impact of multiple interacting financial incentives on land use change and the supply of ecosystem...

Download Impact of multiple interacting financial incentives on land use change and the supply of ecosystem services

Post on 09-Dec-2016




1 download

Embed Size (px)


  • in

    4, A

    Land use changeMarket-based instrumentsSpatial modeling

    es ationspam

    of haband

    between commodity price and carbon price in supplying food and ber, carbon sequestration, freshwater, and indirectly, habitat services. Water price displayed synergies with commodity price, andtensions with carbon price in supplying fresh water services. For the supply of habitat services, abiodiversity price depended on either high carbon prices or low commodity prices. Interaction effects

    incentistem sment2008;systemgloba

    unanticipated consequences which may be positive (co-benets),

    overet al.,r thestem

    act, with consequences for land use and ecosystem services

    Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect



    Ecosystem Services () toward achieving a policy objective. Other incentives may be1 Tel.: +61 8 8303 8581.(Bryan, 2013). The interaction of nancial incentives occurs aslandholders change land use and management in response to thetotality of economic opportunities and risks (Just and Antle, 1990).Some nancial incentives act synergistically, working together

    2212-0416/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright & 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

    n Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 8 8303 8663.E-mail addresses: (B.A. Bryan), (N.D. Crossman).Pleassuppeffects is the focus of this paper.Policy interventions such as nancial incentives often have

    In many agro-ecosystems, multiple nancial incentives co-existfor the supply of ecosystem services. These incentives may inter-voluntary markets, auctions, and certication programs (Farleyand Costanza, 2010; Tallis et al., 2008). However, little is known ofthe potential for interaction between nancial incentives and theresulting impacts on policy efciency and ecosystem services(Zhang and Pagiola, 2011). Exploring these incentive interaction

    predominance of trade-offs between ecosystem servicesspace and time (Raudsepp-Hearne et al., 2010; Rodriguez2006; Tallis et al., 2008) means that the failure to considebroader impacts of nancial incentives across multiple ecosyservices often leads to negative outcomes (Bateman, 2009).marketed goods and services (e.g. cereals), to regionally- orlocally-implemented market-based schemes designed to encou-rage the production of non-marketed ecosystem services (e.g.habitat). The latter include a range of policy instruments such asdirect payments/rewards, tax incentives, cap and trade markets,

    recognize spatial heterogeneity in service provision (Crossmanand Bryan, 2009; Crossman et al., 2010). Recent studies havesought to harness these co-benets through the bundling ofmultiple ecosystem services (Connor et al., 2008; Deal et al.,2012; Wainger et al., 2010; Wendland et al., 2010). However, the1. Introduction

    In agro-ecosystems, nancialwhich affect the supply of ecosyinuence on land use and manage2006; Bryan, 2013; Lubowski et al.,Broadly, nancial incentives for ecoerated by institutions ranging frome cite this article as: Bryan, B.A., Croly of ecosystem services. Ecosystemmay reduce policy efciency wherever multiple incentives encourage the supply of services from agro-ecosystems.

    Crown Copyright & 2013 Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

    ves commonly occurervices through their(Antle and Stoorvogel,Metzger et al., 2006).services may be gen-l commodity trade in

    negative (trade-offs), or even perverse (the opposite of what wasintended) (Merton, 1936). In agro-ecosystems, commodity marketsare a prime example which have increased agricultural productionof marketed services like food and bioenergy, but at the expense ofnon-marketed services like habitat and water quality (Power,2010). The potential for achieving co-benets has been demon-strated, particularly through the spatial targeting of paymentswhich prioritize cost-effectiveness across multiple services andImpact of multiple interacting nancialand the supply of ecosystem services

    Brett Anthony Bryan 1, Neville David Crossman n

    CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences and Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, Waite Campus, SA 506

    a r t i c l e i n f o

    Article history:Received 5 October 2012Received in revised form6 February 2013Accepted 28 March 2013

    Keywords:Agri-environment scheme

    a b s t r a c t

    Multiple nancial incentivimpact of incentive interacchange potential. Taking afrom agriculture to carbonexhaustive combinationscarbon sequestration andcharacterized by synergies

    journal homepage: wwwssman, N.D., Impact of mulServices (2013), http://dx.dcentives on land use change


    re increasingly common for managing agro-ecosystems. We explored thes across multiple ecosystem services through their inuence on land usetial approach, we quantied the economic potential for land use changeonocultures and environmental plantings. We assessed 1875 scenariosve incentive price levels for four services (food and ber, fresh water,itat), and three cost settings. Incentive interactions had complex effectstensions, non-linearity, dependencies, and thresholds. Tensions occurred

    Servicestiple interacting nancial incentives on land use change and

  • divergent or antagonistic, creating tensions. Zhang and Pagiola(2011) found potential for synergies between a watershed con-servation payment scheme and a forest conservation paymentscheme for achieving watershed, biodiversity, and developmentobjectives in Costa Rica. In South Australia, Crossman et al. (2011b)found that a biodiversity payment could be used to augment acarbon price to enhance biodiversity conservation. Examples oftensions between nancial incentives were evident in the US asthe federal Conservation Reserve Program paid people to retireenvironmentally-sensitive land from agriculture whilst other fed-eral farm subsidies encouraged continued agricultural production(Lubowski et al., 2008). Similarly, accounting for the costs of thewater used by reforested areas was found to reduce the effective-ness of a carbon price incentive in motivating reforestation inSouth Africa (Chisholm, 2010).

    The inuence of nancial incentives on land use, and in turn,the inuence of land use on ecosystem services, involve complexmany-to-many relationships (Bryan, 2013). Each nancial incentivecan inuence multiple land uses, and each land use can affectmultiple ecosystem services. These inuences can be positive ornegative. Hence, the aggregate impact of multiple incentivesacross multiple ecosystem services through their inuence onland use is difcult to predict (Bryan, 2013). Although seldomexplored, understanding these interaction effects is necessary toensure the efciency of nancial incentives for ecosystem services

    informing policy decisions (Antle and Stoorvogel, 2006; Antle andValdivia, 2006). Similar approaches have been widely used toassess the impact of nancial incentives on the supply of servicesfrom agro-ecosystems for land uses such as bioenergy feedstock(Bryan et al., 2008, 2010a, 2010b) and reforestation (Dymond et al.,2012; Flugge and Abadi, 2006; Harper et al., 2007; Hunt, 2008;Paterson and Bryan, 2012; Townsend et al., 2012).

    Focussing on the 15 million ha agricultural region of SouthAustralia, we quantied the supply of four ecosystem services(food and ber production, carbon sequestration, fresh waterprovision, habitat for local native species) from three land uses(existing agriculture, carbon monocultures (single species Euca-lyptus plantations), environmental plantings (ecological restora-tion of mixed native species)) using a range of biophysical processmodels. We calculated the net economic returns from each landuse over 40 years from 2010 to 2050 in net present value (NPV)terms, given the presence of exogenously-determined incentiveprices for the supply of these services. We assessed 1875 scenariosincluding all combinations of the ve prices for each of the fourservices, and assessed model sensitivity using three economic costparameter settings (high, median and low). For each scenario, weidentied areas with land use change potential based on neteconomic returns and quantied the impact of these changes onthe four ecosystem services. We quantied the effect of incentivesusing Spearman's rank correlation analysis and visualized the

    grazing systems, interspersed with patches of remnant natural

    B.A. Bryan, N.D. Crossman / Ecosystem Services () e2in agro-ecosystems including capturing synergies and avoidingtensions (White et al., 2012). Here, we present the rst quantita-tive, integrated exploration of the interaction of multiple nancialincentives and their impacts across multiple ecosystem services.

    We assessed the impact of nancial incentives on ecosystemservices through their effect on land use protabilitya key driverof land use change (Irwin and Geoghegan, 2001; Lubowski et al.,2008). We took a spatial approach in identifying areas with landuse change potential (areas where an economic opportunity existsfor land use change) under a range of nancial incentive (price)scenarios. We then assessed the impact of this potential change onmultiple ecosystem services. This type of approach has beencompared to more sophisticated land use change forecasts andshown to provide timely insight at a level of detail sufcient forFig. 1. Location map and major land uses in the stu

    Please cite this article as: Bryan, B.A., Crossman, N.D., Impact of mulsupply of ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services (2013), http://dx.dland (Fig. 1). Climate is Mediterranean in the south grading tosemi-arid in the north, and soils are nutrient-decient. The regionis responsible for around 18% of Australia's cereal production andinteractions between inuential


View more >