IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v48y2021ics2212041621000115.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecosystem service and dis-service impacts of increasing tree cover on agricultural land by land-sparing and land-sharing in the Welsh uplands

Author

Listed:
  • Hardaker, Ashley
  • Pagella, Tim
  • Rayment, Mark

Abstract

Increasing tree cover on agricultural land is recognised as a potential mechanism to enhance ecosystem services. In this case study, we assessed and mapped the impacts on ecosystem services and dis-services of different land-sparing and land-sharing strategies for tree cover expansion on grassland and arable land in the Welsh uplands. In addition, we modelled the impacts of widespread adoption of these strategies on grassland and arable land on the total basket of ecosystem services derived from the Welsh uplands. Our modelling over a 120-year period suggests land-sharing strategies (agroforestry options) could lead to the greatest potential increase in ecosystem service benefits (+£2.62 billion for the Agroforestry – in field trees option). Such land-sharing strategies deliver a basket of ecosystem services primarily focused on private provisioning benefits, with only modest increases in public regulation and maintenance benefits. In contrast, land-sparing strategies (full afforestation options) deliver the highest level of public regulation and maintenance benefits (£7.60 billion), but at the cost of provisioning benefits (−£17.13 billion). Land-sharing strategies (agroforestry options) provide the highest level of in-situ ecosystem service benefits. Land-sparing strategies (full afforestation options) primarily provide ex-situ ecosystem service benefits and are likely to require livelihood shifts for private landowners and occupants.

Suggested Citation

  • Hardaker, Ashley & Pagella, Tim & Rayment, Mark, 2021. "Ecosystem service and dis-service impacts of increasing tree cover on agricultural land by land-sparing and land-sharing in the Welsh uplands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 48(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:48:y:2021:i:c:s2212041621000115
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101253
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041621000115
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101253?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    2. Carmen Hubbard & John Davis & Siyi Feng & David Harvey & Anne Liddon & Andrew Moxey & Mercy Ojo & Myles Patton & George Philippidis & Charles Scott & Shailesh Shrestha & Michael Wallace, 2018. "Brexit: How Will UK Agriculture Fare?," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 17(2), pages 19-26, August.
    3. Carole Sylvie Campagne & Philippe K. Roche & Jean-Michel Salles, 2018. "Looking into Pandora’s box: ecosystem disservices assessment and correlations with ecosystem services," Post-Print hal-01952506, HAL.
    4. Howarth, Richard B. & Farber, Stephen, 2002. "Accounting for the value of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 421-429, June.
    5. Benjamin T. Phalan, 2018. "What Have We Learned from the Land Sparing-sharing Model?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-24, May.
    6. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Paletto, Alessandro & Fath, Brian D., 2015. "Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 12-23.
    7. Hepburn, Cameron J. & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2007. "Recent advances in discounting: Implications for forest economics," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(2-3), pages 169-189, August.
    8. Spangenberg, Joachim H. & Settele, Josef, 2016. "Value pluralism and economic valuation – defendable if well done," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 100-109.
    9. Hardaker, Ashley & Pagella, Tim & Rayment, Mark, 2020. "Integrated assessment, valuation and mapping of ecosystem services and dis-services from upland land use in Wales," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    10. Hein, Lars & van Koppen, Kris & de Groot, Rudolf S. & van Ierland, Ekko C., 2006. "Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 209-228, May.
    11. Josep Crous-Duran & Anil R. Graves & Silvestre García de Jalón & Sonja Kay & Margarida Tomé & Paul J. Burgess & Michail Giannitsopoulos & João H.N. Palma, 2020. "Quantifying Regulating Ecosystem Services with Increased Tree Densities on European Farmland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-20, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. McNicol, Louise C. & Williams, Non G. & Chadwick, Dave & Styles, David & Rees, Robert M. & Ramsey, Rachael & Williams, A. Prysor, 2024. "Net Zero requires ambitious greenhouse gas emission reductions on beef and sheep farms coordinated with afforestation and other land use change measures," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 215(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hardaker, Ashley & Pagella, Tim & Rayment, Mark, 2020. "Integrated assessment, valuation and mapping of ecosystem services and dis-services from upland land use in Wales," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    2. Jones, Sarah K. & Boundaogo, Mansour & DeClerck, Fabrice A. & Estrada-Carmona, Natalia & Mirumachi, Naho & Mulligan, Mark, 2019. "Insights into the importance of ecosystem services to human well-being in reservoir landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    3. Heinze, Alan & Bongers, Frans & Ramírez Marcial, Neptalí & García Barrios, Luis E. & Kuyper, Thomas W., 2022. "Farm diversity and fine scales matter in the assessment of ecosystem services and land use scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    4. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo & Paletto, Alessandro & Fath, Brian D., 2015. "Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 14(C), pages 12-23.
    5. Zabala, José A. & Martínez-Paz, José M. & Alcon, Francisco, 2021. "Integrated valuation of semiarid Mediterranean agroecosystem services and disservices," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    6. Bianchi, Ettore & Accastello, Cristian & Trappmann, Daniel & Blanc, Simone & Brun, Filippo, 2018. "The Economic Evaluation of Forest Protection Service Against Rockfall: A Review of Experiences and Approaches," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 409-418.
    7. Turner, Katrine Grace & Anderson, Sharolyn & Gonzales-Chang, Mauricio & Costanza, Robert & Courville, Sasha & Dalgaard, Tommy & Dominati, Estelle & Kubiszewski, Ida & Ogilvy, Sue & Porfirio, Luciana &, 2016. "A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 319(C), pages 190-207.
    8. Häyhä, Tiina & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2014. "Ecosystem services assessment: A review under an ecological-economic and systems perspective," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 289(C), pages 124-132.
    9. Ping Shen & Lijuan Wu & Ziwen Huo & Jiaying Zhang, 2023. "A Study on the Spatial Pattern of the Ecological Product Value of China’s County-Level Regions Based on GEP Evaluation," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-18, February.
    10. Nikodinoska, Natasha & Paletto, Alessandro & Pastorella, Fabio & Granvik, Madeleine & Franzese, Pier Paolo, 2018. "Assessing, valuing and mapping ecosystem services at city level: The case of Uppsala (Sweden)," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 368(C), pages 411-424.
    11. Bo Yang & Ming-Han Li & Shujuan Li, 2013. "Design-with-Nature for Multifunctional Landscapes: Environmental Benefits and Social Barriers in Community Development," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-26, October.
    12. Stapleton, L.M. & Hanna, P. & Ravenscroft, N. & Church, A., 2014. "A flexible ecosystem services proto-typology based on public opinion," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 83-90.
    13. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    14. Vahid Amini Parsa & Esmail Salehi & Ahmad Reza Yavari & Peter M van Bodegom, 2019. "An improved method for assessing mismatches between supply and demand in urban regulating ecosystem services: A case study in Tabriz, Iran," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-22, August.
    15. McVittie, Alistair & Norton, Lisa & Martin-Ortega, Julia & Siameti, Ioanna & Glenk, Klaus & Aalders, Inge, 2015. "Operationalizing an ecosystem services-based approach using Bayesian Belief Networks: An application to riparian buffer strips," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 15-27.
    16. Brown, Melanie G. & Quinn, John E., 2018. "Zoning does not improve the availability of ecosystem services in urban watersheds. A case study from Upstate South Carolina, USA," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 254-265.
    17. Grilli, Gianluca & Fratini, Roberto & Marone, Enrico & Sacchelli, Sandro, 2020. "A spatial-based tool for the analysis of payments for forest ecosystem services related to hydrogeological protection," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    18. Jiayi Zhou & Kangning Xiong & Qi Wang & Jiuhan Tang & Li Lin, 2022. "A Review of Ecological Assets and Ecological Products Supply: Implications for the Karst Rocky Desertification Control," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-20, August.
    19. Heink, Ulrich & Jax, Kurt, 2019. "Going Upstream — How the Purpose of a Conceptual Framework for Ecosystem Services Determines Its Structure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 264-271.
    20. Sarkki, Simo & Karjalainen, Timo P., 2015. "Ecosystem service valuation in a governance debate: Practitioners' strategic argumentation on forestry in northern Finland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 13-22.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:48:y:2021:i:c:s2212041621000115. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.