5 - Integrated landscapes and farming systems

5.1 - Biogeographic theories in productive landscapes- importance of function and heterogeneity

Landscapes are holistic entities integrating the geosphere, the biosphere and the totality of human influences over spatial and temporal scales. In this sense, "landscape" is not a concept of aesthetics so much as a system within which ecology and society operate and are inextricably entwined77.

Landscape ecology is the study of reciprocal effects of spatial pattern on ecological processes78. It differs from ecology in that for much of its history ecology assumed spatial homogeneity for convenience or simplicity, and worked at scales that provided an apparent uniformity of processes. Heterogeneity was taken as a necessary evil or an unwelcome complication. Landscape ecology contrasts strongly with historical Clementsian ecology in that it regards heterogeneity as a central causal factor in ecological systems79. In addition, it considers the spatial dynamics and the temporal dynamics (ecology's founding concern) of systems as of equal importance.

The trends from ecology to landscape ecology as the paradigm of environmental management over the last fifteen years has lead to an inevitable gap in research throughout the world. The concerns for ecology are no longer enough. New Zealand's work in the ecology of indigenous species within ecosystems that are relatively limited in spatial and temporal scales is useful research, but a substantial dimension is lacking. That dimension is the landscape - with processes impacting throughout a changing pattern in space and time.

The implications for environmental research are profound. The total landscape is made up of much more than discrete indigenous systems that once were thought of in isolation from the whole. It is made up of a hierarchical matrix of varying components, functions and scales, each of which is inseparable from the total landscape picture. The factors that need to be considered include introduced systems - not just the indigenous. It also includes humans as embedded entities who contribute major processes within the landscape through social and economic drivers. People must be included in order for wider landscape issues to be addressed.

A landscape approach requires research in biogeography across the whole landscape, rather than in just the indigenous elements within it. It requires an understanding of all the factors impacting on biodiversity within that landscape - for instance, of the threats and opportunities that introduced biodiversity can provide; of the role of humans as negative and positive influences; of an integrated, systems level programme of research.

The National Science Strategy for Sustainable Land Management recognised the importance of a systems perspective to research, policy and environmental management:

It is vital that research is conducted within a systems framework that is designed to acknowledge and clarify the contributory factors, and understand the impacts80

This is also the perspective that is part and parcel of the CBD's Ecosystem Management approach.

5.2 - Our biodiversity research focus in wider landscapes

The Historic Approach to Environmental Management within Landscapes

The dominant focus of New Zealand nature conservation has been on large reserves of indigenous habitat with a singular objective of keeping it in pristine or near pristine condition, without human extractive practices. However, many of the major issues in nature conservation occur in those areas most intensively used by humans81, where the impacts on this biodiversity continue to be severe82. The pre-existing indigenous systems have been highly modified and fragmented with ongoing extinctions, and in some instances indigenous components have been extinguished from the landscapes83.

The focus on large reserves within Department of Conservation administration has produced a narrowing of perspectives toward the environment across other administrations, including private landowners. The assumptions encouraged include the view that our biodiversity is being protected in the conservation estate, when that estate is often unrepresentative of the full range of indigenous systems, with particular bias toward upland systems84. A second assumption is the view that solutions involving reserves must be the predominant approach. This, in turn has reinforced an assumption from what is claimed as the "environmental" perspective that all human extractive activity must cease, and from a landowner perspective a resistance to approaches from "conservation authorities" because inclusion of human activity is not readily encouraged.

In entrenching these assumptions, the opportunities and directions exposed by the rise in landscape ecology and ecosystem management internationally have not had the chance to be realised. In short, the wider landscape considerations have been marginalised in the pursuit of singular goals.

The Emergence of a Fresh Approach to Environmental Management within Landscapes

Protecting biodiversity on productive landscapes needs a fresh approach that is not premised on the idea that reserves are the only option, though they remain one option in a pluralism of approaches85. The basis of potential new approaches is an understanding of the following:

  1. landscape ecology over the long term - specifically the biogeography of New Zealand's modified landscapes; and
  2. the better understanding of how people relate to the land through social and economic drivers - the context within which environmental management decisions are made86.

The National Science Strategy for Sustainable Land Management recognised these key concepts underlying sustainable land management in the priorities document released in 199787 and especially in the principles they established as criteria to sort research priorities. These principles included the following:

  • Longer Term Perspective
  • Integrated Systems-based Approach
  • Incorporation of Users' Values, Knowledge and Practices
  • Maori Interests and Values
  • Distributional and Equity Impacts
  • Consultation, Participation and Partnership.

A number of studies have been carried out in New Zealand on the biogeography and autecologies of species and their assessment, primarily within reserves88. Much of this work is critical to understanding the ecological functions and processes across the whole landscape, and potential management for biodiversity.

However, less work is evident on the biogeographic functions and processes as they apply to these wider landscapes, particularly to production systems and their community elements. There are some significant programmes such as the Taieri river study examining the effects of land use on aquatic ecosystems89, the Whatawhata-based research on land use effects on soil conservation and aquatic systems90, and the early evaluation of farming systems91. While these studies look at some landscape effects, their excellent base is not developed through other interdisciplinary research as part of an integrated programme. The same comment applies to much of the excellent hydrology work provided by Landcare - much of it of a long term nature such as the Glendhu catchment studies - where an interdisciplinary approach to examine other processes within the landscape - whether ecological, social or economic - would increase the value of the research.

Rather than just pointing out that not enough is being done, it is important to acknowledge the effect that international trends in increasing analysis of wider landscapes (including cultural elements) is having on the New Zealand science, policy and environmental management perspectives.

There is an increasing interest in the effects of hedgerows, roads, riparian areas, etc. as important biogeographic features92, and a significant rise in the interest in biogeography as it affects these productive land uses93. Many more researchers, policy staff and environmental advocates are becoming aware of the importance of studying and managing the wider landscape in ways that question the dominant allocation model, which artificially divides the landscape into "protected" areas and "productive" areas.

It is unknown whether the political influences that decide funding and research direction in conservation issues have sufficient resolve to participate in this international trend.

5.3 - The issues in integrated landscapes and farming systems - desired structure and function

Biogeographic theories support the view that a diverse biological community is achieved through the provision of the appropriate quality and quantity of structural habitat, which is itself underpinned by ecological functions and processes. To encourage biodiversity in our wider landscapes - especially, but not exclusively, indigenous biodiversity - requires an understanding of the necessary qualitative and quantitative habitat requirements (structure and function) necessary for particular species and assemblages. Encouraging biodiversity in these wider landscapes as requires an understanding of the potential policy and implementation paths to a desirable, and realisable, end.

That end must incorporate both biodiversity and social equity for success to be even a possibility, let alone a probability, in the wider landscapes that include productive elements. The goal then is an integrated land use pattern in the landscape that provides for both culture and nature, with consideration of the various hierarchical scales that are appropriate to particular taxa94.

Structural features of an integrated landscape

Key structural features within the New Zealand productive landscapes contributing to plant, vertebrate and invertebrate biodiversity include the following:

  • Indigenous forest, shrub and grassland reserves
  • Reverting shrubland and successional woodland usually located on marginal farming areas relating to particular microsites and microclimates
  • Verges associated with roads, rail, hedgerows, field margins, and forest margins
  • Riparian areas - riverbanks, wetlands, waterways, gully plantings of trees and shrubs
  • Plantations and woodlots, including edge and understorey systems of herbaceous and woody plants, and cleared areas
  • Grazed and arable lands
  • Individual trees and shrubs

Particular species and assemblages of species prefer particular habitat structures, but require far more than a simple structural element. The strength of many integrated landscapes is their heterogeneity, rather than the focus on one element that may be perceived to represent the greatest opportunity for particularly charismatic species. Some species require more than one type of habitat, while others may have a specific requirement which represents a particular successional stage - the representation of which requires continuing disturbance processes over space and time. In this sense, a homogenous forest with a particularly uniform structure may represent a threat to many species, rather than the reverse. Botkin (1990) provides an example of this phenomena illustrated by the Kirtland's warbler, which prefers a particular age-class structure of Jacks pine (Pinus banksiana). The species requires a fire every 20 or 30 years to maintain the structural habitat it prefers, but the ideal of stasis in environmental management put the species at risk. Its recovery plan involves human-induced disturbance - which many still associate with "harm". A local example is the fernbird reserve at Boulder Block in Golden Bay. The birds need early seral forest and managed disturbance using chainsaws is required to hold the species in the reserve95. This may force removal of the reserve from Kahurangi National Park even though the managed disturbance is specifically designed for conservation96.

A similar case in New Zealand is provided by the Mahoenui giant weta population whose survival depends on a habitat structure that is quite specialised, and dominated by introduced elements - gorse provides the nurse crop, but browsing by cattle keeps it sufficiently open to allow goats into the stand97. The browsing by the goats creates a short 'hedge' of gorse near ground level that harbours the weta. It is assumed that it provides the right micro-climate for the weta survival and reproduction, but more importantly that it reduces predation by introduced mammals that have eliminated it from the rest of north Island. This illustrates a number of points:

  • no single structure represents a habitat solution for indigenous biodiversity,
  • previously optimum habitats are not necessarily the ones that are now crucial for the ongoing survival of endemic species in the new ecological conditions prevailing in New Zealand
  • scale over space and time is an essential factor in considering integrated land management - even down to the dynamics and space of a thin layer of gorse hedge in the case of the Mohenui weta, or a rock outcrop or wet bank for other highly restricted invertebrates, and
  • various patterns of agricultural disturbance may be critical for elements within the ecosystem98, particularly for the maintenance of a specialised habitat structure, such as that preferred by giant weta.

Spatial Relationships in an Integrated Landscape

Spatial relationships between habitat (biogeography) and the healthy functioning of those key processes that underly the habitat configuration are of fundamental importance.

Meurk and Swaffield (2000) provide a useful discussion on the spatial requirements that suit indigenous biodiversity within New Zealand's productive landscapes. Of particular importance is the presence of large woodland patches, structurally dominated by either indigenous or introduced species. These larger forest areas provide a forest core habitat not influenced by climatic influences of the edge99. Meurk and Swaffield suggest that to maintain viable populations of most of our wildlife would require a landscape with twenty percent of the agriculture-dominated landscape in other habitat apart from arable and pastoral areas. In addition, substantial woodland patches (>5 ha) of either indigenous or introduced woodland patches at five km centres would be needed. These more substantial patches are referred to as primary forest sanctuaries - with corridors and stepping-stones to link the woodland patches.

Meurk and Swaffield provide tentative suggestions for scale and configuration of non-agricultural habitat, which they suggest as a socially acceptable vision100. A key consideration was to propose a configuration that accords with current land use practice and the sense of place that is valued by the people within the land.

The total size and location of patches and corridors is not the only spatial consideration. Shape and width of patches and corridors is also important, with some species requiring particular dimensional configurations to suit their habitat requirements.

Ecosystem Functions and Processes within an Integrated Landscape

Structure and spatial configuration by themselves are insufficient. For instance, without the ecological processes present, any restoration project is considerably more difficult, and any achievements remain tentative if such functions as seed dispersal and flowering are not present101.

The key ecological processes underpinning landscape structure over space and time include the following:

  • Reproduction - dependent upon, for example, functions such as: provision of nesting habitat, perches, cover, food - especially for indigenous birds - and successful flowering, pollination and seed production in plants
  • Recruitment - dependent upon predation rates of fruit and fruit quality that affect the number of seeds available to germinate; seed dispersal and vectors (wind, birds, etc), and seedling establishment (allowing growth until they escape a browser threshold)102,
  • Succession - disturbance (patch dynamics) - vegetative structural diversity, e.g. edge structure
  • Predation and inter-specific competition
  • Decomposition
  • Nutrient cycling & energy flows (trophic level representation).

The New Zealand landscape systems are particularly unique with regard to these functions. Generally our indigenous plant species are not at risk, with few endangered species and no evidence of major extinctions103, though local extinctions through land use change provides a different perspective. However, the vertebrate and invertebrate zoology is - in some cases - very endangered, with a large percentage of species yet to be described104. The role of this fauna in the ecological functioning of these systems is also not well understood. The fact that there are some ecological functions that rely on a single species is of particular concern. Tree drupe dispersal by kereru is an important example.

Research is beginning to develop that examines the description and effects of these different structural, spatial and functional features in providing for biodiversity within the wider landscapes105. There is considerable international research developing within the same themes106, though often particular to their own species and ecosystems.

Quality and Quantity within an Integrated Landscape - including the role of "exotics", including humans

Qualitative parameters of habitat relate to spatial configurations and relationships described above, as well as compositional and functional factors. It is often sidelined in the pursuit of quantitative assessment.

The increase in the quantity of indigenous shrubland regenerating onto marginal hill country farmland due to the withdrawal of farm subsidies is often provided as a positive example of market influences - despite the fact that the market seems to also be encouraging a continuing intensification on other classes of land107. However, considering quantity alone provides an incomplete picture. While the quantity of indigenous woody vegetation is increasing, there are indications that the trends in biodiversity quality continue to decline. One example is the continuing kiwi and wood pigeon decline in Northland, which is not associated with any reduction on indigenous forest and shrubland area. The pressure in this case is predation - by either introduced mammalian pests, or human hunting.

Research into the qualitative aspects of biodiversity associated with the indigenous habitat within the productive landscapes, is an area of particular concern. This needs to include the establishment of baseline monitoring and ongoing assessment (state) as recommended by Halloy (1995), as well as research into the processes (pressure) that impact on biodiversity quality. Finally the understanding gained has to be implemented as an active management response, including some provision for adaptive management. These are the fundamentals of the Pressure: State: Response model of bio-indicators, where each has a set of indicators associated.

It is important for the health of New Zealand's biodiversity no options be precluded through ideological constraints when researching and selecting potential management interventions108. A logical process of assessment, understanding and response with regard to our indigenous systems has been hindered by such constraints in the past. A high-profile example concerns the quality of indigenous forest systems on the West Coast, where what some perceive as a prejudgment that human extraction was the major negative pressure on biodiversity and ecosystem health prevented the consideration of that management option. The upshot was:

  • that the real status of these forests was no longer subject to assessment, monitoring and accumulated knowledge at a systems level;
  • that the real pressure - mammalian pests109 -was not adequately addressed;
  • that the reinforcing of a New Zealand cultural relationship with nature did not occur;
  • all of which lead to a potential decline in the forest quality, as well as the social and economic health of a region - none of which are mutually exclusive outcomes.

Many of the pressures on New Zealand indigenous biodiversity are without doubt due to pests and weeds introduced with the arrival of humans. However, many of the solutions may relate not just to the actions of humans making a living within the landscape, but also relate to many of the species that have arrived and naturalised in New Zealand over the last 650 years. Introduced "exotic" species - including humans - represent potential solutions to biodiversity concerns. This is a key consideration for research into integrated landscapes. Meurk and Swaffield (2000) recognised this in their acknowledgement that many of the patches and corridors within their vision of an integrated, culturally-inclusive landscape would be made up of introduced species or mixtures. Holland (2000) goes further and argues that we need to understand what is happening in these "new functional assemblages" comprising native and adventive plant and animal species, in order to facilitate the survival of native species.

Many introduced trees are potentially beneficial for indigenous biodiversity. Irrespective of the species, a forest stand provides an extra dimension of habitat (height) in comparison with grassland. This is reflected in the indigenous insect and bird populations that find cover and food in these habitats110. The potential of introduced tree species to cradle endemic species is not well appreciated, which may be why research to consider their importance in providing for indigenous biodiversity is lacking.

Other introduced species provide essential habitat and food for indigenous species of avifauna; for example holly, cherry and tagasaste. An opportunity to provide habitat for indigenous species is potentially ignored through a singular approach that encourages only indigenous species and pure indigenous reserves for indigenous habitat in productive landscapes. Indigenous species ought to be encouraged, but if an introduced species is a particularly good at providing food or habitat - particularly if it reduces the threat to a species' existence, or ensures a healthy ecological function - while not leading to any ecological problems through its presence, then there is no objective reason not to encourage it.

5.4 - Cultural influences on integrated landscapes for biodiversity - how to encourage integrated landscapes

Bottom-up Processes - Developing Partnership and Ethics

The key decision-making driver in landscapes owned by private individuals is the culture of those individuals. This is recognised in the ecosystem approach as endorsed by the CBD. The operative approach includes a bottom-up learning, participatory process that incorporates local knowledge and "sense of place"111. The role of culture as a key determinant of what integrative and biodiverse landscapes can be achieved in a given length of time. This is also strongly recognised by Meurk and Swaffield (2000) and by Norton and Miller (2000), yet it contrasts with many of the approaches encouraged by some government departments and local authorities that favour top-down regulation and "education" over learning and participatory processes112.

Understanding the culture drivers, values, beliefs, meanings, and feelings that individuals or groups associate with a particular locality is also a four of the six key research principles recognised by the NSS for SLM113. Meurk and Swaffield (2000) suggest that the very underpinning of a change in landscape configuration to better provide for biodiversity values in dependent in the long term on an integration of conservation and production in New Zealand in the way that it occurs in surviving traditional landscapes in Europe. They comment that that integration stands in marked contrast to the polarised situation in much of New Zealand.

Integral to this transformation of values is an appreciation and valuing of indigenous elements, as well as sustainable use of indigenous systems and adaptive management - all principles integral to the ecosystem approach and landscape ecology. Meurk and Swaffield argue that:

"....most significantly, the introduction of increasing proportions of indigenous character into functional landscapes will act as a reinforcing process by which the indigenous becomes ever more familiar, and in time, becomes the expected norm. Hence, culture itself becomes the driver for nature conservation, not as a separate, compartmentalised activity which is seen by some as being in conflict with production values, but as integral to the way we make our economic way in the world."

This ethical relationship with the land is very much the same message that is suggested by Leopold in A Sand County Almanac (1949). It sits in sharp contrast to the methods and processes dominating much of the environmental debate in New Zealand.

New Zealand has begun to develop some excellent programmes using participatory processes that acknowledge the role of local knowledge and bottom up approaches to environmental management114. However, our understanding of the social values that people place on landscape elements and processes remains poor. If the thesis put forward by Meurk and Swaffield (2000) and supported by Gow (1997) and Allen (1999) is right, then a major gap remains in sociological research relating to rural communities.

Economic and Social Analyses of Drivers to Integrated Landscapes

The economic analysis of landowner behaviour is that land management practices reflect the result of existing incentive structures, which are composed of land managers' incentives to maintain profitability and land capital values, and to operate within the regulations, laws and social norms that govern land use115. The increase in indigenous regeneration that has occurred on marginal hill country pastoral land is a reflection of the removal of subsidies that provided an incentive to clear land in the past. This land currently contributes to integrated landscapes.

A more sophisticated analysis of landowner behaviour is derived from the motivational researcher Hertzberg and the sociologist Maslow (1987). Hertzberg argued that any particular action or performance relied upon four key factors: direction, opportunity, motivation and ability. Without any of these the results may not be achieved. From this analytical framework a financial incentive or disincentive may not be enough. It requires much more, including knowledge of the values placed on the environment by humans, as well as the development of interest, culture and knowledge within individuals and groups of people. Our tendency has been to emphasise a regulatory procedure rather than to put resources into some of these "personnel development" issues. We need look no further than Australia to view a contrasting style from government.

Maslow's hierarchy puts a sociological framework on motivation, arguing that each individual has a hierarchy of needs, where a higher level of motivation and action is not taken until certain prerequisite needs are met. The needs range from physiological, security, social acceptance, self-esteem to self actualisation.

Synergies in Production and Environmental Outcomes in Integrated Landscapes - What are the benefits of Biodiversity for Land Managers?

The point in our raising the more sophisticated approach to motivation than the economic analysis is that there are, arguably, already financial incentives available for landowners to manage their land within a more integrative landscape pattern - especially on some hill country areas. However, because they do not have the motivation to change, or because they do not value other land use options, the decisions are not made.

When evaluated as a system across space and time, many of these farms have sub-marginal areas that would be better left completely out of production, allowing reversion, or changed to another land use. Many of these alternative land uses - such as farm forestry woodlots, provide a complementary cash flow pattern to traditional farming. At the same time, many of the areas on which trees grow well116 are often correlated with marginal pastoral lands where costs are high and returns are low.

Unfortunately, using gross margin analysis - the common tool in financial analysis in farming systems - many of the synergies in treating land as a system are not evident. This is because the costs and returns for particular pieces of land over time are hidden, for the sake of accounting convenience, as overheads. Analysis at a more detailed level can provide some surprises. The result can be that removing an area from grazing117 can result in better use of limited capital on those areas of a farm where returns on investment are higher. It might also lead to cost reductions measured in time, money and environmental outcomes. Allowing certain areas to either revert or be managed as a different land use (particularly trees) can produce better soil conservation, increased biodiversity, benefits to the stream, potentially shelter and integrated pest management benefits, and the potential of non-pastoral economic returns118. These are but some of the benefits of biodiversity to land managers through their contribution to the farm agroecosystem, though it is often assumed that benefits arise only from "productive" areas.

A broader systems perspective can recognise these potential opportunities, as well as alleviate potential problems to the benefit of both farm financial returns and environmental values119. This is a message that organic producers have stated for some time, with the example of certified products being associated with better environmental outcomes on the land120.

The need to understand the biotic, abiotic, social and economic forces within an overall system was once again highlighted by Gow (1997). New Zealand's focus on compartmentalising research, policy and applications within separate production and environmental camps has prevented much landscape system and agroecosystem research from eventuating. As a result, many of the potential benefits of biodiversity have not been either identified, or conveyed to the field. Rather the opposite, with the implicit encouragement on land as either a producer of crops, or a natural history museum.

Extension and Capacity Building in Encouraging Integrated Landscapes

The role of extension services is also relevant. Hall et al. (1999) analysed the privatisation of agricultural extension in New Zealand and concluded that education plays an important role in farmers adopting environmentally-sustainable practices. Hall et al. argue that without government extension, the response has been an emphasis on regulation and fines to encourage sustainable practices - an approach that they state has been shown repeatedly to be inferior to education, because of its inflexibility.

Whether the government agricultural extension service had an emphasis on sustainable practices or intensification to enhance production per unit area is a moot point. However, the reduction in technology transfer and overall two-way communication between research and operational managers is a concern that is often expressed. There are two major conduits for sustainable land management facilitation to landowners - the Landcare Trust through participatory Landcare groups, and regional councils through field days and initiatives such as guidelines, environmental awards, etc.

Both regional councils and the Landcare Trust have a long-term mandate, essential to capacity building and any learning process relating to the environment. The regional councils are also blessed with the Resource Management Act 1991, which is the most socially-inclusive piece of environmental legislation in New Zealand, allowing for people to live while safeguarding the environment. For that reason it is a bit of an anomaly when compared to other single-focus legislation, though many interest groups have made it their interest to ensure that councils interpret the Act from their singular point of view.

However, whether either the Landcare Trust or the regional councils are being sufficiently resourced - or whether relatively short term contracts to other technology transfer providers are a sufficient supplement to their actions, is an important question to answer for environmental policy makers. Without such resourcing, the applications that might have some potential to improve environmental performance through integrated landscapes121 have less chance of success.

The Australian example represents considerably more emphasis on capacity building for environmental outcomes than is evident in New Zealand.

Building Value to Encourage Integrated Landscapes

Recognising value - whether financial, social or environmental - is often a key to motivation for landowners122, though direction, opportunity and ability may be lacking. New Zealand has well-established protocols for establishing voluntary covenants to preserve areas of private land, often with funds provided to put toward fencing costs. The QE II Trust is a very successful tool in many instances. However, it is not suitable for all situations.

Other opportunities exist in increasing the value of areas in the eyes of landowners. If a landowner is not interested in a covenant, or an outright sale, then one option is to sustainably manage the area. The owner may benefit financially, while the increase in forest value and Forest Act requirements may provide protection from stock and pests, ensuring that the ecological recruitment and reproductive functions are improved. With pest control and removal of browsing of regeneration, biodiversity can usually be expected to improve. However, conservation interests do not always encourage these opportunities. Whether this is because they themselves do not have all the information is unclear.

Macdonald and Johnson (2000) illustrate the advantages of increasing value with the fact that hunters - who value woodlands as a source of recreation - plant more woodlands than their non-hunting contemporaries. This was the motivation that Aldo Leopold used in the Mid Western states of the US during the 1930s. His survey of these states showed that wildlife decline was associated with habitat removal as farming intensified. His response was to encourage hunters to provide habitat by increasing their appreciation of its value123. This even extended to Leopold's encouragement of "untidy" areas that most still do not value for the biodiversity benefits

5.5 - Gaps in research and knowledge

There is a common accord found throughout the international literature with regard to the needs for research in association with productive, cultural landscapes. This perhaps stems from the fact that the paradigm shift in the environmental framework underpinning conservation is relatively recent for every country. New Zealand is somewhat further behind because of the structure we chose to impose on policy, research and land administration.

The requirements for achieving biodiversity through integrated landscapes on private land include the following:

  1. An understanding of the functions and processing of the integrated landscape system - principally the biogeography of each region's productive landscapes - over broad spatial and temporal scales

This includes particularly the biogeographic aspects that impact on biodiversity within the landscape: the structural features of the landscape, the spatial relationships that are required to ensure the existence of species and ecological processes (test Meurk and Swaffield targets); the ecological functions that are critical to the long-term viability of habitat and biodiversity;

This research gap is supported by Gow (1997), as well as Cairns (1993), Richter (1993) and Halloy 1995. Halloy references MacRae (1989) who critiques short-term and narrow science as inappropriate in the Landscape Ecology era.

  1. An understanding of the quantitative and qualitative State of New Zealand's biodiversity in productive landscapes, the Pressures that act on the ecosystems, and the management responses (BMPs) and recommended implementation processes

Management requires knowledge of what we have and what is influencing it. Halloy (1995) argues that we need ongoing status reports, from established baselines, with emphasis on lesser-known species whose functional importance could be high. Small (1997) provides some useful priorities for the management of biodiversity within Canadian agriculture.

  1. An understanding of the role of introduced species - and mixed indigenous/introduced assemblages in productive landscapes - in providing for indigenous biodiversity as well as acting as pests and weeds which threaten indigenous biodiversity

Holland (2000) argues that we have a very poor understanding of biogeographic processes involving introduced species within productive landscapes.

  1. An understanding of economic and social drivers in the productive landscape - values, beliefs, sense of place, cultural bounds within which any integrated land management goals are bound - and include an appreciation of the value-ladeness of both science and policy making (knowledge comes in many forms).

Linehan and Gross (1998) state "Since the fate of our landscapes lies in the hands of humankind, it is imperative that research move beyond traditional descriptions of space, academic divisions, and rational methods. We must also reassert vision, value, and ethic, account for the relationships among the physical, cultural, economic, and political dimensions of space, and finally, better incorporate the knowledge, perceptions, and practices that exist between the places we study and the peoples and communities who call them home.

  1. Understanding and delivery of long term, adequately resourced capacity building, adaptive management processes which identify the value of traditional knowledge and maintain it.

No amount of knowledge on the factors underlying poor biodiversity outcomes will ensure successful outcomes if provision is not made for the "personnel development" necessary to apply that knowledge.124

The importance of traditional knowledge is often overlooked. Halloy (1995) makes a number of relevant comments about the ethno-botanical value within our biodiversity that is currently a repository of the indigenous people

  1. Develop a better understanding of agricultural land uses as agroecosystems and financial systems over the long term, where many synergies exist within the variations in land over space, and cashflow patterns over time

The dominant paradigm in agricultural science is a reductionist and mechanistic production focus, which assumes spatial homogeneity (much as did ecology before the rise of biogeography and landscape ecology) for purposes of simplicity and convenience. The analogy between old views in ecology and the new paradigm of landscape ecology is pervasive. In the production paradigm, variation in production and costs across space is often treated as a necessary evil or an unwelcome complication (rather than a potential opportunity in some other land use). The response to that paradigm is subconsciously to try to ensure uniformity, by "developing" all areas, irrespective of whether other options might be better environmentally, socially and economically.

A systems perspective takes the view that heterogeneity across space and time, and dynamic processes, are the central causal factors in the system. The options for land management is to work against these central causal factors of heterogeneity over space and time by attempting some singular homogeneity (either all plantation forest, or all pasture, etc.), or to recognise that these variations in space and time represent a multitude of opportunities by which environmental, social and economic outcomes can be achieved. None is mutually exclusive within a heterogeneous landscape, though that belief in the possibility of achieving only singular outcomes remains strong within many of our resource management disciplines.

This focus on singular perspectives has its parallels within other resource management disciplines, including pure and applied ecological courses.

There are some excellent university programmes in resource management in Lincoln and Massey, some of which require a course in systems thinking. This should be encouraged throughout the more traditional agricultural science programmes, as well as within courses that result in "conservation" careers. Systems perspective allows people to identify opportunities and potential problems that a single objective production focus may be blind to.

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Contact for Enquiries

MAF Information Services
Pastoral House
25 The Terrace
PO Box 2526
Wellington, NEW ZEALAND

Fax: +64 4 894 0721
Contact this person

 
Print this page Print this page




WebSite survey