Systematic regional planning for multiple objective natural resource management

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.06.003Get rights and content

Abstract

On-ground natural resource management actions such as revegetation and remnant vegetation management can simultaneously affect multiple objectives including land, water and biodiversity resources. Hence, planning for the sustainable management of natural resources requires consideration of these multiple objectives. However, planning the location of management actions in the landscape often treats these objectives individually to reduce the process and spatial complexity inherent in human-modified and natural landscapes. This can be inefficient and potentially counterproductive given the linkages and trade-offs involved. We develop and apply a systematic regional planning approach to identify geographic priorities for on-ground natural resource management actions that most cost-effectively meet multiple natural resource management objectives. Our systematic regional planning approach utilises integer programming within a structured multi-criteria decision analysis framework. Intelligent siting can capitalise on the multiple benefits of on-ground actions and achieve natural resource management objectives more efficiently. The focus of this study is the human-modified landscape of the River Murray, South Australia. However, the methodology and analyses presented here can be adapted to other regions requiring more efficient and integrated planning for the management of natural resources.

Introduction

The impact of on-ground natural resource management actions (such as revegetation and remnant vegetation management) in addressing land, water and biodiversity objectives is fundamentally determined by their location in the landscape (Hobbs and Saunders, 1991). Many actions not only affect their intended natural resource management objective but, depending on where in the landscape they occur, may also impact upon other objectives. Some actions may even have undesirable trade-offs and result in deleterious environmental impacts (Zhang et al., 2001; Herron et al., 2002, Herron et al., 2003; Vertessy et al., 2003). For example, revegetation of local native species and communities may be primarily undertaken for the benefit of biodiversity (Saunders and Hobbs, 1995; Martin et al., 2004; Vesk and MacNally, 2006). Complementing this, depending on which parts of the landscape are targeted, the same revegetation may also lower water tables, sequester carbon, and reduce soil erosion (Lal, 2001; Eberbach, 2003; Hatton et al., 2003; Arnalds, 2004; Canadell et al., 2004; Turner and Asseng, 2005). However, revegetation may also have negative impacts if the natural resource management objective is to increase environmental flows in waterways (Zhang et al., 2001; Herron et al., 2002, Herron et al., 2003; Vertessy et al., 2003). Thus, planning for natural resource management actions involves complex decisions to prioritise the type, timing and location of actions that address multiple degrading processes in agricultural landscapes (Walker et al., 2001).

Many studies have aimed to identify management actions to address single natural resource management objectives such as improving water quality and reducing sedimentation (Khanna et al., 2003; Lu et al., 2004), reducing nutrient loads (Seppelt and Voinov, 2002, Seppelt and Voinov, 2004), reducing salinisation (Greiner and Cacho, 2001), improving forestry production and harvesting (Snyder and ReVelle, 1997; Turner et al., 2002; Marianov et al., 2004; Toth et al., 2006), wetland restoration (Newbold and Weinberg, 2003), and biodiversity conservation via reserve design (Rothley, 1999; Church et al., 2000; Rodrigues and Gaston, 2002; Önal and Briers, 2002; Ruliffson et al., 2003; Arthur et al., 2004; Snyder et al., 2004; Haight et al., 2005). These studies often include economic and agricultural analyses in land use planning and involve advanced spatial planning and structured decision-support techniques such as multi-criteria decision analysis and spatial optimisation techniques.

Several studies have developed techniques for integrated planning for addressing multiple natural resource management objectives. Notably, LUPIS (Land Use Planning and Information System, Ive and Cocks, 1983, Ive and Cocks, 1988; Ive, 1995), a multi-criteria decision-support tool for integrated land use planning, has been applied in many different regions (e.g. Cocks, 1984; Ive et al., 1989; Braithwaite et al., 1993; Recatala et al., 2000). Other studies have also demonstrated quantitative, integrated landscape-scale planning for achieving multiple natural resource management objectives in fields such as environmental management (Hobbs, 1993; Hobbs et al., 1993; Hobbs and Saunders, 1993; Cresswell et al., 2004; Hajkowicz et al., 2005; Hill et al., 2005; Crossman and Bryan, 2006; Crossman et al., 2007), forestry (Gustafson et al., 2000; Bugg et al., 2002; Bettinger et al., 2005), and agricultural resource management (Hayashi, 2000).

Building on the work in this field, we develop and apply an integrated and systematic regional planning methodology to identify the type and location of on-ground management actions that most cost-effectively address multiple natural resource management objectives. The systematic regional planning methodology is a quantitative technique that utilises spatial optimisation within a multi-criteria decision analysis framework. We demonstrate the application of the methodology in the River Murray Corridor area in South Australia. Linkages between management actions and the natural resource management objectives of salinity, biodiversity and wind erosion are identified. The costs and trade-offs of addressing these natural resource management objectives through vegetation management and revegetation are quantified. Priority locations for these actions in the landscape are identified that most cost-effectively address these multiple objectives given the trade-offs. These priority locations can be used to guide regional investment in natural resource management. The methodology presented here could be applied to other regionally based efforts to prioritise investment in natural resource management actions.

Section snippets

Systematic regional planning

Processes of environmental degradation operate heterogeneously across the landscape and actions at different locations vary in both the level of environmental benefit and the costs incurred. The benefit of vegetation management and revegetation actions for biodiversity depends on their location relative to the spatial arrangement of remnant habitat in the landscape context (e.g. Hobbs, 1993; Saunders and Hobbs, 1995; Arnold, 2003; Bennett and MacNally, 2004; Freudenberger et al., 2004; Dorrough

Remnant vegetation management

A key output of the spatial multi-criteria decision analysis model is mapped geographic priorities for vegetation management in the Corridor (Fig. 2). Of the 510 734 ha of remnant vegetation in the Corridor, over 80% (413 489 ha) is on privately owned land (Bryan et al., 2005). Over 25% (106 993 ha) of this remnant vegetation on private land is already managed under either heritage agreements or as part of the bookmark biosphere reserve (Bryan et al., 2005). To meet the natural resource management

Conclusion

We present an integrated systematic regional planning methodology for prioritising both vegetation management and revegetation for achieving multiple natural resource management objectives. Results of the application to the South Australian River Murray Corridor suggest that the inclusion of smart spatial targeting of vegetation management and revegetation actions according to established systematic principles can result in significant natural resource management benefits at minimal extra cost.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the financial support of this project by the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality through the South Australian Centre for Natural Resource Management, and CSIRO's Water for a Healthy Country Flagship. We acknowledge the contributions and advice of Jeff Connor and John Ward of CSIRO Land and Water, and Tiffany Schultz of the South Australian Department of Water, Land and Biodiversity Conservation. We thank Glenn Gale and Doug Bardsley of the Australian

References (102)

  • K. Hayashi

    Multicriteria analysis for agricultural resource management: a critical survey and future perspectives

    European Journal of Operational Research

    (2000)
  • N. Herron et al.

    The effects of large-scale afforestation and climate change on water allocation in the Macquarie River catchment, NSW, Australia

    Journal of Environmental Management

    (2002)
  • N. Herron et al.

    Modelling the impacts of strategic plantings on salt loads and flows in the Macquarie River catchment, NSW, Australia

    Journal of Environmental Management

    (2003)
  • M.J. Hill et al.

    Multi-criteria decision analysis in spatial decision support: the ASSESS analytic hierarchy process and the role of quantitative methods and spatially explicit analysis

    Environmental Modelling and Software

    (2005)
  • R.J. Hobbs et al.

    Re-integrating fragmented landscapes: a preliminary framework for the Western Australian wheatbelt

    Journal of Environmental Management

    (1991)
  • R.J. Hobbs et al.

    Integrated landscape ecology: a Western Australian perspective

    Biological Conservation

    (1993)
  • C.R. Margules et al.

    Selecting networks of reserves to maximise biological diversity

    Biological Conservation

    (1988)
  • P. Nikolakaki

    A GIS site-selection process for habitat creation: estimating connectivity of habitat patches

    Landscape and Urban Planning

    (2004)
  • R.L. Pressey et al.

    Beyond opportunism: key principles or systematic reserve selection

    Trends in Ecology and Evolution

    (1993)
  • L. Recatala et al.

    Land-use planning in the Valencian Mediterranean Region: using LUPIS to generate issue relevant plans

    Journal of Environmental Management

    (2000)
  • A.S.L. Rodrigues et al.

    Optimisation in reserve selection procedures—why not?

    Biological Conservation

    (2002)
  • J.A. Ruliffson et al.

    Metropolitan natural area protection to maximise public access and species representation

    Environmental Science and Policy

    (2003)
  • R. Seppelt et al.

    Optimization methodology for land use patterns using spatially explicit landscape models

    Ecological Modelling

    (2002)
  • S. Snyder et al.

    Multiobjective grid packing model: an application in forest management

    Location Science

    (1997)
  • S. Snyder et al.

    One- and two-objective approaches to an area-constrained habitat reserve site selection problem

    Biological Conservation

    (2004)
  • B.J. Turner et al.

    Optimisation modelling of sustainable forest management at the regional level: an Australian example

    Ecological Modelling

    (2002)
  • L.G. Underhill

    Optimal and suboptimal reserve selection algorithms

    Biological Conservation

    (1994)
  • P.A. Vesk et al.

    The clock is ticking—revegetation and habitat for birds and arboreal mammals in rural landscapes of southern Australia

    Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment

    (2006)
  • D.H. Walker et al.

    Integrating research results into decision making about natural resource management at a catchment scale

    Agricultural Systems

    (2001)
  • A. Ando et al.

    Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation

    Science

    (1998)
  • D. Armitage

    Adaptive capacity and community-based natural resource management

    Environmental Management

    (2005)
  • A. Arnalds

    Carbon sequestration and the restoration of land health—an example from Iceland

    Climatic Change

    (2004)
  • G.W. Arnold

    Bird species richness and abundance in wandoo woodland and in tree plantations on farmland on Baker's Hill, Western Australia

    Emu

    (2003)
  • J.L. Arthur et al.

    Weighting conservation objectives: maximum expected coverage versus endangered species protection

    Ecological Applications

    (2004)
  • T. Beierle et al.

    Democracy in Practice—Public Participation in Environmental Decisions

    (2002)
  • A.F. Bennett et al.

    Identifying priority areas for conservation action in agricultural landscapes

    Pacific Conservation Biology

    (2004)
  • P.R. Bird et al.

    The role of shelter in Australia for protecting soils, plants and livestock

    Agroforestry Systems

    (1992)
  • S. Boehmer-Christiansen

    Politics and environmental management

    Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

    (1994)
  • L.A. Bojórquez-Tapia et al.

    GIS-based approach for participatory decision making and land suitability assessment

    International Journal of Geographic Information Science

    (2001)
  • W. Braithwaite et al.

    Land use allocation and biological conservation in the Batemans Bay forests of New South Wales

    Australian Forestry

    (1993)
  • Bryan, B.A., Crossman, N.D., Schultz, T., Connor, J., Ward, J., 2005. Systematic regional planning for multiple...
  • A.L. Bugg et al.

    A strategic assessment of the potential for hardwood and softwood plantations in NSW

    Australian Journal of Environmental Management

    (2002)
  • J.R. Busby

    BIOCLIM – A bioclimatic analysis and prediction system

  • J.G. Canadell et al.

    Quantifying, understanding and managing the carbon cycle in the next decades

    Climatic Change

    (2004)
  • R. Church et al.

    Understanding the tradeoffs between site quality and species presence in reserve site selection

    Forest Science

    (2000)
  • D. Cocks

    A systematic method of public use zoning of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Australia

    Coastal Zone Management Journal

    (1984)
  • H. Cresswell et al.

    Heartlands: Planning for Sustainable Land Use and Catchment Health: A Report of the Heartlands Initiative

    (2004)
  • A. Curtis et al.

    Integrating socio-economic and biophysical data to underpin collaborative watershed management

    Journal of the American Water Resources Association

    (2005)
  • P.L. Eberbach

    The eco-hydrology of partly cleared, native ecosystems in southern Australia: a review

    Plant and Soil

    (2003)
  • K. Edvardsson

    Using goals in environmental management: the Swedish system of environmental objectives

    Environmental Management

    (2004)
  • Cited by (80)

    • Between Ostrom and Nordhaus: The research landscape of sustainability economics

      2020, Ecological Economics
      Citation Excerpt :

      Many contributions put a particular focus on modeling and evaluating environmental management under conditions of uncertainty (Ajami et al., 2008; Ananda and Herath, 2005; Chung et al., 2009; Feng and Huang, 2008; Groves et al., 2008; Prato, 2007; Varela-Ortega et al., 2011). Furthermore, papers deal with the integration of multiple objectives into natural resource management (Bryan and Crossman, 2008; Lagabrielle et al., 2011; Waeber et al., 2013), for instance using multi-criteria decision-making methods (Mosadeghi et al., 2013). This cluster focuses on issues of intertemporal allocation and distribution, in particular social discounting.13

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text