:

• Simplicity – it was important that any method be relatively simple to implement and importantly easy to update as this evaluation may be reworked in subsequent stages of the overall Living Links Master Plan initiative (involving Projects 2 and 3)

• Stakeholder emphasis – the 1st round of stakeholder consultation provided valuable insight into the relative importance of the four asset groups to the development of future living links. The implication of a preference in assets was that assets (asset classes) would need to be weighted. In general the preferences included:

o natural assets over all other asset groups

o recreational/cultural assets over social assets

o recreational assets marginally over cultural assets

As a result of these considerations and in consultation with the PPWCMA the methodology chosen was a three stage process that applied the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) as a means of combining all asset information under the general preference rules outlined above.



Key to this decision was AHPs core ability to structure complexity, provide a preferencing measure on a ratio scale and synthesise choice and disparate information sources. In essence AHP converts preference into ratio scale weights for individual criterion.

Appendix 8 provides a detailed review of this analytical methodology. The document is titled ‘The Analytic Hierarchy Process – An Exposition’ by Forman & Gass.

The three stage process used to assign a final significance value to landscape units is summarised as:

• Stage 1 – Presence / Absence Assignment of each Asset Class This stage is effectively the normalisation of assets process described in Section 3.4.

• Stage 2 – Assessment of Asset Class Significance . For the Living Links project all Asset Classes were assigned to an Asset Group (Natural, Social, Cultural or Recreational). As a result the 1st step in combining information to assess significance is to “collapse” the individual Asset Class results into a single significance measure for that group. For each group this was achieved by implementing AHP for that group. The resultant ratio weights were applied to Asset Classes within each landscape unit to derive significance for each of the four groups.

• Stage 3 – Assessment of Overall Significance Having derived an Asset Group significance the final step in the process was to combine group significance values to derive an overall significance for each landscape. Again AHP was used to achieve this but instead of combining Asset Classes this step combined Asset Groups.

In summary the approach in using a common methodology to establish weights using a preference concept was:

• Transparent

• Applied simple inputs – involving a combination of asset groups; and

• Provided a measure of consistency in relation to the preference approach applied

It also ensured the definition of living links adopted by the project, which was :

‘Living Links focus on the natural assets in the landscape and use other assets which provide opportunities for integration within the urban environment’

was appropriately supported in terms of a landscape significance spatial dataset based on available asset information.



3.5 Landscape Significance Dataset

The significance datasets generated using the process described in the previous section of this report were placed into the Master Data Library for the project and reside in the significance geodatabase.

These datasets comprise a landscape significance rating dataset for each asset group in addition to an overall landscape significance rating dataset for all assets using the approach described.

A map view of the results obtained in the form of a visual summary is provided in the following figures (Figures 11 to 15). For each map view the darker color represents greater landscape significance on the basis of relevant assets. A larger map view of each landscape significance rating result assigned to each Asset Group and all assets is provided in Appendix 7.

Figure 15 shows the result for assigning Landscape Significance on the basis of all Asset Groups, where the darker color represents greater landscape significance on the basis of all assets.

Figure 16 shows the same Landscape Significance result presented in Figure 15 based on all Asset Groups, together with possible links (in olive green) and nodes (in green) identified during Project One consultation with agency and community groups concerning assets.

As anticipated the landscape significance dataset based on all assets was reasonably well correlation with the links and nodes identified at these workshop sessions. To this end it served as a good reality check on the significance modelling approach adopted and results obtained.



Asset Group Landscape Significance

Figure 11. Landscape Significance assigned to the Natural Asset Group, where the darker color represents greater landscape significance on the basis of these assets.



Figure 12. Landscape Significance assigned to the Recreational Asset Group, where the darker color represents greater landscape significance on the basis of these assets.



Figure 13. Landscape Significance assigned to the Cultural Asset Group, where the darker color represents greater landscape significance on the basis of these assets.



Figure 14. Landscape Significance assigned to the Social Asset Group, where the darker color represents greater landscape significance on the basis of these assets.



Overall Landscape Significance based on all Asset Groups

Figure 15. Landscape Significance assigned on the basis of all Asset Groups, where the darker color represents greater landscape significance on the basis of all assets.



Figure 16. Landscape Significance assigned on the basis of all Asset Groups together with possible links (in olive green) and nodes (in green) identified during Project One consultation with agency and community groups concerning assets. The darker color represents greater landscape significance on the basis of all assets.



4. Agency and Community Consultation Outcomes

4.1 Introduction

The Living Links Master Plan is a visionary and ambitious project that aims to set out a framework to determine corridors for connecting patches of natural environmental value, sites of cultural values and recreation areas/ social activities. The links are to be situated in an urban environment that is heavily modified, comprising substantial industry, commercial and residential areas. The Master Plan will become an investment plan for seeking significant financial support to implement the subsequent works program over the next 25 years. In addition, the Master Plan will serve as the benchmark to measure the success of the delivery of natural, social, cultural, recreational and economic benefits.

A key determinant of the success of the Master Plan will be the degree of ownership by the broad range of stakeholders, including state and local government, water authorities, recreation and natural resource management interest groups and indigenous land councils; as well as community groups, friends groups and local residents. This first project engaged with these groups to bring them on board with the project and harness their knowledge.

This section provides a summary of the key consultation outcomes obtained during the project. These consultation outcomes are described in further detail in each of the consultation summary reports which are provide in Appendix 7 of this report.

A separate Project Consultation Plan was also prepared in addition to a project website which was used to provide ready access to workshop and general project information.

4.2 Consultation objectives

Agency and community consultation were key components of the Project 1: Asset Identification and Analysis methodology. In particular, Project One required:

• Comprehensive engagement with relevant government departments, agencies and authorities to ensure their direct involvement in the identification of assets.

• Engagement with community groups, friends groups and local residents to gain local knowledge and ensure their involvement in the identification of assets.

Accordingly the overarching objectives of consultation throughout Living Links Project 1: Asset Identification and Analysis, as detailed in the Consultation Strategy (Beca, February 2009) included, to:

• Facilitate the sharing of knowledge, both statistical and local.

• Provide the opportunity for participation in the identification of assets and threats.

• Provide validation of the methodology and spatial products as they are developed.

• Engage stakeholders early in the process.

• Increase community participation, knowledge and investment in natural, social and cultural protection and restoration projects.

• Ensure stakeholders are directly involved in identifying assets.

• Increase awareness through community participation which can in turn lead to change in perceptions, attitudes and actions.



• Generate support for the Living Links Project.

• Raise awareness and provide information to interested parties throughout the life span of the project.

4.3 First Round Consultation Outcomes

The first round of agency and community engagement was undertaken in early April 2009. This comprised of an agency workshop and two community consultation workshops which were facilitated by Beca with support from Spatial Vision. Different approaches were used to engage participants and collect input and feedback at each of the three workshops. The overarching objectives of these sessions were to:

• Introduce participants to the Living Links Master Plan Project One,

• Gather local knowledge and existing readily available information,

• Provide an opportunity to participate in the classifying of assets and threats, and

• Determine any gaps in asset classes or settings and identify appropriate resources to address this missing data.

Fourteen State and local government representatives attended the agency workshop. These participants were generally strategic planners and managers at State Government agencies and local Councils. A total of 26 people attended the two community consultation workshops, who generally represented Friends and Interest Groups with an environmental focus.

The findings of the first round consultation have provided a host of additional assets for spatial mapping and reference resources for incorporation into the Living Links Master Plan Program. The outcome of this first round of workshops provided an opportunity for the Project Team to identify new data opportunities, and refine the proposed asset classification system proposed.

4.4 Second Round Consultation Outcomes

The second round of agency and community engagement was undertaken in early June 2009. This comprised of one agency and two community information briefing sessions which were facilitated by Beca with support from Spatial Vision. The objectives of these sessions were to:

• Provide an update of the work completed since the first round of agency and community consultation;

• Report on the findings from round 1 consultation; and

• Demonstrate the application of outputs from Living Links Master Plan Project 1 for future project stages.

Different material was presented at the Agency Information Briefing Session and Community Information Briefing Sessions. The material at the Agency Information Briefing Session was of a more detailed technical nature in recognition of the expertise of attendees.

The conclusions drawn from the outcomes of the Agency Information Briefing Session were:



• There is generally a high level of support from participants for the methodology used to assign significance to natural, social, cultural and recreation assets, including the application of a weighting system;

• The majority of perceived benefits and opportunities for the Living Links Master Plan Project identified by participants relate to better coordination between government, agencies and the community.

The conclusions drawn from the outcomes of the Community Information Briefing Sessions were:

• The majority of perceived benefits and opportunities for the Living Links Master Plan Project identified by participants relate to providing improved connectivity of natural assets and facilitating the protection and enhancement of natural assets;

• Participants generally considered that the Living Links Master Plan provides a platform to improve broader community education and participation;

• There is generally strong support from participants for the methodology used to assign significance to natural, social, cultural and recreation assets; and

• Ongoing and active community consultation is fundamental to the next stages of the Living Links Master Plan Project.



5. Recommendations

The following observations and subsequent recommendations are provided in this section for consideration by the PPWCMA.

R1. The prescriptive approach adopted in the project brief for Project One in relation to consultation workshops did not necessarily work as well as other consultation techniques. It is therefore suggested that a range of consultation approaches and tools be considered for future stages of the Living Links initiative to provide a stakeholder engagement structure that promotes meaningful input and is tailored within the available project budget.

R2. A smaller Steering Group or Project Management Team comprising CMA and other key stakeholder representatives (not dissimilar to that used for the Project One tender selection process) may assist with greater stakeholder buy in and longer term project support.

R3. The CMA instigate negotiations with data providers as soon as possible to ensure ongoing use of selected source data for which a fixed term period was identified in formal licence agreement documentation.





Appendix 1 General Terms and Definitions





General Terms and Definitions ArcSDE A spatial database gateway which enables the storage of spatial

features in common RDBMS such as Oracle and SQL Server. ArcSDE is now available as a component of ArcGIS Server

Asset Settings Set of information that describes, measures and/or evaluates a class of asset to provide a context for the planning of corridors

Assets Objects, things and locations that are of value to the community and are represented by a spatial feature(s) in the landscape. Assets are viewed in the context of corridor planning

ESRI GIS software vendor

Geodatabases Spatial data structure used in ERSI ArcGIS software

Landscape Unit Fundamental unit of the common geography used to integrate asset information to enable assessment of significance

Links Provide connectivity and pathways for natural, cultural, social and recreational interactions

Living Links Focus on the natural assets in the landscape and use other assets which provide opportunities for integration within the urban environment

Master Plan Living Links Master Plan initiative

Nodes key anchor points in a linked landscape

Project One Project One: Asset Identification and Analysis, of the Living Links Master Plan initiative

Resolution Resolution is a data concept that expresses the degree of discrimination between objects. It can be spatial – (what is the smallest size object that can be observed). It can be thematic – (what is the smallest unit of information content that can be determined).

Scale Scale is a cartographic or mapping concept that expresses the relationship that exists between a measured distance on a map and the corresponding distance on the surface of the earth. A scale of 1 cm = 1000 metres can also be expressed as 1:100,000 (i.e., 1 cm on the map to 100,000 cm on the earth).

Significance Significance in the context of living links is a representative measure of capacity, attractiveness, usefulness and/or value to the creation of a network of links across the study area





Appendix 2 Spatial data provision contacts



Organisations and Individuals contacted in relation to the provision of spatial data



Appendix 3 Asset and Asset Setting Classes Data Provision Summary



Asset and Asset Setting Classes Data Provision Summary



Appendix 4 Full List of Spatial Data in Master Library



Full List of Spatial Data in Master Library



Appendix 5 Report List



Report List



Appendix 6 Landscape Significance Dataset Views



Landscape Significance Dataset Views



Appendix 7 Consultation Outcomes



Consultation Outcomes



Appendix 8 The Analytic Hierarchy Process





Detailed review of ‘The Analytic Hierarchy Process – An Exposition’ by Forman & Gass

The following is a definition of AHP sourcesd from Wilipedia

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a structured technique for dealing with complex decisions. Rather than prescribing a "correct" decision, the AHP helps the decision makers find the one that best suits their needs and their understanding of the problem.

Based on mathematics and psychology, it was developed by Thomas L. Saaty in the 1970s and has been extensively studied and refined since then. The AHP provides a comprehensive and rational framework for structuring a decision problem, for representing and quantifying its elements, for relating those elements to overall goals, and for evaluating alternative solutions. It is used around the world in a wide variety of decision situations, in fields such as government, business, industry, healthcare, and education.

Several firms supply computer software to assist in using the process.

Users of the AHP first decompose their decision problem into a hierarchy of more easily comprehended sub-problems, each of which can be analyzed independently. The elements of the hierarchy can relate to any aspect of the decision problem—tangible or intangible, carefully measured or roughly estimated, well- or poorly-understood—anything at all that applies to the decision at hand.

Once the hierarchy is built, the decision makers systematically evaluate its various elements by comparing them to one another two at a time. In making the comparisons, the decision makers can use concrete data about the elements, or they can use their judgments about the elements' relative meaning and importance. It is the essence of the AHP that human judgments, and not just the underlying information, can be used in performing the evaluations.[1]

The AHP converts these evaluations to numerical values that can be processed and compared over the entire range of the problem. A numerical weight or priority is derived for each element of the hierarchy, allowing diverse and often incommensurable elements to be compared to one another in a rational and consistent way. This capability distinguishes the AHP from other decision making techniques.

In the final step of the process, numerical priorities are calculated for each of the decision alternatives. These numbers represent the alternatives' relative ability to achieve the decision goal, so they allow a straightforward consideration of the various courses of action.1

1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_Hierarchy_Process