Comparing Regional Biodiversity Benefits of Investment Strategies for Land-Use Change

Julian Seddon, Andrew Bathgate, Sue Briggs, Micah Davies, Stuart Doyle, Michael Drielsma, Andre Zerger, Philip Gibbons, Ron Hacker

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The need for public investment to address loss of biodiversity in agricultural landscapes is well recognised, yet there is little analysis of the likely benefits of land-use change for regional biodiversity or the cost effectiveness of different investment options. We estimated benefits for biodiversity and cost effectiveness of different investment scenarios over 50 years for a farming area in south-eastern Australia. Declines in biodiversity were predicted under status quo land use. Implementing actions in the investment scenarios improved biodiversity status only slightly, compared with status quo land use. Future biodiversity status differed little between biodiversity-focused investment and salinity-focused investment. Biodiversity status equalled or exceeded current status only for investment scenarios with much more extensive revegetation than in catchment targets. Cost effectiveness of biodiversity improvement varied greatly between investment strategies. Biodiversity improvement was more cost effective when investment to meet catchment targets was focused on revegetation for salinity management rather than on high conservation value areas, because of lower opportunity costs for salinity management. With enhanced investment, the cost effectiveness of biodiversity improvement was greater when actions were in high conservation areas. Although improvements in biodiversity were small under the changed farming system scenarios, their cost effectiveness was higher than the other investment scenarios. Regional scale improvements in biodiversity in farming areas will require increased stewardship payments or other economic incentives for landholders.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)132-152
Number of pages21
JournalGeographical Research
Volume49
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2011
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

biodiversity
land use change
land use
scenario
cost
costs
revegetation
salinity
conservation
catchment
agricultural landscape
public investment
opportunity costs
management
farming system
protected area
agricultural land
incentive

Cite this

Seddon, J., Bathgate, A., Briggs, S., Davies, M., Doyle, S., Drielsma, M., ... Hacker, R. (2011). Comparing Regional Biodiversity Benefits of Investment Strategies for Land-Use Change. Geographical Research, 49(2), 132-152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-5871.2010.00682.x
Seddon, Julian ; Bathgate, Andrew ; Briggs, Sue ; Davies, Micah ; Doyle, Stuart ; Drielsma, Michael ; Zerger, Andre ; Gibbons, Philip ; Hacker, Ron. / Comparing Regional Biodiversity Benefits of Investment Strategies for Land-Use Change. In: Geographical Research. 2011 ; Vol. 49, No. 2. pp. 132-152.
@article{c1290135cc034dbb8ed1fbd21f7dc84f,
title = "Comparing Regional Biodiversity Benefits of Investment Strategies for Land-Use Change",
abstract = "The need for public investment to address loss of biodiversity in agricultural landscapes is well recognised, yet there is little analysis of the likely benefits of land-use change for regional biodiversity or the cost effectiveness of different investment options. We estimated benefits for biodiversity and cost effectiveness of different investment scenarios over 50 years for a farming area in south-eastern Australia. Declines in biodiversity were predicted under status quo land use. Implementing actions in the investment scenarios improved biodiversity status only slightly, compared with status quo land use. Future biodiversity status differed little between biodiversity-focused investment and salinity-focused investment. Biodiversity status equalled or exceeded current status only for investment scenarios with much more extensive revegetation than in catchment targets. Cost effectiveness of biodiversity improvement varied greatly between investment strategies. Biodiversity improvement was more cost effective when investment to meet catchment targets was focused on revegetation for salinity management rather than on high conservation value areas, because of lower opportunity costs for salinity management. With enhanced investment, the cost effectiveness of biodiversity improvement was greater when actions were in high conservation areas. Although improvements in biodiversity were small under the changed farming system scenarios, their cost effectiveness was higher than the other investment scenarios. Regional scale improvements in biodiversity in farming areas will require increased stewardship payments or other economic incentives for landholders.",
keywords = "Vegetation condition, spatial prediction, economic incentives, multiple catchment outcomes, salinity management, farm profit",
author = "Julian Seddon and Andrew Bathgate and Sue Briggs and Micah Davies and Stuart Doyle and Michael Drielsma and Andre Zerger and Philip Gibbons and Ron Hacker",
year = "2011",
doi = "10.1111/j.1745-5871.2010.00682.x",
language = "English",
volume = "49",
pages = "132--152",
journal = "Australian Geographical Studies",
issn = "1745-5863",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "2",

}

Seddon, J, Bathgate, A, Briggs, S, Davies, M, Doyle, S, Drielsma, M, Zerger, A, Gibbons, P & Hacker, R 2011, 'Comparing Regional Biodiversity Benefits of Investment Strategies for Land-Use Change', Geographical Research, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 132-152. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-5871.2010.00682.x

Comparing Regional Biodiversity Benefits of Investment Strategies for Land-Use Change. / Seddon, Julian; Bathgate, Andrew; Briggs, Sue; Davies, Micah; Doyle, Stuart; Drielsma, Michael; Zerger, Andre; Gibbons, Philip; Hacker, Ron.

In: Geographical Research, Vol. 49, No. 2, 2011, p. 132-152.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparing Regional Biodiversity Benefits of Investment Strategies for Land-Use Change

AU - Seddon, Julian

AU - Bathgate, Andrew

AU - Briggs, Sue

AU - Davies, Micah

AU - Doyle, Stuart

AU - Drielsma, Michael

AU - Zerger, Andre

AU - Gibbons, Philip

AU - Hacker, Ron

PY - 2011

Y1 - 2011

N2 - The need for public investment to address loss of biodiversity in agricultural landscapes is well recognised, yet there is little analysis of the likely benefits of land-use change for regional biodiversity or the cost effectiveness of different investment options. We estimated benefits for biodiversity and cost effectiveness of different investment scenarios over 50 years for a farming area in south-eastern Australia. Declines in biodiversity were predicted under status quo land use. Implementing actions in the investment scenarios improved biodiversity status only slightly, compared with status quo land use. Future biodiversity status differed little between biodiversity-focused investment and salinity-focused investment. Biodiversity status equalled or exceeded current status only for investment scenarios with much more extensive revegetation than in catchment targets. Cost effectiveness of biodiversity improvement varied greatly between investment strategies. Biodiversity improvement was more cost effective when investment to meet catchment targets was focused on revegetation for salinity management rather than on high conservation value areas, because of lower opportunity costs for salinity management. With enhanced investment, the cost effectiveness of biodiversity improvement was greater when actions were in high conservation areas. Although improvements in biodiversity were small under the changed farming system scenarios, their cost effectiveness was higher than the other investment scenarios. Regional scale improvements in biodiversity in farming areas will require increased stewardship payments or other economic incentives for landholders.

AB - The need for public investment to address loss of biodiversity in agricultural landscapes is well recognised, yet there is little analysis of the likely benefits of land-use change for regional biodiversity or the cost effectiveness of different investment options. We estimated benefits for biodiversity and cost effectiveness of different investment scenarios over 50 years for a farming area in south-eastern Australia. Declines in biodiversity were predicted under status quo land use. Implementing actions in the investment scenarios improved biodiversity status only slightly, compared with status quo land use. Future biodiversity status differed little between biodiversity-focused investment and salinity-focused investment. Biodiversity status equalled or exceeded current status only for investment scenarios with much more extensive revegetation than in catchment targets. Cost effectiveness of biodiversity improvement varied greatly between investment strategies. Biodiversity improvement was more cost effective when investment to meet catchment targets was focused on revegetation for salinity management rather than on high conservation value areas, because of lower opportunity costs for salinity management. With enhanced investment, the cost effectiveness of biodiversity improvement was greater when actions were in high conservation areas. Although improvements in biodiversity were small under the changed farming system scenarios, their cost effectiveness was higher than the other investment scenarios. Regional scale improvements in biodiversity in farming areas will require increased stewardship payments or other economic incentives for landholders.

KW - Vegetation condition

KW - spatial prediction

KW - economic incentives

KW - multiple catchment outcomes

KW - salinity management

KW - farm profit

U2 - 10.1111/j.1745-5871.2010.00682.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1745-5871.2010.00682.x

M3 - Article

VL - 49

SP - 132

EP - 152

JO - Australian Geographical Studies

JF - Australian Geographical Studies

SN - 1745-5863

IS - 2

ER -