An interesting question to ask at this point is who is responsible? Who controls landuse?
The controls of landuse associated with each tenure type are set by state governments and as a consequence, there is slight variation between States and Territories.
The extent and location of clearing within a state as measured in this project are thus a reflection of the history of land management by individual States and Territories.
Thus it is informative to summarise clearing by state boundaries.
Beginning with clearing, Table 10 sets out the proportion of each State of the ILZ, and within that, the relative distribution of the three principal landcover disturbance classes.
Table 10: The proportion of the ILZ of each state in the three critical disturbance classes. The first column is the proportion of each state within the ILZ.
ILZ (%) Uncleared Thinned Cleared Thinned & Cleared
_____________________________________________________________________________________
NSW 88 38.0 18.1 40.2 58.3
Vic 100 24.8 12.0 52.8 64.8
Qld 62 40.2 26.7 25.8 52.5
SA 28 40.3 11.6 44.3 55.8
WA 17 33.0 8.5 48.0 56.5
Tas 100 54.0 6.2 25.8 31.9
NT 15 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0
ACT 100 48.7 13.9 37.4 51.3
Almost all States show the same level of clearing, approximately 50%, within their respective intensive agricultural and pastoral areas. Tasmania shows the lowest clearing percentage; Victoria the largest.
Similarly for grazing, Table 11 sets out the proportion of each State of the ELZ, and within that, the relative distribution of the three principal landcover disturbance classes.
Table 11: The proportion of the ELZ of each state in the three critical disturbance classes. The first column is the proportion of each state within the ELZ.
ELZ (%) Slight Substantial Significant
________________________________________________________________________
NSW 12 19 37 44
Qld 38 27 29 43
SA 72 54 22 24
WA 83 71 6 23
NT 85 68 14 17
From these relative figures, one appreciation of the landcover condition of any State was gained by comparing the distribution within the three levels of disturbance.
New South Wales and Queensland both have the largest proportion of their ELZ areas in the significant disturbance class. In contrast, South Australia, Western Australia and the Northern Territory have the largest proportion of their ELZ areas in the class of least disturbance.
However, with absolute area this assessment was largely reversed: the smallest area of landcover significantly disturbed by grazing was in the ELZ of NSW (43, 000 km2), followed by South Australia (160, 000 km2), Northern Territory (196, 000 km2), Queensland (271, 000 km2), and Western Australia (482, 000 km2).
The two sets of figures above do not convey an overall assessment of the status of landcover disturbance within each of the States and Territories with the same power as does the view from space.
This view communicates the extent of landcover change as well as its spatial patterning.
Even though we cannot quantify the relationship between the loss of biodiversity and the extent and severity of landcover disturbance, the view from space does give an overall appreciation of the task confronting conservation efforts, especially within the ILZ.
Therefore we provide images of the ILZ for Queensland, New South wales (incorporating the Australian Capital Territory), Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia, and the Northern Territory for the reader to interpret and contemplate.
Don't forget there is also an image of Australia to refresh your understanding of the whole picture; both ILZ and ELZ. In addition there is an image of the island state of Tasmania.
The ILZ of Queensland is presented at a spatial resolution of 1 x 1 km, and in Albers projection. The extent of the clearing becomes most obvious when you realise how much of the image is remnants of the original landcover.
The ILZ of New South Wales displayed at a spatial resolution of 1 x 1 km, and in Albers projection. Almost all the forest remnants are restricted to the uplands of the Great Dividing Range.
The ILZ of Victoria, in this case the whole state, presented at a spatial resolution of 1 x 1 km, and in Albers projection. In terms of relative areas, this is the most cleared of all states. As for New South Wales, the forest remnants are restricted to the uplands of the Great Dividing Range.
The ILZ of South Australia, a part of a large state, at a spatial resolution of 1 x 1 km, and in Albers projection. If you spend time interpreting this image, it is not hard to see why in this state, there have been several attempts to determine the limits to sustainable agriculture, the margins of the good earth.
The ILZ of Western Australia, a small fraction of this largest state, at a spatial resolution of 1 x 1 km, and in Albers projection. The wheatbelt of this state is almost devoid of any native vegetation.
The ILZ of the Northern Territory displayed at a spatial resolution of 1 x 1 km, and in Albers projection. There has been small and scattered clearing within this region but we could not systematically map changes against a dynamic background of burning and seasonal contrast. These are fascinating landscapes to interpret.
