Brett A. Bryan

Comparing Spatially Explicit Ecological and Social Values for Natural Areas to Identify Effective Conservation Strategies

Consideration of the social values people assign to relatively undisturbed native ecosystems is critical for the success of science-based conservation plans. We used an interview process to identify and map social values assigned to 31 ecosystem services provided by natural areas in an agricultural landscape in southern Australia. We then modeled the spatial distribution of 12 components of ecological value commonly used in setting spatial conservation priorities. We used the analytical hierarchy process to weight these components and used multiattribute utility theory to combine them into a single spatial layer of ecological value. Social values assigned to natural areas were negatively correlated with ecological values overall, but were positively correlated with some components of ecological value. In terms of the spatial distribution of values, people valued protected areas, whereas those natural areas underrepresented in the reserve system were of higher ecological value. The habitats of threatened animal species were assigned both high ecological value and high social value. Only small areas were assigned both high ecological value and high social value in the study area, whereas large areas of high ecological value were of low social value, and vice versa. We used the assigned ecological and social values to identify different conservation strategies (e.g., information sharing, community engagement, incentive payments) that may be effective for specific areas. We suggest that consideration of both ecological and social values in selection of conservation strategies can enhance the success of science-based conservation planning.

Landscape futures analysis: Assessing the impacts of environmental targets under alternative spatial policy options and future scenarios

Environmental targets are often used in planning for sustainable agricultural landscapes but their impacts are rarely known. In this paper we introduce landscape futures analysis as a method which combines linear programming optimisation with scenario analysis in quantifying the environmental, economic, and social impacts associated with achieving environmental targets, on a landscape scale. We applied the technique in the Lower Murray in southern Australia. Landscape futures models were used to identify specific geographic locations in the landscape for six natural resource management (NRM) actions such that regional environmental targets are achieved. The six potential NRM actions that may be undertaken to achieve environmental targets include remnant vegetation management, ecological restoration, conservation farming, deep-rooted perennials, and the production of biomass and biofuels feedstock for renewable energy generation. We developed landscape futures under four alternative spatial prioritisation policy options and four future climate and commodity price scenarios. The impacts of each landscape future were calculated across a range of environmental, economic, and social indicators. The external drivers, climate change and commodity prices, and internal decisions such as policy options for spatially prioritising NRM actions, both have a strong influence on the costs and benefits of achieving environmental targets. Illustrative results for the cleared agricultural areas in the Mallee region indicate that whilst achieving targets can have substantial environmental benefits, it requires large areas of land use and land management change, and is likely to be costly (up to

Carbon payments and low-cost conservation.

348.5 M per year) with flow-on impacts on the regional economy and communities. Environmental targets can be achieved more cost-effectively through spatial planning. Costs can be further reduced if markets are established for carbon, biomass, and biofuels to enable landholders to generate income from undertaking NRM. Landscape futures analysis is an effective tool for supporting the strategic regional NRM policy and planning decisions of how best to set and achieve environmental targets.

Biofuels agriculture: landscape-scale trade-offs between fuel, economics, carbon, energy, food, and fiber

A price on carbon is expected to generate demand for carbon offset schemes. This demand could drive investment in tree-based monocultures that provide higher carbon yields than diverse plantings of native tree and shrub species, which sequester less carbon but provide greater variation in vegetation structure and composition. Economic instruments such as species conservation banking, the creation and trading of credits that represent biological-diversity values on private land, could close the financial gap between monocultures and more diverse plantings by providing payments to individuals who plant diverse species in locations that contribute to conservation and restoration goals. We studied a highly modified agricultural system in southern Australia that is typical of many temperate agriculture zones globally (i.e., has a high proportion of endangered species, high levels of habitat fragmentation, and presence of non-native species). We quantified the economic returns from agriculture and from carbon plantings (monoculture and mixed tree and shrubs) under six carbon-price scenarios. We also identified high-priority locations for restoration of cleared landscapes with mixed tree and shrub carbon plantings. Depending on the price of carbon, direct annual payments to landowners of AU

Physical environmental modeling, visualization and query for supporting landscape planning decisions

7/ha/year to

Food-Carbon Trade-offs between Agriculture and Reforestation Land Uses under Alternate Market-based Policies

125/ha/year (US

Impact of agricultural management practices on soil organic carbon: simulation of Australian wheat systems

6-120/ha/year) may be sufficient to augment economic returns from a carbon market and encourage tree plantings that contribute more to the restoration of natural systems and endangered species habitats than monocultures. Thus, areas of high priority for conservation and restoration may be restored relatively cheaply in the presence of a carbon market. Overall, however, less carbon is sequestered by mixed native tree and shrub plantings.

Distributed process modeling for regional assessment of coastal vulnerability to sea-level rise

First‐generation biofuels are an existing, scalable form of renewable energy of the type urgently required to mitigate climate change. In this study, we assessed the potential benefits, costs, and trade‐offs associated with biofuels agriculture to inform bioenergy policy. We assessed different climate change and carbon subsidy scenarios in an 11.9 million ha (5.48 million ha arable) region in southern Australia. We modeled the spatial distribution of agricultural production, full life‐cycle net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and net energy, and economic profitability for both food agriculture (wheat, legumes, sheep rotation) and biofuels agriculture (wheat, canola rotation for ethanol/biodiesel production). The costs, benefits, and trade‐offs associated with biofuels agriculture varied geographically, with climate change, and with the level of carbon subsidy. Below we describe the results in general and provide (in parentheses) illustrative results under historical mean climate and a carbon subsidy of A

Australia is ‘free to choose’ economic growth and falling environmental pressures

20 t−1 CO2−e. Biofuels agriculture was more profitable over an extensive area (2.85 million ha) of the most productive arable land and produced large quantities of biofuels (1.7 GL yr−1). Biofuels agriculture substantially increased economic profit (145.8 million

Systematic landscape restoration in the rural–urban fringe: meeting conservation planning and policy goals

A yr−1 or 30%), but had only a modest net GHG abatement (−2.57 million t CO2−e yr−1), and a negligible effect on net energy production (−0.11 PJ yr−1). However, food production was considerably reduced in terms of grain (−3.04 million t yr−1) and sheep meat (−1.89 million head yr−1). Wool fiber production was also substantially reduced (−23.19 kt yr−1). While biofuels agriculture can produce short‐term benefits, it also has costs, and the vulnerability of biofuels to climatic warming and drying renders it a myopic strategy. Nonetheless, in some areas the profitability of biofuels agriculture is robust to variation in climate and level of carbon subsidy and these areas may form part of a long‐term diversified mix of land‐use solutions to climate change if trade‐offs can be managed.