Land use conflict involving farm externalities represents an increasing policy concern in Australia as agricultural activities intensify and as the nation's metropolitan areas continue to expand outwards. A review of the rural-urban fringe literature reveals a noticeable absence of research exploring the intensity of conflict experienced by farmers. Similarly, inadequate attention has been given to the policies adopted by government to manage conflict. This article contrasts the regulatory system that has been implemented to manage conflict involving poultry farming on the metropolitan fringe of two Australian state capitals: Perth, Western Australia and Sydney, New South Wales. Spatial variation in the nature of government intervention is uncovered. In the discussion that follows reasons are identified to help explain such variation including state ideology, metropolitan growth, industry activism, geographical constraints and farm characteristics. It is concluded that where agricultural industries experience internal political divisions and a geographically dispersed membership it becomes more difficult to influence government policy. 相似文献
The design of a drainage system for a roofing slate quarry was implemented by the enhancement of discharge peak estimation, and the uncertainty inevitably associated with the engineering model was reduced.
The development of a topographical, geological, and vegetation cover database developed from a Geographical Information System (GIS) allowed for the definition of the drainage network for a hydraulic system, along with the calculation of the runoff coefficient. This is applied to the digital model of accumulated flow (DMF) as a weight correction coefficient, using a matrix-based model at 5×5 m resolution. The new digital model of corrected accumulated flow (DMCF) is the result of combining the thematic maps with the map of slope <3%, which was previously created from the slope model. It is demonstrated that this new model allows to apply the “Rational Method” on cartographic units defined by the GIS.
The DMCF is compared with other traditional applications of the Rational Method based on the calculation of the discharge peak considering: (1) the drainage basin as a single watershed or (2) defining an average runoff coefficient in each sub-watershed. Both approaches have bigger discharge peaks than those obtained by the DMCF since the slope, lithology, and vegetation cover have average values, and the runoff coefficient is poorly defined, increasing the uncertainty in the discharge peak. 相似文献