IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v88y2019ics0264837719306763.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Legal barriers and enablers for reintroducing tides: An Australian case study in reconverting ponded pasture for climate change mitigation

Author

Listed:
  • Bell-James, Justine
  • Lovelock, Catherine E

Abstract

Across the globe, areas of the floodplain have been converted to agricultural use – often at the expense of natural ecosystems. In Australia, coastal wetlands have been transformed to ‘ponded pasture’ for cattle grazing which has resulted in a loss of saline wetlands, increased methane emissions, and impacts on species like fish and birds. Reconversion of these areas to saline wetlands is a potential climate change mitigation strategy, but given they occur at the intersection of private and public ownership regimes, some specific legal issues must be considered.

Suggested Citation

  • Bell-James, Justine & Lovelock, Catherine E, 2019. "Legal barriers and enablers for reintroducing tides: An Australian case study in reconverting ponded pasture for climate change mitigation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:88:y:2019:i:c:s0264837719306763
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104192
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837719306763
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104192?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. Beardmore, Leslie & Heagney, Elizabeth & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2019. "Complementary land use in the Richmond River catchment: Evaluating economic and environmental benefits," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).
    2. Andrew J Tanentzap & Anthony Lamb & Susan Walker & Andrew Farmer, 2015. "Resolving Conflicts between Agriculture and the Natural Environment," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-13, September.
    3. Sierra Woodruff & Todd K. BenDor & Aaron L. Strong, 2018. "Fighting the inevitable: infrastructure investment and coastal community adaptation to sea level rise," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 34(1-2), pages 48-77, January.
    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. Bell-James, Justine & Boardman, Tessa & Foster, Rose, 2020. "Can’t see the (mangrove) forest for the trees: Trends in the legal and policy recognition of mangrove and coastal wetland ecosystem services in Australia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    2. Hagger, Valerie & Waltham, Nathan J. & Lovelock, Catherine E., 2022. "Opportunities for coastal wetland restoration for blue carbon with co-benefits for biodiversity, coastal fisheries, and water quality," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(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. Ouellet, F. & Mundler, P. & Dupras, J. & Ruiz, J., 2020. "“Community developed and farmer delivered.” An analysis of the spatial and relational proximities of the Alternative Land Use Services program in Ontario," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    2. Adam Pawlewicz & Wojciech Gotkiewicz & Katarzyna Brodzińska & Katarzyna Pawlewicz & Bartosz Mickiewicz & Paweł Kluczek, 2022. "Organic Farming as an Alternative Maintenance Strategy in the Opinion of Farmers from Natura 2000 Areas," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-22, March.
    3. Vincent R. Nyirenda & Bimo A. Nkhata & Oscar Tembo & Susan Siamundele, 2018. "Elephant Crop Damage: Subsistence Farmers’ Social Vulnerability, Livelihood Sustainability and Elephant Conservation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-19, October.
    4. Gábor Bakó & Zsolt Molnár & Lilla Bakk & Ferenc Horváth & Luca Fehér & Örs Ábrám & Edina Morvai & Csaba Biro & Gergely Pápay & Attila Fűrész & Károly Penksza & Diána Pácsonyi & Krisztina Demény & Erik, 2021. "Toward a High Spatial Resolution Aerial Monitoring Network for Nature Conservation—How Can Remote Sensing Help Protect Natural Areas?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-27, August.
    5. Wiśniewski, Łukasz & Rudnicki, Roman & Chodkowska-Miszczuk, Justyna, 2021. "What non-natural factors are behind the underuse of EU CAP funds in areas with valuable habitats?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    6. Czarnecki, Adam & Milczarek-Andrzejewska, Dominika & Widła-Domaradzki, Łukasz & Jórasz-Żak, Anna, 2023. "Conflict dynamics over farmland use in the multifunctional countryside," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).
    7. Alberto Gabino Martínez-Hernández, 2022. "System Dynamics modelling and Climate Change Adaptation in Coastal Areas: A literature review," Working Papers 2022.21, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    8. Katarzyna Brodzinska & Wojciech Gotkiewicz & Bartosz Mickiewicz & Adam Pawlewicz, 2020. "The Chosen Socio-Economic Problems of Protecting Valuable Agricultural Land in Natura 2000 Areas in Poland," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(2), pages 228-245.
    9. Anamaria Bukvic & Guillaume Rohat & Alex Apotsos & Alex de Sherbinin, 2020. "A Systematic Review of Coastal Vulnerability Mapping," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-26, April.
    10. Yong, Wilson Thau Lym & Thien, Vun Yee & Rupert, Rennielyn & Rodrigues, Kenneth Francis, 2022. "Seaweed: A potential climate change solution," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 159(C).
    11. Hualou Long & Yingnan Zhang & Li Ma & Shuangshuang Tu, 2021. "Land Use Transitions: Progress, Challenges and Prospects," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-20, August.
    12. Branham, Jordan & Onda, Kyle & Kaza, Nikhil & BenDor, Todd K. & Salvesen, David, 2021. "How does the removal of federal subsidies affect investment in coastal protection infrastructure?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    13. Ma, Li & Long, Hualou & Tu, Shuangshuang & Zhang, Yingnan & Zheng, Yuhan, 2020. "Farmland transition in China and its policy implications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    14. Wąs, Adam & Malak-Rawlikowska, Agata & Zavalloni, Matteo & Viaggi, Davide & Kobus, Paweł & Sulewski, Piotr, 2021. "In search of factors determining the participation of farmers in agri-environmental schemes – Does only money matter in Poland?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).
    15. Armand Kasztelan & Anna Nowak, 2020. "Construction and Empirical Verification of the Agri-Environmental Index (AEI) as a Tool for Assessing the Green Performance of Agriculture," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, December.
    16. Francesca L. Falco & Eran Feitelson & Tamar Dayan, 2021. "Spatial Scale Mismatches in the EU Agri-Biodiversity Conservation Policy. The Case for a Shift to Landscape-Scale Design," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-24, August.
    17. Chen, Yuquan & Fan, Shenggen & Liu, Chang & Yu, Xiaohua, 2022. "Is there a tradeoff between nature reserves and grain production in China?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    18. John Sterman, 2018. "System dynamics at sixty: the path forward," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 34(1-2), pages 5-47, January.
    19. Fang Tang & Yangbing Li & Xiuming Liu & Juan Huang & Yiyi Zhang & Qian Xu, 2023. "Understanding the Relationships between Landscape Eco-Security and Multifunctionality in Cropland: Implications for Supporting Cropland Management Decisions," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(3), pages 1-26, January.
    20. Pedro Pérez Medina & María Guadalupe Galindo Mendoza & Gregorio Álvarez Fuentes & Leonardo David Tenorio Martínez & Valter Armando Barrera López, 2023. "Economic Assessment of the Impact of the Sugarcane Industry: An Empirical Approach with Two Focuses for San Luis Potosí, México," J, MDPI, vol. 6(2), pages 1-19, June.

    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:lauspo:v:88:y:2019:i:c:s0264837719306763. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.