Talk:Gulf St Vincent Important Bird Area
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Cowdy001 in topic The ‘’according to whom" tag placed after 'Much of the IBA adjoins industrial and residential suburbs’
.svg){kind=logo}
The ‘’according to whom" tag placed after 'Much of the IBA adjoins industrial and residential suburbs’
editThe following message was placed on my talk page. I have copied it to this page as I think this is the most appropriate place to discuss this matter. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Cowdy001: I'm wondering about the "according to whom" tag you put into this article. The citation for that information is at the end of the paragraph. Is that not sufficient, or do you feel we need to tag that particular sentence as well (i.e. with the same reference)? MeegsC (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi MeegsC, Thanks for the message re the Gulf St Vincent IBA. In the following, I will firstly explain why I tagged the particular part of the sentence and then I will discuss what action I think should be undertaken. FIRSTLY, as a South Australian resident, I was surprised when I first read the following statement - 'Much of the IBA adjoins industrial and residential suburbs’. I consider this to be factually incorrect. I will explain my perspective as follows. The coast from Ardrossan at the north end of Gulf St Vincent down to Port Gawler is virtually all rural land. This stretch of coastline is about 100 kilometres (62 mi)* in length. Under South Australian planning law (i.e. Development Act 1993), the land adjoining the above described coastline is zoned generally down to high tide mark either as ‘Coastal Conservation’, ‘Conservation Park’ where these have been declared under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 and at least one instance as ‘Coastal Open Space’, while the surrounding land is generally zoned for ‘Primary Production’ with the following exceptions where other uses exist (i.e. ‘industrial’, ‘light industrial’, ‘residential’, ‘ bulk handling’, ‘mineral extraction’, ‘settlement’, ‘rural living’, ‘tourist accommodation’, ‘commercial’ and ‘coastal development’) - Ardrossan (about 4 kilometres (2.5 mi)* of other uses), Tiddy Widdy Beach (about 1 kilometre (0.62 mi)*), Price (9 kilometres (5.6 mi)*), Port Clinton (2.6 kilometres (1.6 mi)*), Port Wakefield (about 1.1 kilometres (0.68 mi)*) and the settlements of Port Parham, Webb Beach and Thompson Beach (4.4 kilometres (2.7 mi)*). The above exceptions all add up to 22.1 kilometres (13.7 mi)* or, say, 22% of the coastline abutting the IBA. South of Port Gawler, the IBA effectively branches in two directions (i.e. east & west) due to the presence of Barker Inlet. The east branch of the IBA which extends along the coastline south of Port Gawler for about 18 kilometres (11 mi)* (i.e. concludes at the Bolivar sewerage treatment works). This is where the north end of Adelaide starts and where urban development starts to get close to the coastline. The zoning of the land adjoining the coastline covered by the IBA is generally a mix of ‘coastal conservation’ and ‘mineral extraction’ (i.e. salt pans) where land zoned for ‘industry’ is set back from the coast and follows the coastline for about 6 kilometres (3.7 mi)*. The west branch of the IBA overlaps the north ends of Lefevre Peninsula and Torrens Island where the former is zoned for ‘Industry’ and the latter has been declared as a conservation park. Here, the length of coastline zoned for ‘industry’ is about 10 kilometres (6.2 mi)*. South of Port Gawler, the extent of the IBA that adjoins ‘industrial and residential suburbs’ is between 50% to 100% depending on the criteria used by Birdlife International to define what ‘industrial and residential suburbs’ are. Overall, the extent of the IBA (i.e. from Ardrossan to Bolivar and Lefevre Peninsula) that 'adjoins industrial and residential suburbs' is probably between 29% and 39% which is less than what is implied by the use of the word ‘much’ which can be interpreted as being a quantity greater than 50%. The above discussion relies on planning policy documents published by the South Australian government for the local government areas adjoining the same extent of coastline as the Gulf St Vincent IBA. A list of links along with a list of pages that explain the zoning of the land as described above will follow in a later post. I think the problem is actually with the cited source, i.e. the following BirdLife International webpage where the statement 'Much of the IBA adjoins industrial and residential suburbs' was copied from - http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sitefactsheet.php?id=25116. I think the written content does not accurately reflect the extent of the IBA as shown on the map and should be re-written by BirdLife International to clarify its intentions. SECONDLY, I suggest that the section should be re-written. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, as a non-Aussie, I can't comment other than to say that a reliable source does say that, and that "according to whom" is answered by "BirdLife International", which is cited at the end of the paragraph. If you have reliable sources that show otherwise, then they should most definitely be added to the article! MeegsC (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- As discussed above, here is the list of links regarding the zoning of the land over which the IBA is located including page numbers. From west to east, the following local government areas (LGA, also known as ‘councils’ in South Australia) have statutory responsibility for development et al - Yorke Peninsula Council, Wakefield Regional Council, District Council of Mallala, City of Playford, City of Salisbury and City of Port Adelaide Enfield. Each link opens a file in PDF format. The first page in the list of pages is a map of the LGA known as a Council Reference Map which shows the zoning for the entire LGA. For information about the different classes of zoning, please look at the section in the relevant Development Plan entitled ‘Zone Section’.
- York Peninsula Council Development Plan - please refer pages 239, 340, 340, 343, 348 and 471 for zoning information.
- Wakefield Regional Council Development Plan - please refer pages 201, 243, 258, 269 and 319 for zoning information.
- Mallala Council (sic) Development Plan - please refer pages 253, 263, 266, 272, 274, 278, 281, and 292 for zoning information.
- Playford Council (sic) Development Plan - - please refer pages 405, 413, 454 and 463 for zoning information.
- Salisbury Council (sic) Development Plan - please refer pages 267, 288, 266, 330, 416, 420 and 460 for zoning information.
- Port Adelaide Enfield Council (sic) Development Plan - please refer pages 573, 580, and 584 for zoning information. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
- As discussed above, here is the list of links regarding the zoning of the land over which the IBA is located including page numbers. From west to east, the following local government areas (LGA, also known as ‘councils’ in South Australia) have statutory responsibility for development et al - Yorke Peninsula Council, Wakefield Regional Council, District Council of Mallala, City of Playford, City of Salisbury and City of Port Adelaide Enfield. Each link opens a file in PDF format. The first page in the list of pages is a map of the LGA known as a Council Reference Map which shows the zoning for the entire LGA. For information about the different classes of zoning, please look at the section in the relevant Development Plan entitled ‘Zone Section’.
- Okay, as a non-Aussie, I can't comment other than to say that a reliable source does say that, and that "according to whom" is answered by "BirdLife International", which is cited at the end of the paragraph. If you have reliable sources that show otherwise, then they should most definitely be added to the article! MeegsC (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi MeegsC, Thanks for the message re the Gulf St Vincent IBA. In the following, I will firstly explain why I tagged the particular part of the sentence and then I will discuss what action I think should be undertaken. FIRSTLY, as a South Australian resident, I was surprised when I first read the following statement - 'Much of the IBA adjoins industrial and residential suburbs’. I consider this to be factually incorrect. I will explain my perspective as follows. The coast from Ardrossan at the north end of Gulf St Vincent down to Port Gawler is virtually all rural land. This stretch of coastline is about 100 kilometres (62 mi)* in length. Under South Australian planning law (i.e. Development Act 1993), the land adjoining the above described coastline is zoned generally down to high tide mark either as ‘Coastal Conservation’, ‘Conservation Park’ where these have been declared under the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 and at least one instance as ‘Coastal Open Space’, while the surrounding land is generally zoned for ‘Primary Production’ with the following exceptions where other uses exist (i.e. ‘industrial’, ‘light industrial’, ‘residential’, ‘ bulk handling’, ‘mineral extraction’, ‘settlement’, ‘rural living’, ‘tourist accommodation’, ‘commercial’ and ‘coastal development’) - Ardrossan (about 4 kilometres (2.5 mi)* of other uses), Tiddy Widdy Beach (about 1 kilometre (0.62 mi)*), Price (9 kilometres (5.6 mi)*), Port Clinton (2.6 kilometres (1.6 mi)*), Port Wakefield (about 1.1 kilometres (0.68 mi)*) and the settlements of Port Parham, Webb Beach and Thompson Beach (4.4 kilometres (2.7 mi)*). The above exceptions all add up to 22.1 kilometres (13.7 mi)* or, say, 22% of the coastline abutting the IBA. South of Port Gawler, the IBA effectively branches in two directions (i.e. east & west) due to the presence of Barker Inlet. The east branch of the IBA which extends along the coastline south of Port Gawler for about 18 kilometres (11 mi)* (i.e. concludes at the Bolivar sewerage treatment works). This is where the north end of Adelaide starts and where urban development starts to get close to the coastline. The zoning of the land adjoining the coastline covered by the IBA is generally a mix of ‘coastal conservation’ and ‘mineral extraction’ (i.e. salt pans) where land zoned for ‘industry’ is set back from the coast and follows the coastline for about 6 kilometres (3.7 mi)*. The west branch of the IBA overlaps the north ends of Lefevre Peninsula and Torrens Island where the former is zoned for ‘Industry’ and the latter has been declared as a conservation park. Here, the length of coastline zoned for ‘industry’ is about 10 kilometres (6.2 mi)*. South of Port Gawler, the extent of the IBA that adjoins ‘industrial and residential suburbs’ is between 50% to 100% depending on the criteria used by Birdlife International to define what ‘industrial and residential suburbs’ are. Overall, the extent of the IBA (i.e. from Ardrossan to Bolivar and Lefevre Peninsula) that 'adjoins industrial and residential suburbs' is probably between 29% and 39% which is less than what is implied by the use of the word ‘much’ which can be interpreted as being a quantity greater than 50%. The above discussion relies on planning policy documents published by the South Australian government for the local government areas adjoining the same extent of coastline as the Gulf St Vincent IBA. A list of links along with a list of pages that explain the zoning of the land as described above will follow in a later post. I think the problem is actually with the cited source, i.e. the following BirdLife International webpage where the statement 'Much of the IBA adjoins industrial and residential suburbs' was copied from - http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/sitefactsheet.php?id=25116. I think the written content does not accurately reflect the extent of the IBA as shown on the map and should be re-written by BirdLife International to clarify its intentions. SECONDLY, I suggest that the section should be re-written. Regards Cowdy001 (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2014 (UTC)