Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Bridging the Urban–Rural Divide Between Ecosystem Service Suppliers and Beneficiaries: Using a Distributed Community Nursery to Support Rural Revegetation

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The provision of ecosystem services from vegetation on private land is constrained by a lack of effective markets to overcome the costs of supply. Urban beneficiaries of ecosystem services from vegetation on private, rural land have limited options for enhancing the supply. This study examines a not-for-profit revegetation programme, the Tree Scheme, in which participants are volunteers who grow seedlings for revegetation on rural land, and rural landholders who use the seedlings in revegetation. We used records of participation and seedlings, along with participant questionnaires to investigate the flow of resources between volunteer growers and rural landholders. The programme produced approximately 22.5 million seedlings between 1994 and 2012; 79% of seedlings were grown in urban locations and 79% of seedlings were ordered for rural plantings. Landholders identified a mixture of objectives for revegetation, with improvement of habitat and biodiversity being most common, followed by objectives with higher private benefits, including planting for windbreaks, erosion control and screening. Volunteer growers reported liking the programme because of the programme’s intended environmental benefits, the satisfaction they gained from raising seedlings and other social benefits of participation. The programme demonstrates that a substantial flow of resources between urban ecosystem services beneficiaries and rural producers can be achieved by facilitating voluntary actions. The type and scale of this programme is rare and potentially transferable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This study did not directly measure ES production from the revegetation and further work is being undertaken by the Trees for Life to measure these outcomes.

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge Dr. Daniel Gregg who provided valuable advice on the manuscript. Likewise, we thank the anonymous reviewers and editor for their helpful comments. We also thank current and former Trees For Life staff members Maurine Redfern, Bernie Omodei, Andrew Kay, Carmel Dundon and Natasha Davis who provided information on the Tree Scheme for this study. We also acknowledge the Tree Scheme participants who provided feedback through the annual participant questionnaire.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carine L. A. Saison.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A. Example Tree Scheme Landholder Questionnaire (2012)

Note: the formatting in this questionnaire was altered slightly for publication

1. Your name (if different from above)………………………………………….…………………

2. Location of planting (nearest town)…………………………………………..………………….

3. My seedlings were grown for me by Myself □ or A volunteer grower □ (name)……………..

4. How many seedlings did you order?……..…. Produce/ Receive?………… Plant? ….……...

5. Were you satisfied with the overall health and number of seedlings?

□ Yes □ No □ Mixed results

6. How would you describe the quality of your seedlings? Please tick one:

□ Excellent □ Good □ Adequate □ Poor

Comments…….…………………………………………………………………………………….

7. If you propagated your own seedlings, would you choose to do so again?

□ Yes □ No Why not? …………………………………………………………………………

8. How many years have you been planting Trees For Life seedlings?

□ First year □ 2–5 □ 6–10 □ 11–15 □ 15–20 □ 21 plus

9. Approximately how many seedlings have you planted in that time? Please circle one

< 1000 1000–2000 2000–5000 5000- 10000 10000–20000 Other ……………..

10. If you planted seedlings in 2011, what percentage has survived?

□0% □10% □20% □30% □40% □50% □60% □70% □80% □90% □100%

Comments…………………………………………………………………………………………..

11. If you have been planting for some years, what overall percentage of your seedlings has survived?

□0% □10% □20% □30% □40% □50% □60% □70% □80% □90% □100%

Comments…………………………………………………………………………………………..

12. Have any species thrived better than others?

□ Yes □ No Which species……………………………………………………………………..

13. Have any species performed poorly?

□ Yes □ No

Which species, and can you say why?……………………………………………………………...

14. What are your aims in planting?

□Erosion control □Windbreak □Screen □Firewood □Habitat □Amenity □Biodiversity □Commercial production □Other (please describe)

Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………….

15. Have your aims been met by your plantings? □ Yes □ No

16. Have any of your plantings been affected by natural events or human intervention?

□ Yes □ No Comments ………………………………………………………………………...

17. Have any of these affected seedlings recovered? □ Yes □ No

Comments ………………………………………………………………………………………….

18. Has any regeneration through self seeding begun?

□ Yes □ No If yes, please give details ………………………………………………………….

19. Would you order seedlings through TFL again?

□ Yes □ No If no, why not?……………………………………………………………………..

20. Is there anything else that you’d like to tell us about your revegetation work?

□ Yes □ No Comments …………………………………………………………………………

21. Is there anything else that you’d like to tell us about your experience with Trees For Life?

□ Yes □ No Comments …………………………………………………………………………

22. If you are a recent member how did you hear about Trees For Life?

□ Local Newspaper □ State Newspaper □ Radio □ Event Other……………………………

Appendix B. Example Tree Scheme Volunteer Grower Questionnaire (2012)

Note: the formatting in this questionnaire was altered slightly for publication

1. Who made the first contact? Grower ❒ Landholder ❒ Unsure ❒

2. In which month was the first contact made?

November ❒ December ❒ January ❒ February ❒ March ❒

Don’t know ❒ Other ❒ ………………

3. Approximately how many phone calls, letters or other contacts were made between you and the landholder in this growing season?

1–3 ❒ 4–6 ❒ 7+ ❒ Don’t know ❒

4. Were there significant problems in making or maintaining contact? Yes ❒ No ❒

If Yes, what were the problems? ……………………………

5. Did you get backup stock to make up your order? Yes ❒ No ❒ ………..……………

6. In which month did your landholder receive the seedlings?

March ❒ April ❒ May ❒ June ❒ July ❒ Don’t know ❒ Other ❒ ………………

7. How were the seedlings handed over?

Collected by landholder or delegate ❒ Delivered by grower or delegate ❒

Met halfway ❒ Sent on public transport eg. bus, courier ❒

8. Were you happy with the hand over arrangements? Yes ❒ No ❒

………………………………………….……………………………….……………………

9. Do you feel that the landholder appreciated your growing effort?

Yes ❒ No ❒ Don’t know ❒…………………………………….................……………….

10. Did you help plant the seedlings? Yes ❒ No ❒

11. Do you think that the Growers’ Handbook is clear and comprehensive? Yes ❒ No ❒

………………………………………….……………………………….……………………

12. Were you satisfied with the quality of the seedlings you grew?

Yes ❒ No ❒ Both yes & no ❒

………………………………………….……………………………….……………………

13. What do you like about the Tree Scheme?

Environmental benefits ❒ Well organised ❒ Satisfying ❒

Helping landholders ❒ Other (specify below) ❒

………………………………………….……………………………….……………………

………………………………………….……………………………….……………………

14. What don’t you like about the scheme?

Tube filling ❒ Lifting ❒ Time required ❒ Nothing ❒

Responsibility ❒ Lack of success ❒ Other (specify below)

………………………………………….……………………………….……………………

15. Did you attend a propagation workshop this year? Yes ❒ No ❒ In the past ❒

………………………………………….……………………………….……………………

16. Would you grow seedlings again under this scheme?

Yes ❒ Unsure ❒ No ❒ (If No or Unsure, please tell us the reason)

………………………………………….……………………………….……………………

17. How would you best describe the person/s who were the primary growers?

Individual ❒ Couple ❒ Family ❒ Housemates ❒ Group ❒

18. What age range best describes the primary grower/s?

Under 15 ❒ 15–25 ❒ 26–40 ❒ 41–60 ❒ 61–80 ❒ Over 81 ❒

19. How many years have you been growing for?

1 ❒ 1–5 ❒ 6–10 ❒ 10–15 ❒ 16–20 ❒ Over 21 ❒

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bond, A.J., Saison, C.L.A., Lawley, V.R. et al. Bridging the Urban–Rural Divide Between Ecosystem Service Suppliers and Beneficiaries: Using a Distributed Community Nursery to Support Rural Revegetation. Environmental Management 64, 166–177 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-019-01179-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-019-01179-2

Navigation