Softening the agricultural matrix: a novel agri‐environment scheme that balances habitat restoration and livestock grazing
The loss and degradation of woody vegetation in the agricultural matrix represents a key threat to biodiversity. Strategies for habitat restoration in these landscapes should maximize the biodiversity benefit for each dollar spent in order to achieve the greatest conservation outcomes with scarce fu...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Restoration ecology 2016-03, Vol.24 (2), p.159-164 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 164 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 159 |
container_title | Restoration ecology |
container_volume | 24 |
creator | Ansell, Dean Fifield, Graham Munro, Nicola Freudenberger, David Gibbons, Philip |
description | The loss and degradation of woody vegetation in the agricultural matrix represents a key threat to biodiversity. Strategies for habitat restoration in these landscapes should maximize the biodiversity benefit for each dollar spent in order to achieve the greatest conservation outcomes with scarce funding. To be effective at scale, such strategies also need to account for the opportunity cost of restoration to the farmer. Here, we critique the Whole‐of‐Paddock Rehabilitation program, a novel agri‐environment scheme which seeks to provide a cost‐effective strategy for balancing habitat restoration and livestock grazing. The scheme involves the revegetation of large (minimum 10 ha) fields, designed to maximize biodiversity benefits and minimize costs while allowing for continued agricultural production. The objectives and design of the scheme are outlined, biodiversity and production benefits are discussed, and we contrast its cost‐effectiveness with alternative habitat restoration strategies. Our analysis indicates that this scheme achieves greater restoration outcomes at approximately half the cost of windbreak‐style plantings, the prevailing planting configuration in southeastern Australia, largely due to a focus on larger fields, and the avoidance of fencing costs through the use of existing farm configuration and infrastructure. This emphasis on cost‐effectiveness, the offsetting of opportunity costs through incentive payments, and the use of a planting design that seeks to maximize biodiversity benefits while achieving production benefits to the farmer, has the potential to achieve conservation in productive parts of the agricultural landscape that have traditionally been “off limits” to conservation. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/rec.12304 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1780521295</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3974813791</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3924-f6446660688f2d0fa0736a6b39248fd450ee4f85bd02484a5cc500125a6939a43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1u1DAUhSMEEqWw4AmwxAYWaf2fhB0a-oM0AkGp2p11x2PPuE3s1naGFnXBI_CMPAmeBlgg4Y2tc79zfe1TVc8J3iNl7Uej9whlmD-odoigsiYYnz8sZyxJTbuGPK6epHSBMRFty3aqu5Ngs_HOr1BeGwSr6PTY5zFCjwbI0d28QYB82Jj-vvjz-w_jNy4GPxifUdJrM5hihYwW0IPXJqE1LFwuQjQphwjZBY_AL1HvNltFX6JVhG_lyqfVIwt9Ms9-77vV6eHBl9lxPf949H72dl5r1lFeW8m5lBLLtrV0iS3ghkmQi22xtUsusDHctmKxxEXgILQW5YFUgOxYB5ztVq-mvlcxXI9lBjW4pE1f5jVhTIo0LRaU0E4U9OU_6EUYoy_TFaohnDUdpoV6PVE6hpSiseoqugHirSJYbXNQJQd1n0Nh9yf2q-vN7f9B9flg9sdRTw6Xsrn564B4qWTDGqHOPhypszk_F-8-HSpc-BcTbyGobUhJnZ5QTGT5BFY6MvYLMtmjhg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1771437902</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Softening the agricultural matrix: a novel agri‐environment scheme that balances habitat restoration and livestock grazing</title><source>Wiley Journals</source><creator>Ansell, Dean ; Fifield, Graham ; Munro, Nicola ; Freudenberger, David ; Gibbons, Philip</creator><creatorcontrib>Ansell, Dean ; Fifield, Graham ; Munro, Nicola ; Freudenberger, David ; Gibbons, Philip</creatorcontrib><description>The loss and degradation of woody vegetation in the agricultural matrix represents a key threat to biodiversity. Strategies for habitat restoration in these landscapes should maximize the biodiversity benefit for each dollar spent in order to achieve the greatest conservation outcomes with scarce funding. To be effective at scale, such strategies also need to account for the opportunity cost of restoration to the farmer. Here, we critique the Whole‐of‐Paddock Rehabilitation program, a novel agri‐environment scheme which seeks to provide a cost‐effective strategy for balancing habitat restoration and livestock grazing. The scheme involves the revegetation of large (minimum 10 ha) fields, designed to maximize biodiversity benefits and minimize costs while allowing for continued agricultural production. The objectives and design of the scheme are outlined, biodiversity and production benefits are discussed, and we contrast its cost‐effectiveness with alternative habitat restoration strategies. Our analysis indicates that this scheme achieves greater restoration outcomes at approximately half the cost of windbreak‐style plantings, the prevailing planting configuration in southeastern Australia, largely due to a focus on larger fields, and the avoidance of fencing costs through the use of existing farm configuration and infrastructure. This emphasis on cost‐effectiveness, the offsetting of opportunity costs through incentive payments, and the use of a planting design that seeks to maximize biodiversity benefits while achieving production benefits to the farmer, has the potential to achieve conservation in productive parts of the agricultural landscape that have traditionally been “off limits” to conservation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1061-2971</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1526-100X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/rec.12304</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Malden, USA: Wiley Periodicals, Inc</publisher><subject>Agricultural land ; agricultural landscapes ; Agricultural production ; Biodiversity ; Cost analysis ; cost effectiveness ; cost-effective conservation ; ecological restoration ; Environmental restoration ; Farmers ; farmland biodiversity ; farms ; funding ; Grazing ; habitat conservation ; Habitats ; infrastructure ; land restoration ; landscapes ; Livestock ; opportunity costs ; planting ; Revegetation ; vegetation ; Wildlife conservation ; Windbreaks ; Woody plants</subject><ispartof>Restoration ecology, 2016-03, Vol.24 (2), p.159-164</ispartof><rights>2015 Society for Ecological Restoration</rights><rights>2016 Society for Ecological Restoration</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3924-f6446660688f2d0fa0736a6b39248fd450ee4f85bd02484a5cc500125a6939a43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3924-f6446660688f2d0fa0736a6b39248fd450ee4f85bd02484a5cc500125a6939a43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Frec.12304$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Frec.12304$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,1418,27929,27930,45579,45580</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ansell, Dean</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fifield, Graham</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Munro, Nicola</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Freudenberger, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gibbons, Philip</creatorcontrib><title>Softening the agricultural matrix: a novel agri‐environment scheme that balances habitat restoration and livestock grazing</title><title>Restoration ecology</title><addtitle>Restor Ecol</addtitle><description>The loss and degradation of woody vegetation in the agricultural matrix represents a key threat to biodiversity. Strategies for habitat restoration in these landscapes should maximize the biodiversity benefit for each dollar spent in order to achieve the greatest conservation outcomes with scarce funding. To be effective at scale, such strategies also need to account for the opportunity cost of restoration to the farmer. Here, we critique the Whole‐of‐Paddock Rehabilitation program, a novel agri‐environment scheme which seeks to provide a cost‐effective strategy for balancing habitat restoration and livestock grazing. The scheme involves the revegetation of large (minimum 10 ha) fields, designed to maximize biodiversity benefits and minimize costs while allowing for continued agricultural production. The objectives and design of the scheme are outlined, biodiversity and production benefits are discussed, and we contrast its cost‐effectiveness with alternative habitat restoration strategies. Our analysis indicates that this scheme achieves greater restoration outcomes at approximately half the cost of windbreak‐style plantings, the prevailing planting configuration in southeastern Australia, largely due to a focus on larger fields, and the avoidance of fencing costs through the use of existing farm configuration and infrastructure. This emphasis on cost‐effectiveness, the offsetting of opportunity costs through incentive payments, and the use of a planting design that seeks to maximize biodiversity benefits while achieving production benefits to the farmer, has the potential to achieve conservation in productive parts of the agricultural landscape that have traditionally been “off limits” to conservation.</description><subject>Agricultural land</subject><subject>agricultural landscapes</subject><subject>Agricultural production</subject><subject>Biodiversity</subject><subject>Cost analysis</subject><subject>cost effectiveness</subject><subject>cost-effective conservation</subject><subject>ecological restoration</subject><subject>Environmental restoration</subject><subject>Farmers</subject><subject>farmland biodiversity</subject><subject>farms</subject><subject>funding</subject><subject>Grazing</subject><subject>habitat conservation</subject><subject>Habitats</subject><subject>infrastructure</subject><subject>land restoration</subject><subject>landscapes</subject><subject>Livestock</subject><subject>opportunity costs</subject><subject>planting</subject><subject>Revegetation</subject><subject>vegetation</subject><subject>Wildlife conservation</subject><subject>Windbreaks</subject><subject>Woody plants</subject><issn>1061-2971</issn><issn>1526-100X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kc1u1DAUhSMEEqWw4AmwxAYWaf2fhB0a-oM0AkGp2p11x2PPuE3s1naGFnXBI_CMPAmeBlgg4Y2tc79zfe1TVc8J3iNl7Uej9whlmD-odoigsiYYnz8sZyxJTbuGPK6epHSBMRFty3aqu5Ngs_HOr1BeGwSr6PTY5zFCjwbI0d28QYB82Jj-vvjz-w_jNy4GPxifUdJrM5hihYwW0IPXJqE1LFwuQjQphwjZBY_AL1HvNltFX6JVhG_lyqfVIwt9Ms9-77vV6eHBl9lxPf949H72dl5r1lFeW8m5lBLLtrV0iS3ghkmQi22xtUsusDHctmKxxEXgILQW5YFUgOxYB5ztVq-mvlcxXI9lBjW4pE1f5jVhTIo0LRaU0E4U9OU_6EUYoy_TFaohnDUdpoV6PVE6hpSiseoqugHirSJYbXNQJQd1n0Nh9yf2q-vN7f9B9flg9sdRTw6Xsrn564B4qWTDGqHOPhypszk_F-8-HSpc-BcTbyGobUhJnZ5QTGT5BFY6MvYLMtmjhg</recordid><startdate>201603</startdate><enddate>201603</enddate><creator>Ansell, Dean</creator><creator>Fifield, Graham</creator><creator>Munro, Nicola</creator><creator>Freudenberger, David</creator><creator>Gibbons, Philip</creator><general>Wiley Periodicals, Inc</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7U6</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>H97</scope><scope>L.G</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201603</creationdate><title>Softening the agricultural matrix: a novel agri‐environment scheme that balances habitat restoration and livestock grazing</title><author>Ansell, Dean ; Fifield, Graham ; Munro, Nicola ; Freudenberger, David ; Gibbons, Philip</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3924-f6446660688f2d0fa0736a6b39248fd450ee4f85bd02484a5cc500125a6939a43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Agricultural land</topic><topic>agricultural landscapes</topic><topic>Agricultural production</topic><topic>Biodiversity</topic><topic>Cost analysis</topic><topic>cost effectiveness</topic><topic>cost-effective conservation</topic><topic>ecological restoration</topic><topic>Environmental restoration</topic><topic>Farmers</topic><topic>farmland biodiversity</topic><topic>farms</topic><topic>funding</topic><topic>Grazing</topic><topic>habitat conservation</topic><topic>Habitats</topic><topic>infrastructure</topic><topic>land restoration</topic><topic>landscapes</topic><topic>Livestock</topic><topic>opportunity costs</topic><topic>planting</topic><topic>Revegetation</topic><topic>vegetation</topic><topic>Wildlife conservation</topic><topic>Windbreaks</topic><topic>Woody plants</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ansell, Dean</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fifield, Graham</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Munro, Nicola</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Freudenberger, David</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gibbons, Philip</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Sustainability Science Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><jtitle>Restoration ecology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ansell, Dean</au><au>Fifield, Graham</au><au>Munro, Nicola</au><au>Freudenberger, David</au><au>Gibbons, Philip</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Softening the agricultural matrix: a novel agri‐environment scheme that balances habitat restoration and livestock grazing</atitle><jtitle>Restoration ecology</jtitle><addtitle>Restor Ecol</addtitle><date>2016-03</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>24</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>159</spage><epage>164</epage><pages>159-164</pages><issn>1061-2971</issn><eissn>1526-100X</eissn><abstract>The loss and degradation of woody vegetation in the agricultural matrix represents a key threat to biodiversity. Strategies for habitat restoration in these landscapes should maximize the biodiversity benefit for each dollar spent in order to achieve the greatest conservation outcomes with scarce funding. To be effective at scale, such strategies also need to account for the opportunity cost of restoration to the farmer. Here, we critique the Whole‐of‐Paddock Rehabilitation program, a novel agri‐environment scheme which seeks to provide a cost‐effective strategy for balancing habitat restoration and livestock grazing. The scheme involves the revegetation of large (minimum 10 ha) fields, designed to maximize biodiversity benefits and minimize costs while allowing for continued agricultural production. The objectives and design of the scheme are outlined, biodiversity and production benefits are discussed, and we contrast its cost‐effectiveness with alternative habitat restoration strategies. Our analysis indicates that this scheme achieves greater restoration outcomes at approximately half the cost of windbreak‐style plantings, the prevailing planting configuration in southeastern Australia, largely due to a focus on larger fields, and the avoidance of fencing costs through the use of existing farm configuration and infrastructure. This emphasis on cost‐effectiveness, the offsetting of opportunity costs through incentive payments, and the use of a planting design that seeks to maximize biodiversity benefits while achieving production benefits to the farmer, has the potential to achieve conservation in productive parts of the agricultural landscape that have traditionally been “off limits” to conservation.</abstract><cop>Malden, USA</cop><pub>Wiley Periodicals, Inc</pub><doi>10.1111/rec.12304</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 1061-2971 |
ispartof | Restoration ecology, 2016-03, Vol.24 (2), p.159-164 |
issn | 1061-2971 1526-100X |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1780521295 |
source | Wiley Journals |
subjects | Agricultural land agricultural landscapes Agricultural production Biodiversity Cost analysis cost effectiveness cost-effective conservation ecological restoration Environmental restoration Farmers farmland biodiversity farms funding Grazing habitat conservation Habitats infrastructure land restoration landscapes Livestock opportunity costs planting Revegetation vegetation Wildlife conservation Windbreaks Woody plants |
title | Softening the agricultural matrix: a novel agri‐environment scheme that balances habitat restoration and livestock grazing |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-13T17%3A07%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Softening%20the%20agricultural%20matrix:%20a%20novel%20agri%E2%80%90environment%20scheme%20that%20balances%20habitat%20restoration%20and%20livestock%20grazing&rft.jtitle=Restoration%20ecology&rft.au=Ansell,%20Dean&rft.date=2016-03&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=159&rft.epage=164&rft.pages=159-164&rft.issn=1061-2971&rft.eissn=1526-100X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/rec.12304&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3974813791%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1771437902&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |