IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v11y2022i10p1668-d926686.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Digital Tools for Quantifying the Natural Capital Benefits of Agroforestry: A Review

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen B. Stewart

    (CSIRO Land and Water, Sandy Bay, TAS 7005, Australia)

  • Anthony P. O’Grady

    (CSIRO Land and Water, Sandy Bay, TAS 7005, Australia)

  • Daniel S. Mendham

    (CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia)

  • Greg S. Smith

    (CSIRO Land and Water, Sandy Bay, TAS 7005, Australia)

  • Philip J. Smethurst

    (CSIRO Land and Water, Sandy Bay, TAS 7005, Australia)

Abstract

Agroforestry is one nature-based solution that holds significant potential for improving the sustainability and resilience of agricultural systems. Quantifying these benefits is challenging in agroforestry systems, largely due to landscape complexity and the diversity of management approaches. Digital tools designed for agroforestry typically focus on timber and crop production, and not the broader range of benefits usually considered in assessments of ecosystem services and natural capital. The objectives of this review were to identify and evaluate digital tools that quantify natural capital benefits across eight themes applicable to agroforestry systems: timber production and carbon sequestration, agricultural production, microclimate, air quality, water management, biodiversity, pollination, and amenity. We identified and evaluated 63 tools, 9 of which were assessed in further detail using Australia as a case study. No single tool was best suited to quantify benefits across each theme, suggesting that multiple tools or models could be combined to address capability gaps. We find that model complexity, incorporation of spatial processes, accessibility, regional applicability, development speed and interoperability present significant challenges for the tools that were evaluated. We recommend that these challenges be considered as opportunities to develop new, and build upon existing, tools to enhance decision support in agroforestry systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen B. Stewart & Anthony P. O’Grady & Daniel S. Mendham & Greg S. Smith & Philip J. Smethurst, 2022. "Digital Tools for Quantifying the Natural Capital Benefits of Agroforestry: A Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-32, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:10:p:1668-:d:926686
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/10/1668/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/11/10/1668/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. P. Hamel & A. Guerry & S. Polasky & B. Han & J. Douglass & M. Hamann & B. Janke & J. Kuiper & H. Levrel & H. Liu & E. Lonsdorf & R. Mcdonald & C. Nootenboom & Z. Ouyang & R. Remme & R. Sharp & L. Tard, 2021. "Mapping the benefits of nature in cities with the InVEST software," Post-Print hal-03318222, HAL.
    2. Trodahl, Martha I. & Jackson, Bethanna M. & Deslippe, Julie R. & Metherell, Alister K., 2017. "Investigating trade-offs between water quality and agricultural productivity using the Land Utilisation and Capability Indicator (LUCI)–A New Zealand application," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PB), pages 388-399.
    3. Zandersen, Marianne & Tol, Richard S.J., 2009. "A meta-analysis of forest recreation values in Europe," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1-2), pages 109-130, January.
    4. Laurence Jones & Massimo Vieno & Alice Fitch & Edward Carnell & Claudia Steadman & Philip Cryle & Mike Holland & Eiko Nemitz & Dan Morton & Jane Hall & Gina Mills & Ian Dickie & Stefan Reis, 2019. "Urban natural capital accounts: developing a novel approach to quantify air pollution removal by vegetation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(4), pages 413-428, October.
    5. Yao, Richard T. & Harrison, Duncan R. & Velarde, Sandra J. & Barry, Luke E., 2016. "Validation and enhancement of a spatial economic tool for assessing ecosystem services provided by planted forests," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 122-131.
    6. Tom Breeze & Nicola Gallai & Lucas A. Garibaldi & Xui S. Li, 2016. "Economic Measures of Pollination Services: Shortcomings and Future Directions," Post-Print hal-01658289, HAL.
    7. Semmens, Darius J. & Sherrouse, Benson C. & Ancona, Zach H., 2019. "Using social-context matching to improve spatial function-transfer performance for cultural ecosystem service models," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    8. K. G. Willis & G. D. Garrod, 1991. "An Individual Travel‐Cost Method Of Evaluating Forest Recreation," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(1), pages 33-42, January.
    9. Olsson, Ola & Bolin, Arvid & Smith, Henrik G. & Lonsdorf, Eric V., 2015. "Modeling pollinating bee visitation rates in heterogeneous landscapes from foraging theory," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 316(C), pages 133-143.
    10. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Semmens, Darius J. & Waage, Sissel & Winthrop, Robert, 2013. "A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 27-39.
    11. United Nations UN, 2015. "Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development," Working Papers id:7559, eSocialSciences.
    12. Matthew Heron Wilson & Sarah Taylor Lovell, 2016. "Agroforestry—The Next Step in Sustainable and Resilient Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(6), pages 1-15, June.
    13. Greijdanus, Auke & Kragt, Marit Ellen, 2014. "A summary of four Australian bio-economic models formixed grain farming systems," Working Papers 170195, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    14. Gupta, Rajit & Sharma, Laxmi Kant, 2019. "The process-based forest growth model 3-PG for use in forest management: A review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 397(C), pages 55-73.
    15. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Semmens, Darius J. & Winthrop, Robert, 2013. "Comparing approaches to spatially explicit ecosystem service modeling: A case study from the San Pedro River, Arizona," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 40-50.
    16. Perennes, Marie & Diekötter, Tim & Groß, Jens & Burkhard, Benjamin, 2021. "A hierarchical framework for mapping pollination ecosystem service potential at the local scale," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 444(C).
    17. Bagstad, Kenneth J. & Ingram, Jane Carter & Shapiro, Carl D. & La Notte, Alessandra & Maes, Joachim & Vallecillo, Sara & Casey, C. Frank & Glynn, Pierre D. & Heris, Mehdi P. & Johnson, Justin A. & Lau, 2021. "Lessons learned from development of natural capital accounts in the United States and European Union," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Veerkamp, C.J. & Loreti, M. & Benavidez, R. & Jackson, B & Schipper, A.M., 2023. "Comparing three spatial modeling tools for assessing urban ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(C).
    2. Richard Yao & David Palmer & Barbara Hock & Duncan Harrison & Tim Payn & Juan Monge, 2019. "Forest Investment Framework as a Support Tool for the Sustainable Management of Planted Forests," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-22, June.
    3. Vardon, Michael & May, Steve & Keith, Heather & Burnett, Peter & Lindenmayer, David, 2019. "Accounting for ecosystem services – Lessons from Australia for its application and use in Oceania to achieve sustainable development," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    4. Babí Almenar, Javier & Petucco, Claudio & Sonnemann, Guido & Geneletti, Davide & Elliot, Thomas & Rugani, Benedetto, 2023. "Modelling the net environmental and economic impacts of urban nature-based solutions by combining ecosystem services, system dynamics and life cycle thinking: An application to urban forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    5. Liu, Hongxiao & Hamel, Perrine & Tardieu, Léa & Remme, Roy P. & Han, Baolong & Ren, Hai, 2022. "A geospatial model of nature-based recreation for urban planning: Case study of Paris, France," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    6. Adrienne Grêt-Regamey & Bettina Weibel & Kenneth J Bagstad & Marika Ferrari & Davide Geneletti & Hermann Klug & Uta Schirpke & Ulrike Tappeiner, 2014. "On the Effects of Scale for Ecosystem Services Mapping," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-26, December.
    7. Pamela Kaval & Marjan van den Belt, 2017. "The Organizing Framework of Ecosystem Services and its use in River Management," Working Papers in Economics 17/22, University of Waikato.
    8. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John & Kroeger, Timm & Casey, Frank, 2015. "The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 51-58.
    9. Nicolas Borzykowski & Andrea Baranzini & David Maradan, 2017. "A travel cost assessment of the demand for recreation in Swiss forests," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 149-171, December.
    10. Serge Garcia & Julien Jacob, 2010. "La valeur récréative de la forêt en France : une approche par les coûts de déplacement," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 91(1), pages 43-71.
    11. Anna Lüke & Jochen Hack, 2018. "Comparing the Applicability of Commonly Used Hydrological Ecosystem Services Models for Integrated Decision-Support," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-22, January.
    12. Luigi La Riccia & Vanessa Assumma & Marta Carla Bottero & Federico Dell’Anna & Angioletta Voghera, 2023. "A Contingent Valuation-Based Method to Valuate Ecosystem Services for a Proactive Planning and Management of Cork Oak Forests in Sardinia (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-28, May.
    13. Léa Tardieu, 2017. "The need for integrated spatial assessments in ecosystem service mapping," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 173-200, December.
    14. Lusardi, Jane & Sunderland, Timothy John & Crowe, Andrew & Jackson, Bethanna Marie & Jones, Glyn, 2020. "Can process-based modelling and economic valuation of ecosystem services inform land management policy at a catchment scale?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    15. Dang, Anh Nguyet & Jackson, Bethanna Marie & Benavidez, Rubianca & Tomscha, Stephanie Anne, 2021. "Review of ecosystem service assessments: Pathways for policy integration in Southeast Asia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    16. King, Steven & Fraser, Iain, 2013. "Divestment of the English Forestry Estate: An economically sound choice?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 25-31.
    17. Tomscha, Stephanie & Jackson, Bethanna & Benavidez, Rubianca & de Róiste, Mairéad & Hartley, Stephen & Deslippe, Julie, 2023. "A multiscale perspective on how much wetland restoration is needed to achieve targets for ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    18. Paulina Schiappacasse & Bernhard Müller & Le Thuy Linh, 2019. "Towards Responsible Aggregate Mining in Vietnam," Resources, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-15, August.
    19. Pina Puntillo, 2023. "Circular economy business models: Towards achieving sustainable development goals in the waste management sector—Empirical evidence and theoretical implications," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(2), pages 941-954, March.
    20. Ainhoa Gonzalez & Álvaro Enríquez-de-Salamanca, 2018. "Spatial Multi-Criteria Analysis in Environmental Assessment: A Review and Reflection on Benefits and Limitations," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-24, September.

    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:gam:jlands:v:11:y:2022:i:10:p:1668-:d:926686. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.