University of Tasmania
Browse

File(s) under permanent embargo

Co-benefits and trade-offs between agriculture and conservation: a case study in Northern Australia

journal contribution
posted on 2023-05-20, 10:36 authored by Natalie StoecklNatalie Stoeckl, Chaiechi, T, Farr, M, Jarvis, D, Alvarez-Romero, JG, Kennard, MJ, Hermoso, V, Pressey, RL
On-farm conservation programmes require land managers to pursue both market and non-market objectives. If one can identify objectives that are complementary (co-benefits) and competitive (trade-offs) so that co-benefits can be pursued and trade-offs avoided, one may be able to lower the costs to land managers of on-farm conservation programmes. We used data from farms in northern Australia to identify potential trade-offs and co-benefits between market and non-market objectives. We used Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) to assess the relationship between farm ‘inputs’ (e.g. land, labour, capital) and both market and non-market ‘outputs’ (used interchangeably with ‘outcomes’) (e.g. value of on-farm production, turtle biodiversity). The DEA analysis generated an ‘efficiency score’ for each farm; the best scores were associated with farms that used fewest inputs and had the ‘best’ outcome(s). We then looked for statistically significant relationships between those scores and other variables known to influence outcomes. After controlling for biophysical factors (e.g. rainfall, soil type), we found little evidence of trade-offs between market and non-market outcomes. We found that farms with many weeds had poor market efficiency scores, suggesting that weed-reduction programmes could generate substantive co-benefits for agriculture and biodiversity. Properties managed by people who preferred a small steady income (over a large uncertain income) had higher non-market efficiency scores, suggesting a link between conservation and attitudes to risk. Our results also suggest that encouraging on-farm agricultural diversification, the adoption of environmentally focused landmanagement plans, and a generally more positive attitude towards conservation could improve environmental outcomes without compromising market outcomes.

History

Publication title

Biological Conservation

Volume

191

Pagination

478-494

ISSN

0006-3207

Department/School

College Office - College of Business and Economics

Publisher

Elsevier Sci Ltd

Place of publication

The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford, England, Oxon, Ox5 1Gb

Rights statement

© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Repository Status

  • Restricted

Socio-economic Objectives

Fresh, ground and surface water biodiversity; Evaluation, allocation, and impacts of land use