4.2 Status and management of key threats to cultural and heritage places

Indicators Threats to Aboriginal cultural places Threats to historic heritage places Extent management objectives met for key threats

ContextSignificant Aboriginal cultural places and historic places and objects are vulnerable to a range of threatening processes from natural forces (such as climate and weathering) to human or animal disturbances. Fire has the potential to cause immediate and significant damage, while weathering may take many years to take effect.

Lack of use of historic places and objects can lead to less frequent monitoring of condition, and maintenance requirements may go unreported. With the deterioration of an historic site, perception of usefulness and value may also be reduced, leading to lack of respect and vandalism. An unused place can also fail to encourage public understanding of history and significance. In some cases (e.g. mining ruins) the goal of management may include natural decay in the landscape or may be considered acceptable by Traditional Owners and other relevant Indigenous communities.

Threats to Aboriginal cultural places Park managers reported that the most common threats affecting Aboriginal cultural places across in the parks network were damage to cultural values by visitors, lack of knowledge, illegal activities and fire. For some threats such as weathering and erosion by animals, few parks reported severe or major impacts, while for other threats such as damage to cultural values by visitors, lack of knowledge and illegal activities a greater proportion of parks reported impacts as severe or major.

1

4. Management of culture and heritage values

Figure 4.3.1 Threats to Aboriginal cultural places

Damage to CV by visitors(n = 73/ 24% parks)

Lack of knowledge/expertise(n = 49/ 16% parks)

Illegal activities(n = 46/ 15% parks)

Wildfire(n = 37/ 12% parks)

Extreme weather events(n = 29/ 10% parks)

Damage to CV by animals(n = 28/ 9% parks)

Erosion/trampling by visitors(n = 28/ 9% parks)

Impacts of management(n = 25/ 8% parks)

Weathering/age-related dilapidation of CV(n = 22/ 7% parks)

Changes to access(n = 19/ 6% parks)

0 20 40 60 80

Minor Moderate Major Severe

number of responses

Threats to historic heritage placesPark managers reported that the most common threats affecting historic heritage places across the parks network were inadequate maintenance, damage to cultural values by visitors, lack of knowledge and illegal activities. For some commonly reported threats such as inadequate maintenance and fire , more than one third of responses reported severe or major impacts, while for other threats such as lack of knowledge, impacts were mostly minor or moderate.

Figure 4.3.2 Threats to historic heritage places

Page 2 of 4

Inadequate maintenance of assets/facilities(n = 66/ 22% parks)

Damage to CV by visitors(n = 77/ 26% parks)

Lack of knowledge/expertise(n = 75/ 25% parks)

Illegal activities(n = 70/ 23% parks)

Weathering/age-related dilapidation of CV(n = 67/ 22% parks)

Wildfire(n = 63/ 21% parks)

Extreme weather events(n = 54/ 18% parks)

Impacts of management(n = 49/ 16% parks)

Structural adequacy(n = 28/ 9% parks)

Climate change(n = 26/ 9% parks)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Minor Moderate Major Severe

number of responses

Trend in impact of selected threatsThe trend in selected threats to Aboriginal cultural places was variable with more parks reporting increased impacts than decreased impacts from inappropriate both fire frequency and severity and illegal uses, while more parks reported decreased impacts from visitor (recreational) impacts than increased impacts.

For historic places and objects more parks reported that the impact from fire frequency and intensity, illegal uses and visitor use (recreation) increased than decreased, indicating an overall net increase in the level of threats to these values.

Figure 4.3.3 Trend in selected threats to culture and heritage values

Visitor impact(n = 56/ 19% parks)

Non-compliance(n = 16/ 5% parks)

Inappropriate fire frequency & intensity (n = 24/ 8% parks)

Visitor impact(n = 53/ 18% parks)

Non-compliance(n = 15/ 5% parks)

Inappropriate fire frequency & intensity(n = 22/ 7% parks)

Her

itag

e pl

aces

and

obj

ects

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Impacts decreased Impacts were stable Impacts increased Trend in impacts unknown

Page 3 of 4

% of parks

Extent management objectives met for key threatsThe majority of parks reported that they fully or substantially met management objectives for fire with respect to Aboriginal and heritage places and objects. However for other key threats (visitor impact and non-compliance), more than half of the relevant parks reported that they only partially met or did not at all meet management objectives for the impacts of these threats. Thirteen per cent of parks reported that management objectives were being fully or substantially met for management of threats from non-compliance (illegal activities) on Aboriginal cultural values.

Figure 4.3.4 The extent to which management objectives for threats to cultural and heritage values were met

Page 4 of 4

Visitor impact(n = 56/ 19% parks)

Non-compliance(n = 16/ 5% parks)

Fire(n = 24/ 8% parks)

Visitor impact(n = 53/ 18% parks)

Non-compliance(n = 15/ 5% parks)

Fire(n = 22/ 7% parks)

Her

itag

e pl

aces

and

obj

ects

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Fully Substantially Partially Not at all

N=2

98

park

s

% of parks