Managing catchments for multiple objectives: the implications of land use change for salinity, biodiversity and economics
Andrew Bathgate A E , Julian Seddon B , John Finalyson C and Ron Hacker DA Farming Systems Analysis Service, 41 Trebor Road, Albany, WA 6330, Australia.
B Department of Environment and Climate Change, c/– CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia.
C NSW Department of Primary Industries, 161 Kite St, Orange, NSW 2800, Australia.
D NSW Department of Primary Industries, Trangie Agricultural Research Centre, Trangie, NSW 2823, Australia.
E Corresponding author. Email: abathgate@optusnet.com.au
Animal Production Science 49(10) 852-859 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN09049
Submitted: 20 March 2009 Accepted: 24 June 2009 Published: 16 September 2009
Abstract
Policy developed for the management of natural resources in agricultural landscapes in recent years has emphasised the need for an integrated approach. Operationally however, natural resource objectives have been pursued independently with little consideration of the link between components of ecosystems and therefore the possibility of trade-offs between components. In the absence of this information, decision makers cannot adequately assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies for improving the condition of the natural resource base. The aim of this study is to assess the extent of trade-offs between multiple catchment objectives viz. biodiversity, stream salinity, stream yield, salt load, sequestration of carbon and farm profit in the Little River Catchment in Central New South Wales. Seven scenarios describing different land use alternatives for the catchment were assessed using spatial datasets of catchment characteristics. A suite of models was used to determine the impact of land use change on these characteristics over a 50-year timeframe. The results of the analysis indicate that changes in farm production methods may deliver small improvements in some indicators of catchment health. However, significant improvements would require the establishment of large areas of woody perennials and this is only likely to occur with significant public investment, given the consequent large reduction in farm profit. Trade-offs between several catchment indicators were identified. Significantly the benefits of reducing stream salinity were outweighed by the losses resulting from reduced stream flow. Generally, the financial benefits of improving the indicators of resource condition were low relative to the investment required. It was concluded therefore that the environmental value of these improvements would need to be substantial to justify the investment.
Additional keywords: catchment model, off-site benefits.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge: the support of Ian McGowen and Udai Pradhan of the Resource Information Unit of the NSW Department of Primary Industry, and their assistance in processing spatial information that was used in this study; assistance and advice provided by Michael Drielsma, Geoff Beale and Brian Murphy; Keith Emery for the provision of spatial data; and support from CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems and the Environment. We also acknowledge the support of the funders of the work; namely the NSW Department of Primary Industries, the NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change and the Grain & Graze Program, which was funded by the Meat and Livestock Australia, Grains Research and Development Corporation, Land and Water Australia, and Australian Wool Innovation Limited. This study built on work that was undertaken with funding from the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality.
Dawes WR,
Gilfidder M,
Walker RR, Evans WR
(2004) Biophysical modelling of catchment-scale surface water and groundwater response to land use change. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation 64, 3–12.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[Verified 5 July 2009]
Robertson M,
Bathgate A,
Moore A,
Lawes R, Lilley J
(2009) Seeking simultaneous improvements in farm profit and natural resource indicators: a modelling analysis. Animal Production Science 49, 826–836.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Stoorvogel JJ,
Antle JM,
Crissman CC, Bowen W
(2004) The tradeoff analysis model: integrated biophysical and economic modelling of agricultural production systems. Agricultural Systems 80, 43–66.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Weersink A,
Jeffery S, Pannell D
(2002) Farm-level modelling for bigger issues. Review of Agricultural Economics 24, 123–140.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Yiridoe EK, Weersink A
(1997) A review and evaluation of agroecosystems health analysis: the role of economics. Agricultural Systems 55(4), 601–626.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |