IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v87y2019ics0264837718316247.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Complementary land use in the Richmond River catchment: Evaluating economic and environmental benefits

Author

Listed:
  • Beardmore, Leslie
  • Heagney, Elizabeth
  • Sullivan, Caroline A.

Abstract

Agricultural land uses can contribute to land degradation, water quality decline, and loss of ecosystem function and biodiversity in the surrounding catchment. Trees can assist in catchment management, and re-afforestation strategies have been implemented in an effort to mitigate agricultural impacts and improve degraded land and waterways worldwide. Re-afforestation strategies often target private land, and their success relies on landholder participation. Landholders’ decisions about land-use allocation are driven primarily by the private financial costs and benefits associated with different farming strategies. This research assesses the private on-farm financial impact and the public environmental benefit of land use transition from beef grazing to a mixed beef grazing-forestry system in the Richmond River catchment on the east coast of Australia. GIS analysis identified more than 30% of the catchment as beef grazing land potentially available for re-afforestation, across a variety of soil types and geomorphic characteristics. We used a farm-scale financial model to assess the costs and benefits associated with transition from grazing to a variety of cattle-forestry mixtures that were determined on the basis of their suitability to soil type and slope in different parts of a catchment. We also used a multi-criteria approach to assess the environmental outcomes associated with each transition. The results demonstrate that diversification to a mixed beef grazing-forestry system consistently provides environmental benefit, but the financial impact on landholders varies depending on soil type. Landholders on ferrosol and vertosol soils in this catchment have favourable options that can simultaneously deliver private and public benefits, whereas landholders on kurosol and dermosol soils are more restricted, with environmental improvements possible only as a trade-off with farm financial performance. Based on these results, we suggest that different policy mechanisms are required to encourage graziers in different parts of the catchment to shift towards mixed cattle-forestry systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Beardmore, Leslie & Heagney, Elizabeth & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2019. "Complementary land use in the Richmond River catchment: Evaluating economic and environmental benefits," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:87:y:2019:i:c:s0264837718316247
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104070
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837718316247
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104070?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Donnelly, J. R. & Freer, M. & Salmon, L. & Moore, A. D. & Simpson, R. J. & Dove, H. & Bolger, T. P., 2002. "Evolution of the GRAZPLAN decision support tools and adoption by the grazing industry in temperate Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 115-139, October.
    2. Doris Läpple & Thia Hennessy, 2015. "Exploring the Role of Incentives in Agricultural Extension Programs," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 37(3), pages 403-417.
    3. David J. Pannell, 2008. "Public Benefits, Private Benefits, and Policy Mechanism Choice for Land-Use Change for Environmental Benefits," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(2), pages 225-240.
    4. Farley, Joshua & Costanza, Robert, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2060-2068, September.
    5. Swinton, Scott M. & Lupi, Frank & Robertson, G. Philip & Hamilton, Stephen K., 2007. "Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 245-252, December.
    6. Robertson, Michael J. & Pannell, David J. & Chalak, Morteza, 2012. "Whole-farm models: a review of recent approaches," AFBM Journal, Australasian Farm Business Management Network, vol. 9(2), pages 1-14, December.
    7. Schaaf, Kenli A. & Broussard, Shorna R., 2006. "Private forest policy tools: A national survey exploring the American public's perceptions and support," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 316-334, December.
    8. Dale, Virginia H. & Polasky, Stephen, 2007. "Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 286-296, December.
    9. Cacho, Oscar J. & Greiner, Romy & Fulloon, Lachlan, 2001. "An economic analysis of farm forestry as a means of controlling dryland salinity," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 45(2), pages 1-24.
    10. Townsend, P.V. & Harper, R.J. & Brennan, P.D. & Dean, C. & Wu, S. & Smettem, K.R.J. & Cook, S.E., 2012. "Multiple environmental services as an opportunity for watershed restoration," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 45-58.
    11. Janssen, Sander & van Ittersum, Martin K., 2007. "Assessing farm innovations and responses to policies: A review of bio-economic farm models," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 622-636, June.
    12. Stewart, Hugh T.L. & Race, Digby H. & Curtis, Allan L. & Stewart, Andrew J.K., 2011. "A case study of socio-economic returns from farm forestry and agriculture in south-east Australia during 1993-2007," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(5), pages 390-395, June.
    13. Greiner, Romy, 2015. "Motivations and attitudes influence farmers' willingness to participate in biodiversity conservation contracts," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 154-165.
    14. Sandhu, Harpinder S. & Crossman, Neville D. & Smith, F. Patrick, 2012. "Ecosystem services and Australian agricultural enterprises," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 19-26.
    15. Dumbrell, Nikki P. & Kragt, Marit E. & Biggs, Jody & Meier, Elizabeth & Thorburn, Peter, 2015. "Climate change abatement and farm profitability analyses across agricultural environments," Working Papers 225674, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    16. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    17. C. J. Vörösmarty & P. B. McIntyre & M. O. Gessner & D. Dudgeon & A. Prusevich & P. Green & S. Glidden & S. E. Bunn & C. A. Sullivan & C. Reidy Liermann & P. M. Davies, 2010. "Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity," Nature, Nature, vol. 467(7315), pages 555-561, September.
    18. Corinne Valdivia & Carla Barbieri & Michael A. Gold, 2012. "Between Forestry and Farming: Policy and Environmental Implications of the Barriers to Agroforestry Adoption," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 60(2), pages 155-175, June.
    19. García-Amado, Luis Rico & Pérez, Manuel Ruiz & Escutia, Felipe Reyes & García, Sara Barrasa & Mejía, Elsa Contreras, 2011. "Efficiency of Payments for Environmental Services: Equity and additionality in a case study from a Biosphere Reserve in Chiapas, Mexico," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(12), pages 2361-2368.
    20. Grundy, Michael J. & Bryan, Brett A. & Nolan, Martin & Battaglia, Michael & Hatfield-Dodds, Steve & Connor, Jeffery D. & Keating, Brian A., 2016. "Scenarios for Australian agricultural production and land use to 2050," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 70-83.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hualou Long & Yingnan Zhang & Li Ma & Shuangshuang Tu, 2021. "Land Use Transitions: Progress, Challenges and Prospects," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, August.
    2. Ma, Li & Long, Hualou & Tu, Shuangshuang & Zhang, Yingnan & Zheng, Yuhan, 2020. "Farmland transition in China and its policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    3. Bell-James, Justine & Lovelock, Catherine E, 2019. "Legal barriers and enablers for reintroducing tides: An Australian case study in reconverting ponded pasture for climate change mitigation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    2. Sandhu, Harpinder S. & Crossman, Neville D. & Smith, F. Patrick, 2012. "Ecosystem services and Australian agricultural enterprises," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 19-26.
    3. Trautman, Dawn & Jeffrey, Scott R. & Unterschultz, James R., 2012. "Beneficial Management Practice (BMP) Adoption -- Direct Farm Cost/Benefit Tradeoffs," Project Report Series 139638, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    4. Kragt, Marit E. & Robertson, Michael J., 2014. "Quantifying ecosystem services trade-offs from agricultural practices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 147-157.
    5. Hutchings, Timothy R., 2009. "A financial analysis of the effect of the mix of crop and sheep enterprises on the risk profile of dryland farms in south-eastern Australia – Part 1," AFBM Journal, Australasian Farm Business Management Network, vol. 6(1), pages 1-16, October.
    6. Rodríguez-Ortega, T. & Olaizola, A.M. & Bernués, A., 2018. "A novel management-based system of payments for ecosystem services for targeted agri-environmental policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 74-84.
    7. Anna M. Hansson & Eja Pedersen & Niklas P. E. Karlsson & Stefan E. B. Weisner, 2023. "Barriers and drivers for sustainable business model innovation based on a radical farmland change scenario," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(8), pages 8083-8106, August.
    8. Angelos Alamanos & Phoebe Koundouri, 2022. "Economics of Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Water Resource Planning and Management," DEOS Working Papers 2211, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    9. Wang, Haoluan & Swallow, Brent M., 2017. "Linking Agricultural Land Conservation and Provision of Ecosystem Services: A Choice Experiment Approach," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258537, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Mangubhai, Sangeeta & Sykes, Helen & Manley, Marita & Vukikomoala, Kiji & Beattie, Madeline, 2020. "Contributions of tourism-based Marine Conservation Agreements to natural resource management in Fiji," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    11. Fan, Fan & Henriksen, Christian Bugge & Porter, John, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services in organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 117-127.
    12. Sarah Schomers & Bettina Matzdorf & Claas Meyer & Claudia Sattler, 2015. "How Local Intermediaries Improve the Effectiveness of Public Payment for Ecosystem Services Programs: The Role of Networks and Agri-Environmental Assistance," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-31, October.
    13. Grillos, Tara & Bottazzi, Patrick & Crespo, David & Asquith, Nigel & Jones, Julia P.G., 2019. "In-kind conservation payments crowd in environmental values and increase support for government intervention: A randomized trial in Bolivia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 1-1.
    14. van Grieken, M.E. & Roebeling, P.C. & Bohnet, I.C. & Whitten, S.M. & Webster, A.J. & Poggio, M. & Pannell, D., 2019. "Adoption of agricultural management for Great Barrier Reef water quality improvement in heterogeneous farming communities," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 170(C), pages 1-8.
    15. Dennis Junior Choruma & Oghenekaro Nelson Odume, 2019. "Exploring Farmers’ Management Practices and Values of Ecosystem Services in an Agroecosystem Context—A Case Study from the Eastern Cape, South Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-22, November.
    16. Aguilar-Gómez, Carlos R. & Arteaga-Reyes, Tizbe T. & Gómez-Demetrio, William & à vila-Akerberg, Víctor D. & Pérez-Campuzano, Enrique, 2020. "Differentiated payments for environmental services: A review of the literature," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    17. Moss, Jonathan & Cacho, Oscar J., 2014. "Farm-scale analysis of the potential uptake of carbon offset activities," 2014 Conference, August 28-29, 2014, Nelson, New Zealand 187402, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    18. Baba, S.H. & Wani, S.A., 2018. "Ecosystem Management Approach for Agricultural Growth in Mountains: Farmers Perception of Ecosystem Services and Dis-Services in Kashmir-India," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277556, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    19. Molnar, Jennifer L. & Kubiszewski, Ida, 2012. "Managing natural wealth: Research and implementation of ecosystem services in the United States and Canada," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 2(C), pages 45-55.
    20. Primmer, Eeva & Paloniemi, Riikka & Similä, Jukka & Tainio, Anna, 2014. "Forest owner perceptions of institutions and voluntary contracting for biodiversity conservation: Not crowding out but staying out," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 1-10.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:87:y:2019:i:c:s0264837718316247. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.