Embedded Files
Developing a protected area system in Tasmania
Developing a protected area system in Tasmania
Cushion plant, Mt Ossa. Photo credit Bjørn Christian Tørrissen - http://bjornfree.com/galleries.html,CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=17407328
Case study learning summary
Case study learning summary
Tasmania’s protected area estate developed in response to the island’s unique natural heritage and the desire to see it conserved for many reasons. Early European conservation efforts were driven largely by scenic beauty and recreation. Over time, drivers evolved from purely aesthetic motives to biodiversity and wilderness conservation. The 1970s environmental movement marked a shift in public values, recognising that intact ecosystems and wild rivers needed protection (not just pretty scenery). By the late 20th century, global conservation initiatives (e.g. the 1993 Convention on Biological Diversity) and national reserve targets provided additional impetus, as Tasmania sought to establish a comprehensive system of reserves representative of its ecosystems (Hernandez et al. 2021).
In summary, the purpose behind building Tasmania’s protected area network has been to preserve its extraordinary natural and cultural heritage – from rare endemic species to wild landscapes – in the face of past and present threats.
Recurring themes in this case study
Recurring themes in this case study
While this case study explores the development and management of Tasmania’s public protected area estate across distinct phases and institutional settings, several recurring themes emerge. These themes reflect the deeper systems, conditions, and relationships that have shaped conservation outcomes over time. To aid understanding and draw connections across strategy, process, implementation and learning, this case study is structured using six recurring themes:
Governance and policy
Strategic planning and prioritisation
Community engagement and advocacy
Operational capability and delivery
Adaptive management and evaluation
Partnerships and cross-sector collaboration
These themes provide a coherent framing across the different phases and experiences described, allowing readers to see how challenges were addressed and lessons learned across the protected area journey.
Governance and policy
Governance and policy
The legal, institutional, and tenure frameworks that enable or constrain protected area establishment and management.
Community engagement and advocacy
Community engagement and advocacy
The role of public movements, citizen participation, and political pressure in shaping conservation outcomes.
Adaptive management and evaluation
Adaptive management and evaluation
How learning systems, reviews, and data have supported management effectiveness and improved delivery over time.
Strategic planning and prioritisation
Strategic planning and prioritisation
How protected area goals, system design, and declarations were guided (or not) by explicit criteria and frameworks.
Operational capability and delivery
Operational capability and delivery
The institutional and organisational ability to deliver conservation on the ground—resources, systems, stability.
Partnerships and cross-sector collaboration
Partnerships and cross-sector collaboration
Cooperative efforts across government, NGOs, scientists, and Aboriginal organisations that expand capacity and legitimacy.
Challenges
Challenges
Resource exploitation
Resource exploitation
From the outset, Tasmania has faced the fundamental challenge of balancing conservation with resource exploitation. Rich forest and mineral resources were heavily targeted after colonisation, leading to widespread logging, mining, and land clearing throughout the 19th century. Protected areas initially existed only as small scenic reserves, while vast tracts of the State were viewed as obstacles to and opportunities for economic development.
Fragmented approach to protection
Fragmented approach to protection
Internally, the government’s approach to protected areas was initially fragmented – an early Scenery Preservation Board even permitted development in reserves, undermining conservation goals (Kirkpatrick et al. 2022). Key challenges included shifting governmental and public mindsets from short-term resource use to long-term stewardship, securing robust legal protections, and managing the vast, rugged terrain with limited resources.
Hydroelectric schemes
Hydroelectric schemes
By the mid-20th century, development pressures culminated in plans for large hydroelectric schemes that threatened iconic natural features. The flooding of Lake Pedder in 1972 despite public outcry underscored how vulnerable Tasmania’s natural values were to industrial development. Conservation advocates had to contend with powerful economic interests and political resistance.
Climate change
Climate change
Today, additional challenges such as climate change pose new threats to these ecosystems, necessitating adaptive strategies to buffer the effects of a warming climate. In essence, the challenge has been to establish and maintain an effective protected area system in the face of persistent economic pressures and environmental threats.
Strathgordon, Hydro Electric Commission (H.E.C.) village (1972) (Tasmanian Archive and Heritage Office Commons)
Objectives
Objectives
Where it can be said to exist, the overarching aim has been to establish a comprehensive, adequate, and representative network of protected areas that secures Tasmania’s natural heritage for future generations.
Early objectives (implicitly) focused on creating public reserves for recreation and scenic preservation. However, by the late 20th century, objectives became more explicitly conservation-oriented: protecting biodiversity, wilderness, and cultural values across the breadth of Tasmania’s landscapes.
A key recent goal has been to move beyond ad hoc scenic reserves toward a systematic reserve design that includes all major ecosystem types – a concept embodied in the Comprehensive, Adequate, and Representative (CAR) reserve framework adopted in Australia. This meant expanding protection to under-represented habitats (not just iconic mountains) and ensuring reserves were of sufficient size and connectivity to maintain ecological processes.
There was also a clear objective to integrate conservation across tenures: while public national parks form the core, the strategy increasingly sought to include private land conservation (e.g. covenants, private reserves) to complement public parks and fill gaps.
Another important aim has been to recognise and preserve cultural heritage within these landscapes – for instance, protecting Tasmanian Aboriginal heritage sites as part of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area.
Location map
Location map
As of 2024, approximately 50.4% of Tasmania’s land area is under some form of conservation reserve (Tasmanian Reserve Estate Spatial Layer | Department of Natural Resources and Environment Tasmania) – the highest proportion of any Australian state.
Principles
Principles
The development of Tasmania’s protected area estate has been guided by several foundational ideas that evolved over time
Governance and policy
Governance and policy
The development of Tasmania’s public protected area estate has been underpinned by a long-standing legal and administrative framework, with the process driven by legislated systems of reservation and public land tenure. Protected areas are embedded in legislation and governance systems that define their purpose, allowable uses, and requirements for management.
Protected areas are required to have management objectives, and governance and compliance systems are designed to ensure that on-ground activities are consistent with legislation. Over time, policy has also increasingly recognised the need to include Aboriginal values and interests in reserve design and management.
Community engagement and advocacy
Community engagement and advocacy
Community advocacy, political activism, and public support have been central to the establishment and expansion of protected areas. Major conservation milestones—such as the Franklin River campaign, the protection of the Southwest wilderness, and responses to forest protests—were driven by sustained community engagement and public pressure.
The Tasmanian public has played a long-term and vocal role in shaping the reserve estate, and conservation decisions have frequently reflected broader societal values, not just technical assessments. Public ownership and identity have contributed to a strong conservation culture in Tasmania.
Adaptive management and evaluation
Adaptive management and evaluation
While early planning emphasised establishment and protection, there has been a growing emphasis on risk management and adaptive management and evaluation. Protected areas are now expected to include explicit monitoring frameworks. The Tasmania Parks and Wildlife Service's own evidence-based Management Effectiveness Evaluation (MEE) system, developed for Tasmania’s public reserves, is explored in the case study Adaptive management in action in the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area. Elsewhere, tools such as the Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT) have been adopted.
The use of independent expert reviews (e.g. Lower Gordon River Scientific Advisory Committee) and regular reporting cycles in the TWWHA have provided models for continuous improvement, transparency, and accountability in protected area management.
Strategic planning and prioritisation
Strategic planning and prioritisation
With a shift from scenic preservation to systematic conservation spatial planning and prioritisation has underpinned the expansion of the reserve system. The Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative (CAR) reserve system principles were adopted in Tasmania ahead of their broader use nationally, and the 1997 Tasmania Regional Forest Agreement included commitments to expand the public reserve estate based on CAR principles.
Strategic planning and assessment tools were also applied in the development of the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area (TWWHA), which involved spatial assessment of natural and cultural values against World Heritage criteria. Although political drivers sometimes overrode systematic planning, the aspiration of strategic reserve system design remained a constant principle.
Operational capability and delivery
Operational capability and delivery
The protected area system was developed alongside a professional Parks and Wildlife Service (and its predecessors) with increasing internal capability. Management planning, compliance systems, and administrative structures were developed to support the delivery of protected area outcomes.
However, capacity and capability has not always kept pace with expansion and changing management needs such as emerging or increasing threats. Challenges related to resourcing and disruption due to organisational change, have sometimes limited the ability to fully implement protected area intentions. Despite these limitations, delivery systems have remained a core element of the protected area model.
Partnerships and cross-sector collaboration
Partnerships and cross-sector collaboration
Partnerships with Aboriginal organisations, scientists, and NGOs have increasingly informed protected area design and management. The inclusion of Aboriginal values in the TWWHA, joint management discussions, and collaborations with academic institutions have contributed to more holistic and inclusive approaches.
Extensive practical action in partnership with volunteering organisations, such as Wildcare Tasmania, Friends groups on public reserves and Landcare groups on private land reserves, extends the capacity of the managing authority to undertake on-ground management activities and provide visitor services.
Conservation has not been the sole domain of government; instead, its evolution has reflected shared responsibility and the integration of diverse expertise, perspectives, and governance models. The result is a blended strategy: large publicly owned national parks anchor the system, complemented by conservation covenants on farms, private sanctuaries, and Indigenous Protected Areas. This flexible approach maximises the total area protected and fosters partnerships across society in achieving conservation goals.
In summary, the principles guiding Tasmania’s protected area development evolved from early preservationist ideals to modern, holistic conservation planning. They include: systematic coverage of diverse ecosystems, strong legal protection, community involvement, multi-sector partnerships, and adaptive management. This strategic foundation has enabled Tasmania to build one of the world’s most extensive and resilient protected area networks for its size.
Process
Process
Building Tasmania’s public protected area estate has been a cumulative process spanning over 150 years. It involved a series of legislative actions, grassroots campaigns, administrative reforms, and land management decisions. The key processes and actions can be summarised as follows:
Governance and policy
Governance and policy
Protected areas in Tasmania were progressively declared through statutory processes enabled by land tenure and conservation legislation. In many cases, they were declared over existing public land—often Crown land or State forest—following reviews of land status or because of policy and political commitments.
The development of statutory management plans became a requirement for national parks and other formal reserves, providing legal standing and guiding day-to-day decision-making. These management plans were supported by compliance frameworks and agency structures to ensure implementation.
Strategic planning and prioritisation
Strategic planning and prioritisation
Key phases in the expansion of Tasmania’s reserve system were informed by strategic assessments. The early reserves (e.g. Russell Falls, Mount Field, Freycinet) were largely scenic and recreational, but later phases incorporated scientific principles—especially the CAR (Comprehensive, Adequate, Representative) approach to reserve design.
The Tasmanian Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) in 1997 marked a particularly systematic approach, using bioregional assessments and forest ecosystem mapping to expand the protected area estate and ensure representation of under-protected vegetation types.
Similarly, the World Heritage listing of the TWWHA involved extensive documentation of the area’s natural and cultural values, supported by expert review processes and engagement with World Heritage criteria.
Community engagement and advocacy
Community engagement and advocacy
Community-driven advocacy was central to many of the most significant protected area declarations. In some cases, such as the Franklin River campaign, protection was the outcome of years of local and national mobilisation, media campaigns, and electoral consequences.
In other instances—such as responses to forest protests in the north-east—community advocacy triggered political negotiations that led to reserve declarations. These moments often combined strategic science and public sentiment, reinforcing the legitimacy of conservation action.
Community engagement in strategic action planning and undertaking practical activity through volunteerism continues to be an important pathway for community participation. Wildcare Tasmania branches (Friends groups) operate extensively across the public land reserve estate working in direct partnership with reserve management staff. Landcare groups and individual landowners undertake on-ground conservation activities on private land and the private reserve estate.
The conservation movement in Tasmania remains a globally recognised example of how public mobilisation can drive protected area outcomes, even in the face of political resistance.
Operational capability and delivery
Operational capability and delivery
The Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service and its predecessors played a lead role in reserve planning, establishment, and management. Over time, the agency developed dedicated planning units, ranger networks, and administrative systems to support protected area delivery.
Staff worked across a range of functions including reserve design, management planning, stakeholder consultation, compliance, and on-ground works. However, operational capacity was sometimes challenged by rapid expansion, restructuring, and budget constraints, especially during periods of political change.
Adaptive management and evaluation
Adaptive management and evaluation
Although early phases of reserve establishment focused more on designation than adaptive management, this began to shift in the late 1990s and early 2000s. The use of management effectiveness evaluation tools, such as METT, and the development of the Parks and Wildlife Service TWWHA MEE system reflected this evolution.
The Lower Gordon River evaluation, prompted by visitor impact concerns, was an early and influential example of applying science-based adaptive management to a high-value conservation asset. This approach influenced later monitoring strategies across the protected area system.
Partnerships and cross-sector collaboration
Partnerships and cross-sector collaboration
Several major phases of protected area expansion involved inter-organisational collaboration. The TWWHA nomination involved joint efforts between the Tasmanian and Australian governments, scientists, and conservation NGOs. The RFA included input from forestry agencies, conservation planners, and land management authorities.
More recently, efforts to integrate Aboriginal perspectives into reserve management have been guided by collaboration with Aboriginal organisations and cultural knowledge holders. These partnerships are essential for delivering outcomes that reflect multiple land values and responsibilities.
Throughout these processes, an adaptive management ethos gradually took hold – meaning that as new information or challenges emerged, the approach to building and managing the protected area estate was adjusted. For example, when it became clear that some species (like the Tasmanian devil) faced threats even within reserves (e.g. disease), the strategy expanded to include captive breeding or off-site insurance populations alongside habitat protection. Thus, the process of developing the estate has not been static; it’s an ongoing series of actions responding to ecological, social, and political feedback.
In summary, the protected area estate was built through a mix of top-down government action and bottom-up societal pressure. Key actions included passing laws, conducting scientific assessments, negotiating land use agreements, waging high-profile environmental campaigns, allocating funding for land acquisition, practical volunteering and continually reorganising and improving management frameworks. This multifaceted process has spanned generations, each building on (and learning from) the successes and failures of the previous, resulting in the extensive network of parks and reserves Tasmania has today.
Private reserve (By RowanEisner2 - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=106600046)
Significant events
Significant events
This timeline illustrates the development of Tasmania’s protected area estate from pre-colonial times to the present. At its head, it acknowledges the continuous custodianship of the entire island by Aboriginal people prior to European colonisation—landscapes managed through cultural law, knowledge, and practice for tens of thousands of years. From the first formal reservation at Russell Falls in 1863 through to World Heritage listings, major legislative reforms, and conservation campaigns, the diagram traces the key milestones that have contributed to the expansion of the protected area estate. Today, protected areas cover approximately half of Tasmania, reflecting a complex history shaped by environmental advocacy, scientific understanding, public policy, and deep cultural connections to land.
Several milestone events and turning points have defined the trajectory of Tasmania’s protected area development. This timeline highlights significant events in the establishment and expansion of the public reserve estate
While not a single “event,” this fact is the product of the many actions and events before it. It illustrates that Tasmania achieved – and exceeded – international conservation targets (such as the Aichi target of 17% terrestrial protection by 2020) by a wide margin. Reaching this milestone reflects a century and a half of progress, from that first 300-acre reserve in 1863 to over 3.6 million hectares protected today.
Each of these events contributed critically to the shape and size of the current protected area network. They showcase a pattern of early incremental steps, mid-century legal reforms, dramatic confrontations in the 1970s–80s, and continued growth and innovation in the 1990s–2000s. Together, these milestones narrate the story of how Tasmania’s parks and reserves system came into being.
Key players
Key players
The development of Tasmania’s public protected areas has involved a diverse array of key players, each bringing different roles and capabilities. The success of this long-term conservation effort is due to the interplay of government leadership, community advocacy, scientific input, and Indigenous stewardship. Important players include:
Tasmanian Aboriginal peoples
Tasmanian Aboriginal peoples
Aboriginal people are the original custodians of the land, having managed the island’s landscapes for at least 40,000 years before European settlement. Their traditional burning practices and deep ecological knowledge maintained biodiversity and shaped what later became “pristine” wilderness. Although dispossession and colonial policies excluded them from early park management the enduring perspective of Indigenous Tasmanians—as stewards rather than mere users of the land—has added a crucial dimension to how protected areas are envisioned in the 21st century.
Early conservation champions and environmental activists and NGOs
Early conservation champions and environmental activists and NGOs
Perhaps the most pivotal actors in expanding Tasmania’s protected estate have been the environmental organisations and grassroots activists. Starting from the Lake Pedder campaign, local groups like the Lake Pedder Action Committee and later the Tasmanian Wilderness Society (now The Wilderness Society) mobilised thousands of citizens. In sum, the grassroots environmental movement has been a driving force and key player without which many of Tasmania’s reserves would likely not exist.
Bob Brown with fellow activiest. Still from documentary Wild Things, https://tasmaniantimes.com/2020/12/wild-things-2/
Government agencies and officials
Government agencies and officials
Government bodies have played both supportive and leading roles at different times. The early Scenery Preservation Board (established 1915) was the first agency tasked with managing reserves, though it had limited power and often yielded to development pressures (Kirkpatrick et al. 2022). In 1970, the creation of the Tasmanian Parks and Wildlife Service (PWS) marked a professionalisation of park management, and PWS has since been the central agency administering national parks and reserves. Federal ministers in the 1980s and 2010s worked with UNESCO to secure World Heritage listings for Tasmanian wilderness. Government funding bodies are also worth noting.
Scientific experts and conservation planners
Scientific experts and conservation planners
Scientists, ecologists, and land use planners have been pivotal in guiding the direction of the protected area estate. Concepts like the CAR (Comprehensive, Adequate, Representative) reserve criteria were advocated by scientists and eventually adopted in policy. Experts also sat on advisory committees and brought credibility and data to the decision-making table. The scientific community has acted as key players by providing knowledge, proposing strategies like systematic conservation planning, and sometimes directly advocating for specific protected areas.
Local communities and volunteers
Local communities and volunteers
Local community members and volunteers have contributed to the success of protected areas. The support (or at times, acquiescence) of communities living near proposed parks has been important; for instance, in areas where traditional industries like logging or mining were dominant, local attitudes could be a barrier or benefit.
Volunteer support is drawn from near and far and is an indication of community support for the reserve system, demonstrating the willingness of the community to assist with practical management of the reserves.
Non-governmental conservation organisations
Non-governmental conservation organisations
In addition to activist groups, more formal NGOs and land trusts have been crucial players, especially in recent decades. The Tasmanian Land Conservancy (TLC) plays a direct role in expanding the estate on private lands. International NGOs (like The Nature Conservancy) have occasionally partnered in Tasmanian projects, bringing funding or global perspective. Bush Heritage Australia is another NGO that acquired some Tasmanian properties. NGOs and land trusts have become key partners and players in achieving conservation outcomes, working in complement to the public reserve system.
International bodies and allies
International bodies and allies
At key junctures, international organisations have had influence. UNESCO and the World Heritage Committee provided a platform and pressure that local activists could leverage – essentially internationalising the conservation value of Tasmanian wilderness.
The success of Tasmania’s protected area estate is the result of collaboration and conflict among many players: Indigenous custodians imparting a long-term vision of caring for country; passionate individuals who championed wild places; organised citizen movements that pressured for change; dedicated government professionals and supportive politicians who translated advocacy into policy; scientists who provided the roadmaps for what to protect; local communities who embraced (and benefit from) their nearby parks; NGOs that extended conservation beyond public lands; and global institutions that lent support and recognition. Each group’s contributions, at different times, were essential. The interplay of these stakeholders has provided lessons in how conservation can be achieved through partnerships and persistent advocacy.
Achievements
Achievements
Macquarie Island, Sandy Bay. Photo credit, Noel Carmichael, PWS
The concerted efforts to develop and expand Tasmania’s protected area estate have yielded substantial achievements, making the state a world leader in conservation. Key accomplishments include:
Tasmania's protected area development represents a comprehensive conservation success story, demonstrating how persistent effort can achieve large-scale environmental, cultural and economic benefits.
Enablers and barriers
Enablers and barriers
Gordon Dam (By BennyG3255 - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=118977707)
The successes in establishing and expanding Tasmania’s protected area estate were made possible by several enabling factors – conditions and actions that significantly contributed to positive outcomes.
Despite its successes, the development of Tasmania’s protected area estate faced numerous barriers and obstacles. Understanding these challenges (and how some were overcome) provides valuable lessons. Challenges and constraints limited and continue to limit the effectiveness, legitimacy, or durability of protected area management in Tasmania.
Key enablers and barriers fall under the following areas with details captured in the tiles to the right.
Governance and policy
Strategic planning and prioritisation
Community engagement and advocacy
Operational capability and delivery
Adaptive management and evaluation
Partnerships and cross-sector collaboration
In summary, the enablers for Tasmania’s protected area success were a combination of social, political, legal, scientific, and economic factors working together. Recognising these enablers is important for replicating successes elsewhere – they illustrate that a reserve estate is rarely just a technical endeavour, but one that depends on mobilising people, knowledge, and institutions toward a common purpose.
Each of the barriers required specific strategies to overcome, and not all have been fully resolved. In several cases, the way barriers were tackled provides lessons: for example, confronting resource industry opposition through public campaigns and leveraging legal power (as in Franklin) or mitigating local opposition by ensuring new parks bring local jobs (through tourism or park management).
The persistence of threats like climate change means some barriers are shifting rather than disappearing – the challenge for Tasmania’s protected areas is to remain resilient in the face of these evolving pressures. Overall, acknowledging these barriers highlights that conservation is rarely a smooth path; it is a contested space where economic, political, and environmental forces must be navigated. Tasmania’s experience shows that many barriers can be overcome with a combination of community will, smart policy, and adaptability, but it also serves as a reminder to remain vigilant in defending conservation gains.
Key lessons
Key lessons
The long journey of establishing and managing Tasmania’s public protected area estate offers numerous lessons and insights for conservation practitioners and policymakers. Key lessons include:
Governance and policy
Governance and policy
Insight: Legal frameworks provide stability, but conservation legitimacy also requires inclusive governance. While Tasmania’s legislative and tenure-based approach enabled significant protected area expansion, the absence of shared governance with Tasmanian Aboriginal people remains a fundamental limitation.
In practice: Continue to strengthen legal protection and management clarity, but evolve governance models to support co-stewardship and cultural legitimacy—particularly through formal mechanisms that recognise Aboriginal authority and connection to Country.
Strategic planning and prioritisation
Strategic planning and prioritisation
Insight: Scientific planning tools like CAR and bioregional analysis supported more representative reserves, but political priorities often shaped what was actually protected. Strategic intent must be reinforced through consistent application and transparency.
In practice: Embed science-based prioritisation in all future expansion and review processes. Resist short-term political influence and prioritise ecological and cultural representation gaps.
Community engagement and advocacy
Community engagement and advocacy
Insight: Major conservation gains in Tasmania have been driven by strong public engagement, often in the face of institutional inertia. Civil society remains a vital force for conservation outcomes. However, past processes have often marginalised Tasmanian Aboriginal voices.
In practice: Maintain open, inclusive and culturally safe engagement processes. Value the role of public pressure and community identity, but re-centre engagement around Aboriginal rights and leadership.
Insight: Continuing engagement with volunteer organisations and individuals increases the capacity to manage and strengthens connection between reserve managers and the community.
In practice: Develop processes and relationships that enable community members to be involved in planning and implementing practical action.
Tahune Forest Walk (By Biatch at English Wikipedia - Transferred from en.wikipedia to Commons by Bidgee using CommonsHelper., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=17956837)
Operational capability and delivery
Operational capability and delivery
Insight: Good governance and planning mean little without the capacity to deliver. Frequent restructures, resource constraints, and workforce instability have eroded institutional effectiveness—even as the system expanded.
In practice: Stabilise and invest in the operational systems that sustain protected area management over time. Build workforce capability, retain experience, and reduce churn to maintain delivery capacity.
Adaptive management and evaluation
Adaptive management and evaluation
Insight: Evaluation tools and targeted reviews (e.g. Lower Gordon) demonstrated the value of structured feedback. Yet evaluation often remains under-resourced and disconnected from decision-making.
In practice: Normalise adaptive management as core practice. Ensure monitoring is adequately funded, and use results to guide decisions—not just report performance.
Partnerships and cross-sector collaboration
Partnerships and cross-sector collaboration
Insight: Where conservation outcomes were strongest, they involved collaboration—between governments, scientists, communities, and NGOs. However, Tasmania has not yet developed the kinds of cross-cultural governance partnerships seen elsewhere in Australia.
In practice: Invest in respectful, long-term partnerships across sectors, particularly with Tasmanian Aboriginal organisations. Learn from joint management models and support knowledge-sharing and governance innovation.
Further information
Further information
For those interested in more details on the development and management of Tasmania’s protected areas, the following key references and resources provide valuable information:
Historical Overview and Case Studies: “The Development of Tasmania's Public Protected Area Estate: A Historical Perspective” – an in-depth historical account (2025) providing context from pre-colonial custodianship to modern conservation efforts, including milestones and policy evolution. (20250306 the Development of Tasmania.docx) (20250306 the Development of Tasmania.docx)
Tasmania Parks & Wildlife Service – Official Publications: The Tasmania PWS has published various reports and plans (e.g., State of Reserve Reports and management plans). Notably, the Department of Primary Industries, Parks, Water and Environment (2013) report on the CAR Reserve System outlines the representativeness of Tasmania’s reserves and guided recent expansions (20250306 the Development of Tasmania.docx). The Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Area Management Plan is another key document detailing management objectives for the WHA.
Academic Research on Protected Areas: Kirkpatrick, J.B. et al. (2022). “The Role of Government in a Partial Transition from Public to Private in the Expanding Australian Protected Area System” (Conservation & Society, 20(3): 201-210) – This research article examines trends in public and private protected areas in Australia with a case study on Tasmania, including analysis of funding and governance changes (Kirkpatrick et al. 2022) (Kirkpatrick et al. 2022). It provides insight into how neoliberal policies and government support have influenced conservation outcomes.
Resource management for protected area outcomes: Financial constraints and resourcing is a global issue for protected area management. Fnancial resourcing is one of the strongest predictors of management outcomes. E.g. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320720309332 and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590332221003560?via%3Dihub
Protected Area Policy Analysis: Hernandez, S. et al. (2021). “What drives modern protected area establishment in Australia?” (Conservation Science and Practice, 3:e501) – A comprehensive review of strategic priorities in Australian protected area policies (1992–2019). It identifies themes like ecological representation versus social values and discusses the implications for biodiversity effectiveness (Hernandez et al. 2021) (Hernandez et al. 2021). This paper contextualizes Tasmania’s approach within broader national trends and offers recommendations for improving protected area networks.
Books on Tasmanian Conservation History: Buckman, G. (2008). “Tasmania’s Wilderness Battles: A History” – An excellent narrative of Tasmania’s environmental campaigns, covering Lake Pedder, the Franklin, and other key events in detail (20250306 the Development of Tasmania.docx) (20250306 the Development of Tasmania.docx). It provides personal accounts and analysis of the politics and activism that shaped the state’s conservation outcomes.
World Heritage and Government Resources: The Australian Government’s Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) provides information on World Heritage Places – Tasmanian Wilderness, including a retrospective Outstanding Universal Value statement and maps of the World Heritage Area (World Heritage Places – Tasmanian Wilderness - DCCEEW) (World Heritage Places – Tasmanian Wilderness - DCCEEW). This resource is useful for understanding the global significance of Tasmania’s protected areas and includes up-to-date boundary maps and descriptions of natural and cultural values.
Tasmanian Reserve Estate Spatial Data: The Tasmanian Reserve Estate Spatial Layer (NRE Tasmania) – an online resource that maps all protected areas in Tasmania and provides statistics as of each year. The 2024 update indicates the extent (50.4% of Tasmanian land) and breakdown of reserve types.
Protected Areas on Private Land: Information on programs like the Tasmanian Land Conservancy (TLC) and the state’s Private Land Conservation Program can provide insights into how private reserves are created and managed. The TLC website offers case studies of reserves they’ve established and the conservation values they protect (e.g., forests, wetlands, species-specific habitats).
Tourism and Parks: For understanding how protected areas intersect with tourism and the community, resources such as Parks Tasmania visitor guides and Tourism Tasmania’s publications on nature-based tourism can be helpful. They often highlight the economic and social benefits of the parks, complementing the conservation-focused literature.
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
This case study and its contents were researched and compiled by Our Common Place, formerly Conservation Management. Thank you to the staff, past and present, who contributed insights, expertise and publications to this resource.
Banner image: Hartz Lake, Hartz Mountains National Park. Photo credit: Rebecca Schneider
Page updated
Report abuse