Neville D. Crossman

Environmental flows for natural, hybrid, and novel riverine ecosystems in a changing world

The term “environmental flows” describes the quantities, quality, and patterns of water flows required to sustain freshwater and estuarine ecosystems and the ecosystem services they provide. Environmental flows may be achieved in a number of different ways, most of which are based on either (1) limiting alterations from the natural flow baseline to maintain biodiversity and ecological integrity or (2) designing flow regimes to achieve specific ecological and ecosystem service outcomes. We argue that the former practice is more applicable to natural and semi-natural rivers where the primary objective and opportunity is ecological conservation. The latter “designer” approach is better suited to modified and managed rivers where return to natural conditions is no longer feasible and the objective is to maximize natural capital as well as support economic growth, recreation, or cultural history. This permits elements of ecosystem design and adaptation to environmental change. In a future characterized by altered climates and intensive regulation, where hybrid and novel aquatic ecosystems predominate, the designer approach may be the only feasible option. This conclusion stems from a lack of natural ecosystems from which to draw analogs and the need to support broader socioeconomic benefits and valuable configurations of natural and social capital.

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.

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

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

Quantifying and mapping ecosystem services

7/ha/year to

Bringing ecosystem services into integrated water resources management

125/ha/year (US

Ecosystem services classification: a systems ecology perspective of the cascade framework

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.

CREDOS: A Conservation Reserve Evaluation And Design Optimisation System

Many landscapes that straddle the rural/urban divide suffer from low levels of species diversity following extensive clearing and fragmentation of native vegetation communities and conversion of land to agriculture. Further pressures are placed on remnant vegetation by encroaching urban expansion. These landscapes now exhibit a mosaic of small, patchy vegetation remnants that are under considerable pressure from housing and light-industrial development. Furthermore, agriculture in these landscapes tends to be of high economic value from uses such as intensive horticulture. Concerted and well-planned efforts are needed to balance the many conflicts of interest and competing demands for land with the need to restore landscapes for the protection of biodiversity. There has been a recent move in Australia toward regional biodiversity planning and goal setting, however specific detail on how to plan for achieving targets in complex landscapes is lacking. This paper applies a systematic landscape restoration model to a mixed-use, peri-urban landscape on the northern fringes of Adelaide, South Australia. The region contains fragments of remnant vegetation amongst a mosaic of high-value horticulture, light industry and urban development. Models produce maximally efficient solutions that meet comprehensive, adequate and representative conservation targets. Further constraints are added to the model to take into account the value of agricultural output, the biodiversity value of remnants, and property size and tenure. The effects on solution efficiencies as the number of constraints increase are investigated. This paper demonstrates the flexibility found in applying a systematic landscape restoration methodology. The process we present can be transferred to any rural–urban fringe region.

Contribution of site assessment toward prioritising investment in natural capital

Since the publication of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment’s outcomes in 2005 (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005), there has been rapid growth in the science and policy of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity for natural resource management decision making. Most prominent at the global scale is The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2010), and at the national scale is the United Kingdom National Ecosystem Assessment (Bateman et al. 2011). New initiatives, such as the World Bank’s Global Partnership for Wealth Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services1 and the Global Environment Facility (GEF)-funded Project for Ecosystem Services2 aim to get ecosystem service values into mainstream national accounting. Other recent global developments such as the Intergovernmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services3 and the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–20204 aim to recognise, protect and enhance the values provided to society by biodiversity and ecosystem services. The biodiversity strategy of the European Union (EU) to 20205 demands improving the knowledge of ecosystem services and commissions its member states to map and assess the state of ecosystems and their services in their national territories by 2014. The integration of ecosystem service values into accounting and reporting systems at EU and national levels is expected be completed by 2020. All such efforts to better value ecosystem services demand robust quantification and mapping methods. Furthermore, the commodification of ecosystem service production, such as payments for ecosystem services, biodiversity and wetland banking, carbon offsets and trading and conservation auctions, depends on robust measurement of the stocks and flow of services to provide surety to participants in these markets. At a broader level of sustainability policy, there needs to be better understanding of where and what services are provided by a given piece of land, landscape, region, state, continent and globally, so that the level of provision of services can be monitored and managed. There also needs to be better understanding of conditions and threats to the natural capital that supplies ecosystem services so that finite resources can be targeted to where the enhancement of services is needed most. Maps are a very powerful tool to process complex data and information from ecosystem service quantification on different spatial and temporal scales and thereby support resource and environmental management as well as landscape planning. This special issue on ‘Quantifying and mapping ecosystem services’ contains a collection of papers that present the state of the art in ecosystem service quantification and mapping methodologies. The collection of papers in this special issue covers a broad spectrum of ecosystem service quantification and mapping, from the theoretical (Bastian et al. 2012) and review (Martinez-Harms and Balvanera 2012) style, to those of a more applied nature (Ericksen et al. 2012; Klug et al. 2012). Several papers focus on the single ecosystem service of water quality (Bastian et al. 2012; Klug et al. 2012; La Notte et al. 2012; Lautenbach et al. 2012) or habitat (La Notte 2012; Rolf et al. 2012), while other papers focus on the supply of multiple (or bundles of) ecosystem services (Ericksen et al. 2012; Guerry et al. 2012; Petz and van Oudenhoven 2012; Schulp et al. 2012; Vihervaara et al. 2012). The major characteristics of the papers that appear in this special issue are summarised in Table 1. The scale, resolution, input data sources and case study locations presented in these special issue papers are many and varied, from the local to the global and the fine-grained to the coarse-grained (Table 1). However, of most interest to readers are the major findings of the papers in this collection and how they contribute to the state of the art for quantifying and mapping ecosystem services. For example, using biophysical models (La Notte et al. 2012) or detailed species (Rolf et al. 2012) or biodiversity data (Vihervaara et al. 2012) to supplement land-cover/landuse data-based assessments will more accurately quantify ecosystem services than if using land-cover/land-use data alone. The selection of relevant ecosystem services and respective indicators is also important and careful selection will arguably result in more relevant and accurate maps for valuation (La Notte 2012) and decision making (Petz and van Oudenhoven 2012). A number of papers offer some insights into cases where lack of data makes quantifying and mapping ecosystem services more difficult. For example, Lautenbach et al. (2012) suggest a hierarchical approach across multiple scales could be used where high-resolution data are fragmented, while Ericksen et al. (2012) demonstrate that simple and relatively coarse land-use data are still very useful for mapping bundles of ecosystem services to aid decision making in developing countries that are traditionally data poor. Furthermore, Klug et al. (2012) demonstrate the potential of open source methods for collecting data and modelling ecosystem services that are complex in space and time.