Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Natural Capital||Contributor(s):||Walmsley, Jim Dennis (author); McIntosh, Alison Frances (author); Rajaratnam, Rajanathan (author)||Publication Date:||2007||Handle Link:||https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/2589||Abstract:||Growing environmental awareness has been one of the hallmarks of Australian society in the last twenty years. Nevertheless, major debates continue about the role of population pressure on the atmosphere, on the hydrological cycle, on soils, vegetation and fauna, and on landforms (especially beaches) (Bridgman et al. 1995). Clearly, immigration impacts on the biophysical environment through its contribution to population growth (Cocks 1992; 1996; 1999; Lowe 1996). However impacts are mediated by lifestyle. Consequently not all migrants have the same ecological footprint and nor does footprint impact necessarily remain the same before and after migration. This point was dramatically illustrated in a Sydney Morning Herald article (1 August 2005:1) which pointed out: "If everyone lived like they do in Mosman, we would need seven extra earths to cope with them". Mosman is, of course, a wealthy Sydney suburb with high levels of consumption. It is also characterised by relatively low levels of migrants.||Publication Type:||Book Chapter||Source of Publication:||The Social Costs and Benefits of Migration into Australia, p. 98-104||Publisher:||University of New England||Place of Publication:||Armidale, Australia||ISBN:||1920996079||Field of Research (FOR):||160403 Social and Cultural Geography||Other Links:||http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/social-costs-benefits/chapter_3-6.pdf
|Statistics to Oct 2018:||Visitors: 184
|Appears in Collections:||Book Chapter|
Files in This Item:
checked on May 3, 2019
Items in Research UNE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.