Search

Farm planning processes have long been based on land evaluation, and although this analysis conceptually includes other biotic and abiotic factors beyond just land, they have typically focused on soils and land-use capability. The need to broaden this scope to more explicitly include biodiversity, ecosystem service provision, and sustainability considerations has been internationally recognised. Indigenous terrestrial and aquatic features represent a considerable asset to the farm system yet, to date, farm planning processes in New Zealand have largely failed to account for this natural capital stock and its contribution to the current or future business. Substantial knowledge gaps and lack of empirical data across many biodiversity metrics, limited institutional capacity, and lack of investment and on-going costs, are all factors contributing to the lack of integration of biodiversity considerations in farm planning processes. The net effect is the on-going depletion and degradation of indigenous biodiversity on-farm. We do, however, have an existing mechanism, in the form of 'whole farm plans', that could be utilised to integrate biodiversity natural capital and its management into farm planning and we illustrate the feasibility of this approach using a case study from the Waikato Region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Riparian margins can provide a range of environmental, social, and production benefits both on-farm and off-farm. However, our understanding of the relative advantage between various riparian-margin management options is limited. We aim to advance this knowledge by modelling change in food provision, water quality regulation, contact recreation, and amenity ecosystem services in response to riparian-margin management. Estimations in performance were made under grazed; fenced 1 m-wide grass-strips; and fenced 5 m-wide multi-tier planted riparian margin scenarios within a lowland dairy farming landscape as typical in the North Island, New Zealand. Our study allows for simultaneous analysis across the range of ecosystem services (provisioning, regulating, and cultural) and across spatial scales (farm, river network, catchment) as relevant to current policy focus for riparian management. We show both grass-strips and multi-tier planted margins can maintain or increase production values, while also making important contributions to environmental stewardship and community values. Under a multi-tier planted margin scenario, provision of amenity values also increases. Importantly, we also show that riparian management alone is not adequate to address detrimental outcomes of land use on receiving environments, and should be part of wider farm management practices used to maximise opportunities for sustained ecosystem service provision. This is an important consideration for land management policies. Edited by Alexander van Oudenhoven [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Decision makers and land managers are increasingly required to manage landscapes for multiple purposes and benefits. However, despite progress in the development of frameworks linking natural capital to the provision of ecosystem services and human benefits there remains little guidance for how management interventions can improve ecosystem service provision. As ecosystem services cannot be directly influenced, interventions need to be directed toward natural capital stocks. We provide a framework that explicitly links natural capital stocks to ecosystem service provision and identify manageable attributes of natural capital stocks as the critical intervention point. A structured decision making process based on our framing of the ecosystem services concept can facilitate its application on the ground. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]