This section considers the actual and potential drivers of change in the Tasmanian coastal SES. Key drivers were either environment-oriented or social-oriented. Environment-oriented drivers were the most frequently mentioned threat factors impacting the Tasmanian coastal SES. Climate change, sea level rise, storm surge and coastal erosion were identified as key environment-oriented drivers. Environmental pollution (including marine debris and plastic
Page 130
pollution), invasive species (such as weeds) and ocean acidification were among other threat drivers.
It was perceived that the identification of threat drivers at a local scale was an ad-hoc process. However, the analysis revealed that some councils such as Clarence Council conducted a systematic risk assessment project to identify the influential drivers in their local area. For example, a participant from Clarence Council argued that:
in [this] council we undertook a program looking at threats to the council, and we have identified around 150 risks associated with climate change, many of them were in coastal processes; and the big ones are coastal erosion and the things that rise from coastal erosion particularly in threatening assets and threatening environmental values around areas of high biodiversity and important environmental benefits (int. 120)
Social-oriented drivers referred to the drivers that are created by the human component or influence social systems of coastal SES. Poor leadership was the main driver in this category that causes weaknesses in Tasmanian coastal governance. In this regard, the domination of political and economic-based approaches in the leadership was frequently emphasised by the respondents. For example, an interviewee argued that: “the distribution of power within the government system lays within the capital and any concerns around maintaining
amenity or ecological values within the coastal zone are always held up against those capital development concerns, with those concerns usually trembling any other values” (int. 119). Lack of political will and support to respond to coastal challenges was another major social- oriented weakness of Tasmanian coastal governance. As respondent 104 said: “We already have a lot of frameworks in place, but what we do not have is the political will to implement and support them”. To address unclarity in roles and responsibilities in Tasmanian coastal arrangement participant 107 raised the following questions: “Who has what role? What are they doing, how we are working together [with]? What are we achieving under this policy?” Non-supportive regulatory frameworks, lack of long-term vision and objectives,
inappropriate intersectional and cross-scale collaboration and coordination, the inadequacy of financial and human resources and poor decision-making, policy development and planning systems were other major social-oriented weaknesses in the Tasmanian coastal
Page 131
SES. For example, one participant indicated the weaknesses of Tasmanian decision-making system and argued:
current decision-making processes are fragmented, disconnected and inconsistent. Although some people have the big picture, the decision- making process itself does not. The decision-making system is just dealing with the step by step incremental things without [any] reference to the big picture. Major decision-making is done at the local government level, and they only are thinking about it a little bit (int.104)
Furthermore, the interviews identified the key drivers of strengths and opportunities in Tasmanian coastal governance. To address environment-oriented drivers of strengths and opportunities, a number of the participants indicated that the lower risk of natural hazards in the Tasmanian coast (compare with other states) was a key factor. For example, a respondent argued that: “[t]here’s public and private infrastructure under risk [of climate change and sea level rise], but my understanding is [in Tasmania] it is not significant as compared to other states” (int. 121).
Resilient coastal geomorphology was another environment-oriented driver that strengthens the coastal SES against the impacts of natural hazards and provides some future
opportunities. The Interviewee 105 indicated:“as an example, half of the coastline here [at Kingborough Council area] is resilient to erosion; it is an opportunity to have resilient coastal properties”. Having unique and special natural environment was another frequently
mentioned opportunity as one participant mentioned: “we have the most scenic coastline and broadest environmental variants. Tasmania has got many touristic values without competition to get access to them, and that would be [a] huge value for the next generation” (int. 119).
The participants identified a number of major factors regarding social-oriented drivers of strengthens and opportunities. Improving public awareness and support was seen as one of the key strengths of Tasmanian coastal SES that provide for future opportunities. An
interviewee stated that: “the rising awareness of local issues as consequences of the threat to the system and that sort of awareness can lead people to some sort of solution” (int. 120). The sense of commitment and belonging to place was another social-oriented driver as the interviewee 123 said: “one of the positives for Tasmania as a small place, is we share; people are committed to their place” (int. 120).
Page 132
The lower intensity of coastal development compared with other states was an opportunity in the Tasmanian coastal SES. As a participant argued: “Fortunately, we are living in
Tasmania, not NSW, development here in comparison to NSW is almost anything, and we have almost the sparsely developed coastline because of lack of development pressure” (int. 105). Also, reasonable availability of quality data was another strengthens that could
facilitate the governance processes. To address this advantage, one respondent claimed that: “Chris Sharples has done good mapping on resilient coastal areas. That is good for the future development, and it is also good for something like we know where we can move people safely in case there are problems” (int. 108).
Finally, the findings revealed inconsistencies in the participants’ opinions about identifying threats and opportunities. While some respondents perceived a driver as a threat, others saw it differently. For example, lower development pressure mostly was specified as an opportunity as one respondent argued that“there are a lot of opportunities because Tasmania has such a lot of coastline. There are a lot of coastlines that still remained
undeveloped” (int. 106). However, other respondents addressed less developed coastline as a potential threat factor:“having coastal areas that are not intensively developed is rather a threat than an opportunity, because it might be interpreted as because we have a lot of natural resources, we can afford to lose [some of it]” (int. 122).