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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
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
ABS (1995) Voluntary work Australia 1995. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra
ABS (2007a) Postal Areas (POA) 2006 Digital Boundaries. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra
ABS (2007b) Voluntary work Australia 2006. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra
ABS (2011) Voluntary work Australia 2010. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra
ABS (2014) Regional population growth Australia 2012–13. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra
Asah ST, Blahna DJ (2012) Motivational functionalism and urban conservation stewardship: implications for volunteer involvement. Conserv Lett 5:470–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00263.x
Australian Government (2008) Carbon pollution reduction scheme: Australias low pollution future: white paper. Department of Climate Change, Australian Government, Canberra
Australian Government (2011) National carbon offset standard. Department of the Environment and Energy, Australian Government, Canberra
Australian Government (2014) 20 Million trees programme. Australian Government, Canberra. http://www.nrm.gov.au/national/20-million-trees. Accessed 4 Aug 2016
Australian Government (2016) Green army approved projects. Australian Government, Canberra. http://www.environment.gov.au/land/green-army/projects/approved. Accessed 5 Aug 2016
Bari MA, Schofield NJ (1992) Lowering of a shallow, saline water-table by extensive Eucalypt reforestation. J Hydrol 133:273–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(92)90259-x
Bird PR et al. (1992) The role of shelter in Australia for protecting soils, plants and livestock. Agroforest Syst 20:59–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00055305
Bond AJ, O’Connor PJ, Cavagnaro TR (2018) Who participates in conservation incentive programs? Absentee and group landholders are in the mix. Land Use Policy 72:410–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.067
Bruyere B, Rappe S (2007) Identifying the motivations of environmental volunteers. J Environ Plan Manage 50:503–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640560701402034
Cunningham SC et al. (2015) Reforestation with native mixed-species plantings in a temperate continental climate effectively sequesters and stabilizes carbon within decades. Glob Change Biol 21:1552–1566. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12746
Curtis A, De Lacy T (1996) Landcare in Australia: does it make a difference? J Environ Manage 46:119–137. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1996.0011
Defra (2016) Defra’s Payments for Ecosystem Services Pilot Projects 2012–15 Review of Key Findings. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK Government, London, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/payments-for-ecosystemservices-review-of-pilot-pr
Ezzine-De-Blas D, Wunder S, Ruiz-Pérez M, Del Pilar Moreno-Sanchez R (2016) Global patterns in the implementation of payments for environmental services. PLoS ONE 11(3):e0149847. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149847
Farrington P, Salama RB (1996) Controlling dryland salinity by planting trees in the best hydrogeological setting. Land Degrad Dev 7:183–204
Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68:643–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014
Grepperud S (2007) Environmental voluntary behaviour and crowding-out effects: regulation or laissez-faire? Eur J Law Econ 23:135–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-007-9008-8
Greiner R, Gregg D (2011) Farmers’ intrinsic motivations, barriers to the adoption of conservation practices and effectiveness of policy instruments: empirical evidence from northern Australia. Land Use Policy 28:275–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.06.006
Hajkowicz S (2009) The evolution of Australia’s natural resource management programs: towards improved targeting and evaluation of investments. Land Use Policy 26:471–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.06.004
Havstad KM et al. (2007) Ecological services to and from rangelands of the United States. Ecol Econ 64:261–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.08.005
Higgins O, Shackleton CM (2015) The benefits from and barriers to participation in civic environmental organisations in South Africa. Biodivers Conserv 24:2031–2046. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-015-0924-6
Hunt C (2008) Economy and ecology of emerging markets and credits for bio-sequestered carbon on private land in tropical. Aust Ecol Econ 66:309–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.09.012
Ives CD, Giusti M, Fischer J, Abson DJ, Klaniecki K, Dorninger C, Laudan J, Barthel S, Abernethy P, Martín-López B (2017) Human–nature connection: a multidisciplinary review. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26:106–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.05.005
Jellinek S, Parris KM, Driscoll DA, Dwyer PD (2013) Are incentive programs working? Landowner attitudes to ecological restoration of agricultural landscapes. J Environ Manage 127:69–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.04.034
Kanowski J, Catterall CP (2010) Carbon stocks in above-ground biomass of monoculture plantations, mixed species plantations and environmental restoration plantings in north-east Australia. Ecol Manage Restor 11:119–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2010.00529.x
Kolinjivadi V, Van Hecken G, Almeida DV, Dupras J, Kosoy N (2019) Neoliberal performatives and the ‘making’ of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES). Progr Hum Geogr 43(1):3–25
Kosoy N, Corbera E (2010) Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecol Econ 69(6):1228–1236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.002
Krasny ME, Tidball KG (2012) Civic ecology: a pathway for Earth Stewardship in cities. Front Ecol Environ 10:267–273. https://doi.org/10.1890/110230
Landis DA, Wratten SD, Gurr GM (2000) Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropod pests in agriculture. Annu Rev Entomol 45:175–201. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ento.45.1.175
Lu J, Schuett MA (2014) Examining the relationship between motivation, enduring involvement and volunteer experience: the case of outdoor recreation voluntary associations. Leis Sci 36:68–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400.2014.860791
Martin-Ortega J, Waylen KA (2018) PES what a mess? An analysis of the position of environmental professionals in the conceptual debate on payments for ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 154:218–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.08.001
Measham TG, Barnett GB (2008) Environmental volunteering: motivations, modes and outcomes. Aust Geogr 39:537–552. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049180802419237
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DC
Munro NT, Lindenmayer DB, Fischer J (2007) Faunal response to revegetation in agricultural areas of Australia: a review. Ecol Manage Restor 8:199–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-8903.2007.00368.x
Munro NT, Fischer J, Wood J, Lindenmayer DB (2012) Assessing ecosystem function of restoration plantings in south-eastern Australia. For Ecol Manage 282:36–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2012.06.048
Muradian R, Corbera E, Pascual U, Kosoy N (2010) Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ 69(6):1202–1208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.006
NRM Act (2004) Natural Resources Management Act, vol 2016. Government of South Australia, Adelaide
Pannell DJ, Marshall GR, Barr N, Curtis A, Vanclay F, Wilkinson R (2006) Understanding and promoting adoption of conservation practices by rural landholders. Austr J Exp Agric 46:1407–1424. https://doi.org/10.1071/EA05037
RDA (2015) Adelaide Metropolitan Region. Regional Development Australia Adelaide Metropolitan Incorporated. http://www.rdametroadelaide.com.au/node/25. Accessed 6 Jan 2015
Rode J, Gómez-Baggethun E, Krause T (2015) Motivation crowding by economic incentives in conservation policy: a review of the empirical evidence. Ecol Econ 117:270–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.11.019
Ricketts TH et al. (2008) Landscape effects on crop pollination services: are there general patterns? Ecol Lett 11:499–515. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01157.x
Sakurai R, Kobori H, Nakamura M, Kikuchi T (2015) Factors influencing public participation in conservation activities in urban areas: a case study in Yokohama, Japan. Biol Conserv 184:424–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2015.02.012
Sattler C, Matzdorf B (2013) PES in a nutshell: from definitions and origins to PES in practice—approaches, design process and innovative aspects. Ecosyst Serv 6(0):2–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.09.009
Scherr SJ, McNeely JA (2008) Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability: towards a new paradigm of ‘ecoagriculture’ landscapes. Philos Trans R Soc B 363:477–494. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2165
Seitzinger SP et al. (2012) Planetary stewardship in an urbanizing world: beyond city limits. Ambio 41:787–794. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-012-0353-7
Simmons WO, Emanuele R (2004) Does government spending crowd out donations of time and money? Public Finance Rev 32:498–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/1091142104264364
Smith FP (2008) Who’s planting what, where and why–and who’s paying? An analysis of farmland revegetation in the central wheatbelt of Western Australia. Landsc Urban Plan 86:66–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.12.008
Summers DM, Bryan BA, Nolan M, Hobbs TJ (2015) The costs of reforestation: a spatial model of the costs of establishing environmental and carbon plantings. Land Use Policy 44:110–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.12.002
UN (2014) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision Highlights. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, New York
Van Hecken G, Bastiaensen J, Windey C (2015) Towards a power-sensitive and socially-informed analysis of payments for ecosystem services (PES): addressing the gaps in the current debate. Ecol Econ 120(Issue C):117–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.10.012
Witt GB, Witt KJ, Carter RW, Gordon A (2009) Exploring the city-bush divide’: What do urban people really think of farmers and rural land management? Australasian. J Environ Manage 16:168–180
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
Corresponding author
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
About this article
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
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-019-01179-2