sustainable agri-industrial projects neighbouring the greater blue mountains world heritage area

The challenges to urban agriculture in theSydney basin and lower Blue Mountainsregion of AustraliaJ. Merson1*, R. Attwater2, P. Ampt1, H. Wildman3 and R. Chapple4

1 Institute of Environmental Studies, Vallentine Annexe, University of New South Wales, Sydney, 2052 NSW2 University of Western Sydney, Richmond, 2753 NSW3 Microbial Management Systems, Australia4 Blue Mountains World Heritage Institute, Katoomba, 2780 NSW

The western edge of the Sydney basin in Australia has been one of the major sources of fruit and vegetables for the Sydney

markets. A rapid expansion of urban development in this region has caused a significant reduction in the number of small

farms and market gardens. Urban and peri-urban agriculture in the region also provides an important buffer between urban

development and the neighbouring Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area. The decline in urban agriculture can be

attributed to various causes including urban expansion and economies of scale. This paper presents an overview of a four-

year project that explored options for supporting these vulnerable farming communities both in terms of the regulatory

factors and economic and environmental sustainability. The role of agri-industries as landscape buffers to the

neighbouring World Heritage Area was investigated in relation to resilience, communities of practice, and ecosystem

services. The study developed tools, in conjunction with targeted representative landholders, that can assist in

enhancing the economic and environmental resilience of these agri-industries. These tools included an integrated bio-

system approach to waste using organic waste conversion, and the use of landscape function analysis to monitor

across farms to help address erosion, loss of nutrients and inefficient water management.

Keywords: integrated bio-systems, landscape function analysis, protected area buffer zones, urban agriculture

Introduction

Over the past two decades there has been a rapid expan-sion of urban development at the western edge of theSydney basin and lower Blue Mountains in NewSouth Wales (NSW), Australia. This region, known asthe Hawkesbury Nepean, is a picturesque landscapeof orchards and small farms and has been one of themajor sources of fruit and vegetables for the Sydneymarkets. Urban expansion has caused a significantreduction in the number of small farms and marketgardens in this region. While this decline in peri-urbanagriculture is assumed to be due to the urban expansion,the reality is more complex (Dang and Malcolm, 2006).Market factors have also had a great deal to do with thisdecline, with cheaper imports from overseas and largesupermarket chains sourcing products from regions

across the country where farmers can produce atmuch larger economies of scale. As a consequence,profit margins and capital investments are in decline.There is also the demographic reality of the farmers inthe region, with most farmers in their late fifties andwhose only asset is farmland. Even where there are chil-dren willing to take over the farm, there is often notenough return for two families to make a living underpresent circumstances. At the same time, land valueshave risen and this has reduced the capacity to raisethe capital to buy farmland, while making the optionof subdivision more attractive. The story is a familiarone, and is repeated in many regions of the world.The economically rational response to this situationis to say that this is a natural course of events asmarkets change and farms make way for urban expan-sion as the value of land rises . . . end of story.

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY 8 (1&2) 2010

PAGES 72–85, doi:10.3763/ijas.2009.0464 # 2010 Earthscan. ISSN: 1473-5903 (print), 1747-762X (online). www.earthscan.co.uk/journals/ijas

However, the issue is still more complex, for there areother considerations that need to be taken into accountwhen reflecting on the demise of peri-urban agriculturein this area. The Sydney basin region, as its namesuggests, is a semicircular coastal plain bounded byNational Parks to the north and south and the ruggedmountains of the Greater Blue Mountains World Heri-tage Area (GBMWHA) to the west (see Figure 1).This densely forested region is dominated by eucalypts.In fact, the reason for the region gaining World Heritagestatus is that it is home to over a hundred of the knowneucalypt species. This ecosystem is also fire-dependentand bushfires are a major threat to urban infrastructurein the area – as is characteristic of ecosystems in theMediterranean and the southwest United States(Bradstock et al., 2002). Further, in the past decadethere has been an increase in fire frequency and intensityacross the southeast of the Australian continent causedby the hotter and drier conditions that have been experi-enced as a consequence of climate change (Merson,2006). The intensity and ferocity of fires in Canberrain 2003, NSW in 2004 and Victoria in 2008/2009 hasled to the re-emergence of the debate over the valueof buffer zones between urban development and fire-prone and densely forested areas. A similar debate isoccurring in southern France and other fire-prone

areas of Europe in the face of similar increases in firefrequency and intensity. At present the areas of urbanagriculture which border the World Heritage Areaserve as a buffer zone, but without a clear regulatoryframework this buffer could easily be eroded, makingurban and suburban communities more vulnerable tothe impacts of bushfire, especially under moreextreme conditions.

There are other reasons for maintaining peri-urbanagriculture in the region, which include a range ofecosystem services, food production closer to majorcentres of population in a more carbon constrainedworld, and meeting growing consumer demand for amore diverse range of local seasonal products linkedto the rapidly expanding phenomenon of growers’markets.

Against this background, a four-year research projectfunded by the Rural Industries Research and Develop-ment Corporation (RIRDC) was undertaken toexplore the issues confronting these vulnerablefarming communities in terms of land-use regulationsand their longer term economic and environmentalsustainability. This paper presents an overview of thefindings of that report (Merson et al., 2009).

Aims

The role of agri-industries as landscape buffers to theneighbouring World Heritage Area was investigatedin relation to resilience, communities of practice andecosystem services. The specific aims were:

† to provide a realistic assessment of the complexsocial, economic and environmental drivers impact-ing on the small-scale rural communities in theregion, and to represent the diverse modes ofproduction they are involved in;

† to develop a number of tools in conjunction with tar-geted representative landholders, which could assistin enhancing the economic and environmental resili-ence of these agri-industries;

† to explore what might be done in terms of local gov-ernment planning in relation to the environmentaland economic pressures facing the region whichcould help this vulnerable but essential peri-urbanfarming community.

Methodology

The case study area was the ridgeline of Hawkesbury–Mount Tomah, which abuts and bisects the GBMWHA.Figure 1 j The Sydney basin and GBMWH area

Challenges to urban agriculture in the Sydney basin 73

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL SUSTAINABILITY

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238321096_Book_Review_Flammable_Australia_The_Fire_Regimes_and_Biodiversity_of_a_Continent?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-b48a0ae1-5d00-46fa-83f1-e4175a02bfb0&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzg2NjM4MDtBUzoxMDM0OTc5MTk4OTM1MDdAMTQwMTY4NzIzNTM5Nw==

The area is essentially a peri-urban agricultural regiondominated by orchards and some specialist organicand permaculture based farms. Land use is dividedbetween economically active farms and ‘rural lifestyle’large suburban blocks formed from subdivided farms.

Figure 2 depicts the overall project structure which wascarried out in two stages. In stage 1, a literature review wasundertaken that informed the subsequent stage 2, andwhich identified key economic, social and environmentalissues operating at a range of temporal and spatial scales.

In stage 2, a series of 20 semi-structured interviewswere conducted with a range of producers in the study

area. These provided a basis for evaluating the issuesfaced by local producers, the majority of whom areorchardists. It identified two communities of practicein the area, one of which focused on local marketingand the other had a mainstream commercial marketingfocus. Four farms were then selected for detailed casestudies on the basis of their being representative ofthe range of farming systems within these two commu-nities of practice. As one of the objectives of thisstudy was to examine the regulatory, production andmarket factors associated with peri-urban agriculturein the region, it was decided to test a number of

Figure 2 j Project structure

J. Merson et al.74


innovative management tools which might increaseproductivity, as well as economic and environmentalsustainability.

Three tools were identified from a critical review oflocal literature, and the needs of farmers whichemerged through the semi-structured interviews.Important selection criteria were their relevance to pro-ducers with different production and marketingstrategies.

1. Organic waste conversion (OWC). A process wasdeveloped that converted orchard waste into asubstrate for producing mushrooms and a disease-resistant mulch. Currently, when old orchard treesare removed the residue is burnt. Test conversionswere undertaken on one of the case study propertieswith very positive results.

2. Landscape function analysis (LFA) was tested as atool for comparing how different forms and stagesof orchard production, semi-urban and urban landuses impacted on the three indices generated byLFA – slope stability, water infiltration and nutrientcycling. This application of LFA was used to shedsome light on the ecosystem services generatedby different forms of land use, such as orchard andurban development, and to link specific productionsystems to implications at a regional landscape scale.

3. Geographic information systems (GIS). A GISapplication was explored that incorporated spatialand temporal information in relation to regionalscale land use. Due to the space constraints ofthis paper the use of GIS in relation to OWC, LFAand climate change data is not included. It canhowever be found in the original report (Mersonet al., 2009).

Results of stage 1: preliminaryanalysis

Drivers of change affect agri-industries on a range oftemporal and spatial scales (Table 1). At a societaland international scale, processes of land-use changeand urbanization contribute to the fragmentation oflandscapes, reducing their effectiveness in absorbingthe impacts of economic and market changes. Policyresponses to counteract this would recognize andenhance landscape functions and buffers, such asthose provided by urban and peri-urban agriculture.At a regional scale, these change processes areexpressed as differential real estate values, andchanges in market access for local products. Thevalues marginalized in the process include establishedagri-industrial livelihoods and ecosystem services gen-erated by these land uses. Policy needs to identify andsupport agri-industries that contribute positively to eco-system services. At a local scale, these combineddrivers contribute to a breakdown in the viability ofrural and regional townships, along with the characterof the people and their sense of community. Integrativestrategies already emerging include the diversificationof production and marketing. Within households, finan-cial viability is affected, reducing lifestyle and econ-omic choices, with diversified sources of householdincome becoming the necessary strategy.

The preliminary analysis informed the range of meth-odologies for the study as shown in Table 2.

Review of background literature: land-useand regulation in the Sydney basin

Australia has not developed a deeply embedded tra-dition of retaining rural lands beyond its cities as

Table 1 | Drivers of change in agro-ecosystems

Scale Dominant forces Values marginalized Potential integrative policies or strategies

Societal/international

Land-use change;encroachingurbanization

Fragmentation of landscape andregional climatic processes

Role of agro-ecosystems as landscapebuffers

Regional Real estate prices;changes in marketaccess

Agri-industrial livelihoods andecosystem services generated

Regional role of agri-industries, particularly inrelation to ecosystem services

Local Economic viability ofrural townships

Sense of community andcharacter

Alternative production and marketingstrategies; government–communitypartnerships

Household Financial viability Lifestyle choices and economicoptions

Diversified local livelihoods



valued economic, ecological and social resources.They have not been accorded the same status in legis-lation, planning or the collective community con-sciousness as lands within National Parks, WorldHeritage Areas or even urban open spaces and park-lands within our cities. They have generally beenregarded as ‘lands in waiting’ for some other higheror more pressing purpose such as industrial, urban orperi-urban development. As a consequence ‘agricul-ture’ undertaken on these lands has been historicallyregarded as a ‘transient land use’. This is at the heartof the challenge faced by agriculture in and aroundthe Sydney basin.

Over the past decades, a number of studies and work-shops have discussed the challenges faced by agri-culture in and around the Sydney Basin (e.g.Hawkesbury City Council, 1997, 2005; Kelleheret al., 1998; Sinclair et al., 2004; Mason andDocking, 2005; Knowd et al., 2006). This section

introduces the key challenges identified in thesestudies, along with emerging adaptive strategies.

The need for a strategic approach to planning for agri-culture as a critical component of the expansion of ourcities has been clearly recognized for over a decade(Bakker et al., 1999). Although the general attitudehas been of traditional agriculture as a transient landuse, there is now a growing call to better understandthe multiple benefits of urban agriculture in theSydney basin, the complex issues regarding the reten-tion of agriculture, and the need for more creative andadaptive planning. In the Sydney region there hasbeen an almost unstoppable trend towards the alienationof prime agricultural land as a result of urban encroach-ment and rural residential development. According toKelleher et al. (1998, p. 4), this trend is adversely affect-ing the state’s agricultural resource base, and ‘agricul-tural land use studies by local government typicallytake an urban planning perspective, with an apparenttacit acceptance that rural residential subdivision willeventually occur’.

Kelleher et al. argue for the conservation of agricul-ture on the peri-urban fringe on the grounds that thereis considerable evidence to support its importance econ-omically as well as in terms of its protection of catch-ments and preservation of environmental and scenicamenity.

Agriculture adjoining parkland, however, fills animportant role in the Hawkesbury landscape by buf-fering parkland from the impact of urban develop-ment. It provides a transition zone in which thevisual impact of urban development is reduced andit can provide important environmental services,such as water quality protection and air quality main-tenance. Agricultural land also provides an ecologi-cal buffer and can act as a refuge and protectivezone for wildlife (Kelleher et al., 1998, p. 76).

Sydney’s Metropolitan Strategy (DIPNR, 2005) statesthat greater recognition will be given to non-urbanland so that it is not treated as land ‘in waiting’ forurban development. It is instructive to note, however,that the description of these lands as ‘non-urban’reinforces the assertion by Kelleher et al. (1998) thatagricultural land-use planning tends to be framedthrough an urban planning paradigm, which does nottake into account the cultural and conservationimperatives associated with the GBMWHA.

Notwithstanding its reference to non-urban land,Sydney’s Metropolitan Strategy does reflect the signifi-cant emergence of ‘new recognitions’ regarding theeconomic, ecological and social importance of

Table 2 | Potential supporting strategies at a range oftemporal and spatial scales

Key cluster Potential strategies

Farm family/business † Whole farm planning

† Enterprise facilitation

Spatialarrangements † Demonstrations of best management

practices† Catchment management/total water

cycle management† Cumulative impact assessment† Ecosystem services† Geographic information systems

Communities ofpractice † Information brokerage

† Action research

Product

† Life cycle assessment† Waste minimization and recycling

Enabling policy

† Critical review† Community–government

partnerships

J. Merson et al.76


agriculture in the Sydney Basin, and a greater insti-tutional preparedness to respond to the complex chal-lenges facing agriculture in more adaptive andsophisticated ways.

The 1998 Strategic Plan for Sustainable Agriculturein the Sydney Region (NSW Agriculture, 1998) hasalso played an important role in the development ofthis new recognition and response. Of equal signifi-cance is the emergence of local advocacy initiativesthat reflect the agricultural community’s recognitionthat a broader, more integrated community networkapproach is essential to promote agricultural products,influence policy and planning, and improve consumerawareness of the multiple values and benefits ofagriculture. According to Mason and Docking (2005),the overarching goal is to provide an economic,social and environmentally sustainable agriculturalindustry that has wide community and sectoralsupport. Significantly, this integrated communitynetwork approach has the potential to be far moresignificant if it catalyses more informed communitydiscourse around (1) the value of local agriculture ina carbon-constrained economy (including conceptssuch as ‘food miles’), and (2) the strategic importanceof local agriculture in terms of minimizing disruptionto food supply in the event of crop failures in otherareas (through drought, hail, frost and other climaticevents).

Farming diversification, clustering andnetwork development

Hawkesbury City Council initiated the ‘HawkesburyAgricultural Retention through Diversification andClustering’ (HARtDaC) project to address agriculturalopportunities in the region which could assist in theretention of agriculture (Hawkesbury City Council,2005). This project investigated options for farmingdiversification and clustering, and opportunities toenhance agricultural activity through farming networks.The HARtDaC project identified some key issuesimpacting upon agricultural retention. These included:the high comparative price for land with subdivisionpotential compared with land used for agriculture; redu-cing terms of trade associated with increasing efficien-cies in food production and decreasing average lotsize; the potential for escalating conflicts within thecommunity, particularly with respect to noise, dust,water and odours; the role of changes in density of occu-pation and subdivision, and its influence on land useconflicts, rural amenity, regional tourism and naturalresources; and long-term land degradation caused byinappropriate land management practices.

The HARtDaC project investigated strategies foragricultural retention that addressed socio-cultural,politico-administrative and environmental dimensions.In terms of the socio-cultural context, the key problemwas interpreted to be the lack of awareness of the con-tribution of agriculture, together with intensive subdivi-sion characteristic of some parts of Hawkesbury, whichcould lead to increased land-use conflicts and ‘ifreflected in the management of the region, mayalso result in inappropriate forms of governance’(Hawkesbury City Council, 2005, p. 153). Regardingthe politico-administrative dimension, the HARtDaCstudy reflected a very complex regulatory structureresulting from the multi-tiered political system. Localstakeholders highlighted three key concerns: ‘unclearregulatory structure; regulations and processes notinformed by agriculture; and the need for moresupport for agricultural innovation during the planningprocess’ (Hawkesbury City Council, 2005, p. 156). Forthe economic decision context, the primary issue wasthat while agriculture contributes considerably to theregional economy, peri-urban agriculture was charac-terized by reducing viability associated with increasesin land values, ongoing reduction of farm sizes, andtherefore an increased reliance by most farm familieson off-farm income. This conflict in economic valuesbetween agricultural production and urban develop-ment has been addressed in the United States by Heim-lich and Anderson (2001).

Land use planningSinclair (2001a) divided rural residential developmentinto two parts: the rural urban fringe, or developmentthat is within the servicing catchments and locatedclose to the urban centre, and rural living, or residentialuse of land within a rural environment. Both types userural land for residential, as opposed to agricultural pur-poses, and can be distinguished from urban housing bythe larger lot sizes and distance between dwellings.Rural residential development is increasingly commonon the fringe of metropolitan areas and HawkesburyCity Council is typical of many local councils in thatit is required to find ways to deal with this verycomplex local planning issue. Sinclair (2001b) arguedthat rural residential development can have both posi-tive and negative impacts on an area. Positive impactsinclude lifestyle choice, provision of land for businessesneeding space for storage, and potential contribution tothe land economy. These are outweighed by such nega-tive impacts, in Sinclair’s view, as: the increased finan-cial costs of a scattered settlement pattern; communitycosts relating to provision of services and facilities



located at a distance from town centres; and environ-mental costs connected to the initial development (forexample, clearing of native vegetation, soil erosionand land degradation). In addition, problems associatedwith the ongoing use of the land include the impacts ofonsite effluent disposal, soil and water management,weed invasion and domestic pets (Sinclair, 2001b).

Given the above experience of issues resulting fromintensive agriculture meeting rural residential livinghead on, it is clear that land-use planning, particularlywith reference to lot sizes, subdivision and zoningobjectives, is of paramount importance in maintainingagricultural land on the urban fringe. There is an abun-dance of international, national, state and local land useregulations that have bearing on the land-use planningprocess, especially in areas that presently act as abuffer to the GBMHWA. Local government authoritiesare required to juggle the competing interests of thoseseeking a rural residential lifestyle and those attemptingto maintain the agricultural productivity of theperi-urban fringes.

The local planning context in Sydney is complicatedby two particular dimensions, these being local emer-ging land-use planning within the local politicalcontext, and state-wide pressures to standardize localgovernmental environmental planning instruments. Anumber of councils are developing useful stepstoward responding to their particular local situation,but this has occurred in the context of local polaritiesin perspectives towards development.

Transforming urban agricultureDevelopment of a new urban agriculture results from asignificant transformation in action and thinking. Newproduct and marketing strategies develop, along withrecognition of the ecosystem services provided by agri-cultural landscapes. Concepts of agro-ecosystem resili-ence are emerging as useful tools to inform and guidetransformational change in agricultural enterprises,industries and landscapes. These transforming pro-cesses have set the context for the development of thisstudy and informed its methodology and implemen-tation. Knowd et al. (2006) identified a number of keytransforming themes emerging worldwide, includinglocal food, direct marketing, innovation and adapta-bility of urban agriculture, the urban agriculture/public health relationship, and agricultural land preser-vation. The diversified nature of differing forms ofurban agriculture generates broad-ranging economic,environmental and social values. However, the classicproblem is that many of these intrinsic social andenvironmental values are not adequately reflected and

accounted for in formal institutional, market anddecision-making arrangements.

This new urban agriculture is described by Butler andMaronek (2002) as leading to a range of other benefitsand services including recreation and leisure, economicvitality and business entrepreneurship, individual andcommunity health and well-being, landscape beautifi-cation, and environmental restoration and remediation.

Intensification of agriculture in the Sydney Basin hasnot been the result of strategic intervention by govern-ment or industry groups, but rather the adaptive andopportunistic responses to market requirementsand the changing socio-economic situation (Masonand Docking, 2005). Threats to some industries relatemore to industry issues (such as de-regulation of thedairy industry) or to external factors beyond regionalcontrol than to subdivision or urban encroachment.However, urban encroachment is the single greatestthreat to the most economically important industriesin the Hawkesbury to date (Kelleher et al., 1998).

The principle agricultural industries identified byKelleher et al. (1998) in the Hawkesbury Local Govern-ment Area (LGA) were mushrooms, turf, fruit, marketgardening and dairy. Their study suggested that theindustries of greatest economic importance were alsothose vulnerable to the impacts of urban expansion.Worldwide, small area farming and agri-industries con-tinue to develop new means of diversification (vanVeenhuizen, 2006). These include niche markets andnew agri-industrial configurations, and clusters oflocal produce sold directly to consumers are becomingmore common. This provides a greater proportion of theconsumer dollars to the producer, along with the socialbenefits of increased communication and understandingacross the urban–rural divide. With consumer tastesand demands also driving larger agri-industries, thesedirect marketing options provide a means for greaterexpression of consumer preferences for productionstrategies that are environmentally and socially respon-sible (van Veenhuizen and Danso, 2007). Alternativestrategies mentioned in the HARtDaC study include:developing new skills to incorporate tourism, recreationand related value-adding to produce; alternative systemssuch as permaculture and organic produce; andcooperative marketing and supply chain management.

A local example is that of Hawkesbury Harvest (HH),which seeks to promote better community access tolocally grown food, enabling the opportunity for thediversification of income. Mason and Docking (2005)describe the Hawkesbury Harvest model as encompass-ing industry clustering, industry development, smallbusiness development, income generation, community

J. Merson et al.78


gardens, controlled environment intensive horticulture,matching local climate to crops and markets, farmersmarkets, agri-tourism, research and education, andtraining through extension. The overarching goal ofHH is to provide an economic, social and environmen-tally sustainable agriculture industry that has wide com-munity sectoral support.

Agricultural ecosystem servicesEcosystem services are described by Daily (1997) as theconditions and processes through which natural ecosys-tems, and the species that make them up, sustain andfulfil human life. On the basis of this definition, ecosys-tem services are a way of thinking about the fundamentalecological processes and capacities that enable our econ-omies and societies to operate. This study sought toinvestigate the important role peri-urban agricultureplays in maintaining ecosystem services as landscapebuffers around areas of significant natural and culturalheritage, such as the GBMWHA. A critical issue forthis study was that while the goods generated byagri-industries are accounted for and economicallyvalued, the broader environmental services that are gen-erated tend not be to accounted for and therefore are notexplicitly incorporated in policy and planning processes.

Some ecosystem services can be considered as‘umbrella services’ supporting a nested hierarchy ofother services which are contingent upon them. Oneexample would be those functions and processes underthe rubric of soil health. These reflect the ecosystem func-tioning of soils and support many of the buffering mech-anisms and transformations. In the investigation ofecosystem services in the Goulburn Broken CatchmentbytheAustralianCommonwealthScientificandResearchOrganisation (CSIRO), soil management was identifiedas perhaps the single most significant on-farm ecosystemservice issue in the catchment (Binning et al., 2001).

While studies of ecosystem services have beenundertaken at a range of scales, the key interest of thisstudy was the nature of these services generated

on-site within agri-industries that contribute to regionaland landscape functions. It is recognized that there is aninterdependent relationship between local and broaderscales. The general ecosystem services described byCork et al. (2002) include: pollination; life fulfilment;regulation of climate; pest control; provision ofgenetic resources; maintenance of habitat; provisionof shade and shelter; maintenance of soil health; main-tenance of healthy waterways; water filtration anderosion control; regulation of rivers and groundwater;and waste absorption and breakdown.

A study of agricultural landscapes by Swift et al. (2004)was found to be particularly useful in providing a frame-work for understanding the more local aspects of ecosys-tem services generated by well-managed agro-ecologies,with particular focus on soil and microbial roles. The com-plexity of interactions between tolerances in ecosystemsand the driving processes of markets and other institutionsfor planning, management and governance is becomingwell recognized (e.g. Cork et al., 2002), but it remains dif-ficult to deal with methodologically. Previous studies suchas those undertaken by the CSIRO (e.g. Binning et al.,2001; Cork et al., 2002; Abel et al., 2003) recognizedthe importance of approaches that combine case studiesand participation with a suite of varied supporting analyti-cal methodologies. Due to the nature of this complexity,the methodological approach taken in this study was adap-tive, beginning with broad qualitative means of investi-gating the dimensions of the situation, and refiningparticular methodological means to support key areas ofpotential advocacy that emerged.

Results of stage 2: participation ofprimary producers

The second stage of this study was to invite the partici-pation of farmers who represented the diversity of pro-duction and marketing strategies found in the area(Table 3). Based upon the initial series of semi-structured interviews, four different primary producers

Table 3 | Horticultural producers involved in the project

Producer Enterprise description

A. Shield Orchard Apple orchard, pick your own and roadside stall sales

B. Saliba Fruits High productivity commercial apple orchard supplying Sydney markets and contracted to majorretailer

C. InniskillenOrchard

Small-scale mixed orchard, retail outlet for regional produce, cafe business

D. Chorley’s Farm Permaculture farming and berry production supplying specialist and growers’ markets



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/222418229_Biodiversity_and_Ecosystem_Services_in_Agricultural_Landscapes_Are_We_Asking_the_Right_Questions?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-b48a0ae1-5d00-46fa-83f1-e4175a02bfb0&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIzMzg2NjM4MDtBUzoxMDM0OTc5MTk4OTM1MDdAMTQwMTY4NzIzNTM5Nw==

were invited to be involved as representative demon-strations and case studies. A letter was sent out, invitingongoing participation with the intention of holdingfurther focused discussions to address:

1. Gaining a detailed understanding of the strategiesapplied by the family business, including:

† product life cycles and supply chain strategies;† interactions in the local landscape.

2. Opportunities to enhance the recognition of goodpractice, and to address issues such as:

† value-adding from waste streams and secondgrade products;

† recognition of ecosystem services.

An initial characterization of each production and mar-keting system was undertaken through adapting a life-cycle assessment to the operations undertaken foreach step of their production and marketing strategies.As outlined in Figure 3, inputs and outputs wereinvestigated in relation to the following life cyclestages relevant to orchard production:

† land preparation and establishment, includinginfrastructure;

† maintenance and orchard productivity;† product harvest and alternate product sources;

† processing and product differentiation;† marketing, packaging and transport.

The four farmers who agreed to participate in the projectrepresented different types of horticultural productionsystems. They agreed to participate in a review of thewaste streams generated from their farms, and to beinvolved in evaluating the outcomes of this project.An informal assessment was undertaken to identifytypes of waste, waste volumes, waste productionperiods and current methods of waste management.The waste streams identified represent those associatedwith several different types of horticultural productionand are of relevance to both traditional horticulturalistsand the exponents of permaculture methods. All thehorticulturalists expressed an interest in waste manage-ment issues, but from different perspectives, and thiswas considered when attempting to match waste treat-ment to the requirements of growers. As a consequence,it was decided to apply three integrated tools, each oper-ating at different spatial and temporal frames and eachof which would provide new products and environ-mental management processes.

Organic waste conversionThe aim of the organic waste conversion (OWC)element of the study was to identify suitable microbialbioremediation agents for several horticultural waste

Figure 3 j General structure used to inform life cycle assessments

J. Merson et al.80


streams in the Hawkesbury/ Bilpin region and to inves-tigate the conversion of these wastes into valuable econ-omic and environmental resources. Vast quantities oforganic wastes, particularly those containing lingo-cellulosic materials, are generated through primaryand secondary production systems in the agricultural,forest and food-processing industries. Currently, largeproportions of these wastes are either burnt orgo straight to landfill with resultant economic and eco-logical implications. For small-scale horticulturalbusinesses, the generation and disposal of wastestreams may impact upon profits and have serious eco-logical consequences for the local environment.However, appropriate bioremediation can convertthese wastes into valuable economic and environmentalresources. A detailed assessment of waste types,volumes, production periods and current methods ofwaste management were undertaken in a pilot studycarried out at one of the orchards. On the basis of this,apple tree waste was selected as a trial substrate forthe growth of fungi, since fruit tree removal and destruc-tion was identified as the likely source of most on-farmwaste by all producers.

The study was designed to explore the potential forusing microbial processes to break down waste materialand at the same time produce useful commercial endproducts. In this particular case, organic waste waschipped and converted into a substrate for thegrowing of oyster and shiitake mushrooms whichhave high market value. The spent substrate was thenused as a mulch for the orchard trees. This mulchingimproves the soil condition and due to the bacterialprocess involved in the mushroom production it hasbeen found to increase resistance to nematodes whichattack the roots of orchard trees. The approach hasnow been adopted by Bill Shield on farm A, and collab-oration with the research specialists involved is continu-ing. As the technique becomes more widely recognizedit is anticipated that it will be taken up by other orchar-dists as a means of addressing organic waste as burningbecomes prohibited, and also for its bacterially usefulmulch and the commercial value of specialtymushrooms involved.

Landscape function analysisLandscape function analysis (LFA) is a method forassessing the ability of a slope to retain and utilize itsvital resources of water, soil and litter. It involves siteanalysis and the division of a down-slope transect intozones according to whether they retain (a patch) orlose resources (an interpatch). A soil surface assessmentof each zone is then undertaken (see Figure 4). The

outputs are numerical indices of key landscape func-tions for each zone and for the whole slope: stability,water infiltration and nutrient cycling. A low stabilityvalue indicates that the slope shows evidence of soilloss, a low water infiltration value showing that wateris not soaking in and being used by the vegetation butis running off the slope, and a low nutrient cyclingvalue indicates that there is evidence of lack of peren-nial plant growth, litter accumulation and decompo-sition. High values indicate that soil is well protectedand retained, that most water is soaking in, and thatnutrients in the slope are being actively and extensivelycycled.

LFA has been developed over three decades by anumber of CSIRO scientists predominantly on range-lands and in mine reclamation work (Tongway andHindley, 2005, p. 14). It is a systematic approach tousing ‘visually assessed indicators of soil surfaceprocesses’ to demonstrate whether a slope is leakingor retaining water, soil, litter and nutrients. Done intime sequence it can track the impact of land-usechange and soil remediation strategies. If replicatedacross a particular land type, LFA can provide evidenceof the dynamic range of the land types and can identifythe critical point above which the slope is on a trajectoryto self-regeneration, and below which effort is needed toprevent degradation.

In this study we used LFA on each of the four farms tocompare the leakiness of different stages in the orchardcycle with one another, and with other land-uses on thesame property (Table 4). In addition, LFA was under-taken on a suburban house block to generate data thatcould be used to assess the likely impact of urbanizationon areas that are presently under orchard and other agri-cultural land uses (Figure 5).

This work provided an initial determination of theutility of LFA as a method for comparing the functionalattributes of different land uses. Comparisons can con-fidently be made between zones on the one site, butvalues between sites can only be compared cautiously.Where differences in values between sites are large,conclusions need to be made in the context of keyfeatures represented at each of the sites.

LFA discriminated quite finely between orchardswith different ages of trees, under tree mulch andbetween row vegetation. It also provided comparativedata that could be used to contrast the functionality of,for example, grassy slopes, lawns, bushland and orch-ards on the same or similar hill slopes. LFA did notappear to discriminate between land uses that werealready functioning at a quite high level based on land-scape function indicator values for stability, infiltration



and nutrient cycling (e.g. for a multi-species permacul-ture garden and a mature, well-mulched orchard with athick stand of perennial grass in the inter-row). Theapplication of LFA to a suburban house, garden andstreet would appear to be quite informative, especiallyif it allows urban areas to be included in across-landscape comparisons. As LFA generates standarderrors, a more comprehensive study would generate suf-ficient data to determine whether differences in LFA

values between land uses are statistically significant.There were insufficient resources to do this in this study.

Integration of the toolsThe value of LFA as a farm-level tool and as a means ofassessing and monitoring changes in land use at aregional level was recognized by the farmers involvedin the field trials at Fields Orchard (A) in 2008. LFAhas usually been applied to environmental assessments

Figure 4 j Landscape organization (showing key features involved in carrying out LFA)

J. Merson et al.82


in rangelands and for land being reclaimed after mining.However, coupled with the application of soil microbialsystems at one end of the spectrum and GIS at the other,a suite of interlocking tools for monitoring environ-mental change in each study area could be developedwhich would act at a complementary range of temporaland spatial scales.

LFA also has potential application at a regional levelthrough its use in conjunction with information gener-ated by GIS. GIS tools with the capacity to operate atboth the farm and regional level also allow for themonitoring of the results from changes in farm andland management practices. These might include suchenvironmental goals as maximum water retention andminimal erosion and leakiness. In this respect GISanalysis provides the capacity to model and evaluatethese environmental and ecological processes of land-scapes at a regional level. GIS can be used to provide a

regional framework for LFA through providing acatchment-wide model for biophysical processes. It isuseful for researchers/practitioners to be able to relateLFA to these regional scale indices. Within an adaptivemanagement approach there is also potential to developthresholds of potential concern (TPCs) for a catchment,and to monitor the contribution of each private landhold-ing to the catchment’s health, e.g. remaining belowspecific thresholds based on LFA measurements.

A package of tools using existing Arcview andArcgis extensions was also developed to support thisproject, along with relevant GIS data. This systemused spatial data such as patch and hydrological analy-sis, along with erosion and depositional modelling.Several models were produced to provide an indicationof the application of GIS to LFA in this project. It isanticipated that the GIS modelling tool developed forthe region can also be used to assess climate change

Figure 5 j A typical suburban house block compared with an orchard

Table 4 | Summary of landscape function analyses conducted on case study sites

Producer LFA comparisons Tentative conclusions

A Mature and former orchards were compared; bothwere divided into under-row and between-rowpatches

Removing mature trees reduces landscape functionand increases leakiness

B Two orchard types and components of a typicalparkland were compared on the same slope

A bush patch functioned better than orchards and othercomponents of parkland, except for dense perennialgrass inter-rows; young orchard functioned lowest

C Orchard, former orchard and backyard werecompared on same slope

Orchards with mulch under the trees had similarfunction to a mown back yard; unmulched orchardswere leakier

D Different components of a permaculture gardenwere compared

All elements of the garden functioned highly apart fromwhere ground under trees was heavily shaded

Suburbanblock

Different components of an established garden wereanalysed, including lawns, garden beds containingannuals and perennials, paths, driveways and thehouse; these values were extrapolated to a typicalhouse block

Areas dominated by perennials functioned highest;lawns, driveways and houses dramatically reducefunction



impacts. As data reliability improves, it can be used as adecision support system to assist farmers in assessingthe long-term viability of crop types in relation to pre-dicted changes in temperature and rainfall. However,these applications were not able to be fully testedwithin the scope of the project and are now part of anongoing research project.

Conclusions

In the process of identifying agri-industries existingamong the diverse landholdings, and documentingtheir economic, social and environmental impacts, thisproject has confirmed that despite the tacit supportfrom local government, urban agriculture in thisregion is under considerable pressure. The establish-ment of the Hawkesbury Harvest has been significantfor providing support for the marketing and brandingof regional products, but more initiatives are needed.Despite the recommendations of the Hawkesbury CityCouncil’s HARtDaC report (2005), local governmentplanning remains confused and contradictory in termsof the support for and retention of urban agriculture inthe region. Nonetheless the very diverse modes of pro-duction as exemplified in the four different farmingoperations reviewed suggest that there is still potentialresilience in the production systems. However,farmers and regional land management agencies needmore innovative tools and strategies to address the chal-lenges of increasing productivity, the pressure of urbandevelopment, as well as changing climatic conditionsand the environmental need for low emission pro-duction systems. In this respect the toolsets developedas part of this project provide a modest starting point.

The project recognized at the outset the need toaddress the complex social, economic, technicaland political variables that govern the region’sagri-industries. This led to the recommendation that amore adaptive strategy based on the used of the toolsoutlined above would have a dual benefit. An integratedbiosystems approach to waste using the microbialconversion of old apple trees could support more

sustainable farming practices and at the same timeincrease farm income through mushroom production.Monitoring across farms using LFA would helpaddress the ‘leakiness’ of systems (e.g. erosion, lossof nutrients and inefficient water management), andcould be used to predict impacts of land-use changeand test strategies for remediation. It would also allowfor a more objective assessment of urban and ruralland-use practices. GIS tools could in turn provide anaggregation effect of these remedial strategies at acatchment and regional level.

However, these strategies also need to be supportedby local and state government through more targetedland-use policies and regulation, especially if this peri-urban agriculture sector is to continue to provide its tra-ditional economic and ecosystem services to theregional community. There is also a good argumentfor some form of financial subsidy to be provided bythe state to support the critical role that urban agricul-ture provides as a buffer zone between the suburbanexpansion of Sydney and the fire-dependent bushlandareas of the GBMWHA. This is now a critical issue asclimate change evidence and models demonstrate anincreased risk of more intense and frequent bushfires,with the potential of their moving unhindered fromthe World Heritage area into urban areas and viceversa, if the present buffer zone functions of peri-urbanagriculture is replaced by urban development. Theissues faced by farmers in the Hawkesbury Nepeanand Blue Mountains regions of Australia are compar-able to those confronted by many urban agriculturalcommunities. It is hoped that the approach taken inthis project will be of use both within Australia and inother countries.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the Rural Industries Research& Development Council (RIRDC) for funding thisproject, and the farming families who participated inthe study.

References

Abel, N., Cork, S., Goddard, R., Langridge, J., Langston, A.,Plant, R., Proctor, W., Ryan, P., Shelton, D., Walker, B.,Yialeloglou, M., 2003, Natural Values: Exploring Options forEnhancing Ecosystem Services in the Goulburn BrokenCatchment, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra.

Bakker, N., Dubbeling, M., Guendel, S., Sabel-Koschella, U., deZeeuw, H. (eds), 1999, Growing Cities, Growing Food: Urban

Agriculture on the Policy Agenda: A Reader on UrbanAgriculture, Resource Centre on Urban Agriculture andForestry, Leusden, The Netherlands.

Binning, C., Cork, S. J., Parry, R., Shelton, P., 2001, Natural Assets:An Inventory of Ecosystem Goods and Services in the GoulburnBroken Catchment, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra.

Bradstock, R., Williams, J., Gill, M., 2002, Flammable Australia:The Fire Regimes and Biodiversity of a Continent, CambridgeUniversity Press, Port Melbourne, Australia.

J. Merson et al.84


Butler, R., Maronek, D. M. (eds), 2002, Urban and AgriculturalCommunities: Opportunities for Common Ground, Council forAgricultural Science and Technology, Ames, IA.

Cork, S. J., Proctor, W., Shelton, D., Abel, N., Binning, C., 2002,‘The ecosystem services project: exploring the importance ofecosystems to people’, Ecological Management & Restoration3 (2), 143–146.

Daily, G. (ed.), 1997, Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence onNatural Ecosystems, Island Press, Washington, DC.

Dang, H. T., Malcolm, P., 2006, Improved Economic Sustainabilityof Vietnamese Vegetable Growers in the Sydney Basin, FinalReport. Project No. DAN 211A, RIRDC, Canberra.

DIPNR, 2005, City of Cities: A Plan for Sydney’s Future, TheMetropolitan Strategy, NSW Department of Primary Industriesand Natural Resources [available at www.metrostrategy.nsw.gov.au/dev/uploads/paper/introduction/index.html].

Hawkesbury City Council, 1997, Healthy Cities Survey,Hawkesbury City Council, Windsor.

Hawkesbury City Council, 2005, Growing Hawkesbury’s Future –the Hawkesbury Agricultural Retention through Diversificationand Clustering Project (HARtDaC), Agriculture VictoriaServices, Windsor [available at www.hawkesbury.nsw.gov.au/environment/1232/21007.html].

Heimlich, R., Anderson, W., 2001, ‘Development at and beyondthe urban fringe: impacts on agriculture’, Agricultural OutlookAugust. Economic Research Service/USDA, Washington, DC.

Kelleher, F. M., Chant, J. J., Johnson, N. L., 1998, Impact of RuralSubdivision on Agriculture, A Report for the Rural and IndustrialDevelopment Corporation, Farming Systems Research Centre,University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury.

Knowd, I., Mason, D., Docking, A., 2006, Urban Agriculture: theNew Frontier, Paper presented to the Planning For FoodSeminar, Vancouver, 21 June 2006.

Mason, D., Docking, A., 2005, Agriculture in UrbanisingLandscapes: A Creative Planning Opportunity, Paperpresented to Agri-Food ’05, 5–8 July 2005, Yeppoon.

Merson, J., 2006, An Assessment of the Potential Impact ofClimatic Change on the Greater Blue Mountains World HeritageArea, UNESCO, World Heritage Centre, Paris.

Merson, J., Attwater, R., Booth, S., Mulley, R., Ampt, P., Wildman,H., Nugent, M., Hooper, S., Campbell, M., Chapple, R., 2009,Urban Expansion and Sensitive Environments: Assessing theRole of Agri-industries as Landscape Buffers to theNeighbouring Greater Blue Mountains World Heritage Area,RIRDC, Canberra.

NSW Agriculture, 1998, Strategic Plan for Sustainable Agriculture– Sydney Region, NSW Agriculture, Orange.

Sinclair, I., 2001a, ‘A view from the edge. Issues in rural andmetropolitan fringe planning: rural residential development’,New Planner 47.

Sinclair, I., 2001b, ‘A view from the edge. Issues in rural andmetropolitan fringe planning: rural residential developmentimpact’, New Planner 48.

Sinclair, I., Docking, A., Jarecki, S., Parker, F., Saville, L.,2004, From the Outside Looking In: The Future of Sydney’sRural Land, University of Western Sydney, Hawkesbury,Australia.

Swift, M. J., Izac, A. M. N., Van Noordwijk, M., 2004, ‘Biodiversityand ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes – are weasking the right questions?’, Agriculture, Ecosystems andEnvironment 104 (1), 113–134.

Tongway, D. J., Hindley, N. L., 2005, Landscape FunctionAnalysis: Procedures for Monitoring and AssessingLandscapes, CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems,Canberra.

Van Veenhuizen, R., 2006, Cities Farming for the Future – UrbanAgriculture for Green and Productive Cities, RUAF Foundation,IDRC and IIRR.

Van Veenhuizen, R., Danso, G., 2007, ‘Profitability andsustainability of urban and peri-urban agriculture, Agricultural’,Management, Marketing and Finance Occasional Paper 19,FAO, Rome.



sustainable agri-industrial projects neighbouring the greater blue mountains world heritage area

Documents