Ecosystem services in new Zealand agro-ecosystems: A literature review

Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecosystem Services journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecoser

Ecosystem services in new Zealand agro-ecosystems: A literature review Marjan van den Belt n, Daniella Blake Ecological Economics Research New Zealand, Massey University, Private Bag 11222, Palmerston North, New Zealand

art ic l e i nf o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 15 October 2013 Received in revised form 8 May 2014 Accepted 19 May 2014

In New Zealand (NZ), literatures on ecosystem services in agro-ecosystems has expanded in recent years as the impact of agriculture on the provision of services to meet public and private demand for ecosystem services are increasingly recognised. We review the NZ literature and analyze the scope of an ecosystem services approach in agro-ecosystems through the lens of four ecosystem service frameworks. Most of the literature is concerned with assessing the benefits that could be gained by changing land management practices. Some research assessed values of ecosystem services to the NZ public. Trade-offs in land-use decisions are highlighted. However, critical gaps in the literature could suggest the impediment of integration of the ecosystem concept into decision-making. The full range of ecosystem services, benefits, and beneficiaries had not been covered, and the scope of research is patchy, i.e. limited in spatial and temporal scale. In addition, there is a need to broaden the scope of research to include social and cultural aspects, and link the supply and demand for ecosystem services. Finally, research on the effectiveness of institutions that use an ecosystem services approach could enable better-informed decisions about trade-offs, including all the costs and benefits, across and between multiple scales. & 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Ecosystem services Agriculture Valuation Participation Biodiversity Adaptive management

Contents 1. 2. 3.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.1. Overview of literature on agro-ecology ecosystem services in NZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2. Overview of the four ecosystem service frameworks used to assess agro-ecology ecosystem services in NZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2.1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.2.2. Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2.3. Haines-Young and Potschin (2010a,b) cascading framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2.4. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3. Other themes linking into the ecosystem services concepts and frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4. Future research suggestions for ecosystem services research in agro-ecosystems in NZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.1. Overcoming fragmentation with a consistent approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.2. Matching supply and demand for ecosystem services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4.3. Participatory approaches beyond monetary valuation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.4. Addressing multiple scales in time and space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 4.5. Institutionalising the ecosystem services concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Appendix A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

n

Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 64 6 356 9099x81512; fax: þ 64 6 350 5789. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (M. van den Belt).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.005 2212-0416/& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: van den Belt, M., Blake, D., Ecosystem services in new Zealand agro-ecosystems: A literature review. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.005i

e2

M. van den Belt, D. Blake / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

1. Introduction Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). An ecosystem services framework is one way to highlight and demonstrate societal dependence on ecosystems for well-being; understand the linkages between biophysical structures, functions, and the resulting benefits people gain; assess and quantify the value of benefits in a common language; and fully integrate values of natural capital and ecosystem services into public and private decision-making (e.g. Daily et al., 2009; TEEB, 2010; Braat and de Groot, 2012). The Oxford Dictionary defines a framework as ‘a basic structure underlying a system, concept, or text’. Several recently developed frameworks reflect on an ecosystem services approach and its underlying connection between natural and human systems. In essence, the ecosystem services concept highlights the dependency of human well-being on ecosystems. However, underlying worldviews on how human systems relate to ecosystems are particularly evident in the definitions of ecosystem services, e.g. ecological economists emphasize that human societies are a sub-set of ecosystems and as a consequence assume limited substitutability between built/manufactured and natural capital (van den Belt, 2011; Braat and de Groot, 2012; Daly and Farley, 2010; Farley, 2012). The assessment of ecosystems services is therefore mediated through the human sub-system (Costanza et al., 2014). As a result, some definitions of ecosystem services emphasize the functional aspects of ecosystems from which people derive benefits (Costanza et al., 1997; Daily, 1997), others put more emphasis on their utilitarian aspects and seek conformity with economic accounting (Boyd and Banzhaf, 2007), some emphasize human well-being (Fisher et al., 2009), and yet others emphasize values (TEEB, 2010). Definitions for ecosystem services have evolved into frameworks to structure thinking, develop organizing principles, and build capacity to adaptively make visible and manage sustainable development. Some frameworks have a linear focus (e.g. for the purpose of accounting for ecosystem services), while others emphasize the reciprocity of human systems as a sub-system within ecosystems (e.g. biodiversity and cultural). With this approach there is a need to manage human behaviour actively within the capacity of ecosystems. When using an ecosystem services approach to understand the dependency of human well-being on natural systems, much of the effort goes into making clear existing knowledge from different networks in a cohesive manner for policy and management decisions, as well as systemically developing knowledge about blind spots. The purpose of this literature review is to assess what we do and do not know, from an academic perspective, about the ecosystem services of agro-ecosystems in New Zealand (NZ). The approach used to assess the body of literature identified is through the lens of four ecosystem services frameworks. This way of assessing literature across multiple ecosystem service frameworks can also be used for other bodies of literature. Agro-ecosystems are recognised in the international ecosystem services literature for their potential to contribute to the supply, of provisioning services, and also cultural, regulating and supporting services (Zhang et al., 2007; Power, 2010). How agro-ecosystems contribute to, or impact on, the supply of ecosystem services depends on the management of those systems (Foley et al., 2005). Expansion and intensification of agriculture in New Zealand has accelerated since strong neo-liberal policy reforms were implemented in 1984 (MacLeod and Moller, 2006) and this intensification is projected to continue (Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, 2004); e.g. the irrigation acceleration fund of the NZ Ministry for Primary Industry (2014) has this explicit purpose. Agricultural intensification can have significant

negative impacts on the provision of ecosystem services for private and public use (Tilman et al., 2001, 2002; Foley et al., 2005; Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). To counteract this, ‘ecological intensification’ is proposed. This necessitates the maintenance and enhancement of ecological systems (i.e. natural capital) by implementing more productive and sustainable production systems. The perceived benefits are the savings on inputs into the production system and less harm done to surrounding systems. An emphasis on ecological intensification in relation to agricultural intensification implies having the potential to improve productivity and deliver a number of desirable ecosystem services (UNCTAD, 2013). In NZ as of June 2007, agro-ecosystems accounted for 54.8% of total land area (Statistics New Zealand, 2009). This presents a significant area that could be managed to maintain and enhance the provision of ecosystem services for public and private benefits. In NZ agriculture and the national economy it supports are highly inter-dependent, and impact on natural capital and ecosystem services. Consequently, NZ has seen negative impacts on several ecosystem services as a result of agricultural practices (Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, 2004; Moller et al., 2008). Examples include the lack of provision of water of good quality and sufficient quantity (Ballantine et al., 2010; Schmidt et al., 2009), and the loss of flood and nutrient regulation services for wetlands (Myers et al., 2013). Over the past decade there has been a substantial increase in the number of academic articles referring to the concept of ecosystem services in relation to agricultural land in NZ (Fig. 1). This increase in academic articles led us to investigate how the ecosystem service concept is applied in academic literature with regard to agro-ecosystems. We provide an overview of this growing body of literature through the lens of four ecosystem services frameworks developed over the past decade. To our knowledge no comprehensive review of journal-based literature has been carried out for agro-ecosystems in NZ, although a recent assessment of local ecosystem services in (Dymond, 2013) has provided an overview of various ecosystems and their services, with an emphasis on resource management. Literature reviews have been carried out on the state of ecosystem service research and application in Latin America (Balvanera et al., 2012), China (Zhang et al., 2010), and the United States and Canada (Molnar and Kubiszewski, 2012). A general quantitative review of ecosystem service studies was also carried out by Seppelt et al. (2011). These reviews conclude that in the last two decades the science of assessment and valuation of ecosystem services has expanded rapidly in the United States, Canada, China, and Latin America, with some important shortcomings. These reviews conclude:

 In the United States and Canada solutions for accounting for



ecosystem services have been mainly reached through adaptation of existing corporate and government policies. While the main Payments for Ecosystem Services schemes include wetland mitigation and water quality trading programmes, the focus has been on easily valued or marketable services. The authors recommend that new policies are needed so that accounting for ecosystem services are systematically included in decision-making (Molnar and Kubiszewski, 2012). Balvanera et al. (2012) conclude that in Latin America there is an imbalance in the attention paid to individual services, with some ecosystem services receiving more research attention than others. There is high variation in the availability of information about ecosystem research and in the amount of ecosystem research undertaken in various Latin American countries. This review showed that trade-offs exist between agricultural products, maintenance of ecosystem services, and

Please cite this article as: van den Belt, M., Blake, D., Ecosystem services in new Zealand agro-ecosystems: A literature review. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.005i

M. van den Belt, D. Blake / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

e3

16

Number of publications

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0 2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Year Fig. 1. Number of journal articles using the term ‘ecosystem services’ in agro-ecosystems in NZ.





livelihoods. The authors recommend that further research needs to assess supply, delivery and values (social and economic), and take into account the needs of the diverse populations of Latin America. Trade-offs and future scenarios should be a research priority. In China, ecosystem services research has covered many ecosystems at various scales. However, for valuation challenges remain – recognition of relationship between ecosystem structure and function; reliability of foreign valuation standards; selection of evaluation indicators; spatial heterogeneity in ecosystem functions; and the application of values in ecosystem management (Zhang et al., 2010). Seppelt et al. (2011)'s quantitative review concludes that many ecosystem service studies do not report methodology sufficiently and there is a need to standardize the reporting of these studies. There is a need for more research on biophysical realism of ecosystem data and models, consideration of local trade-offs, recognition of off-site effects, and comprehensive involvement of stakeholders within assessment studies.

The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the literature concerning ecosystem services in agro-ecosystems in NZ, through the lens of multiple ecosystem services frameworks and canvas research priorities. We focus on agro-ecosystems, recognising that this land use exists within a continuum from urban to agroecosystems to conservation landscapes extending to seascapes. We choose to focus on agro-ecosystems for the following reasons: (1) it has been recognised that ecosystem services in agro-ecosystems have been assigned lower values than other ecosystems, partly because of a lack of data (Porter et al., 2009), thus it is useful to summarize what has been learnt from the NZ agro-ecosystem context as a contribution to global understanding; (2) agroecosystems in NZ, as elsewhere in the world, represent the largest engineered ecosystem (Zhang et al., 2007) and thus have the potential for a large negative or positive impact on ecosystem service provision at multiple scales, depending on how they are managed; and finally (3) review of the agro-ecosystem through multiple frameworks may help connect this sector and other sectors with land use in the future. First, we present the method used to retrieve and select articles. Then we describe the ecosystem services frameworks used to assess the focus of the NZ-based ecosystem services

literature. Research gaps are identified and discussed. Last, we explore the implications of these findings for policy and decisionmaking, consider the gaps in the knowledge, and offer suggestions for future research.

2. Methods The study of the NZ based ecosystem services literature was carried out through a search in Scopus, Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, Science Direct, and NZ Science using the search terms “ecosystem services” þ“New Zealand” with no date limit. Subsequent searches included the terms “agricultur*”. The search term “agriculturn” was replaced by the following in further searches: “forestn”, “horticulture”, “crop”, “grassland”, “pasture”, “vegetable”, “fruit”, “livestock”. Once doubles had been removed, this provided 147 results (Accessed between 9 August 2013 and 1 April 2014). Articles were selected for the review on the following criteria: (1) specific reference to ecosystem services; (2) specific reference to agricultural land and forestry, including the different types of land uses as listed above; and (3) a specific focus on NZ. Articles that reviewed papers already selected were excluded. These steps resulted in 58 articles for review. The electronic databases searched include serial publications such as journals, book series, and some conference materials. Thus our selected case studies do not include grey literature, such as book chapters, PhD and Masters theses, or commissioned reports (e.g. Barry et al., 2012). Articles that refer to individual ecosystem services, such as ‘pollination’ or ‘biological control’, without using the term ‘ecosystem services’ have not shown up in our results. Because of our focus on agro-ecosystems, literature pertaining to other NZ ecosystems and their services has not been included (e.g.Townsend et al., 2011). While we acknowledge the contribution of this ecosystem service-oriented, NZ-based literature, it is outside the scope of this review. Research carried out by NZ-based researchers, but which does not focus on New Zealand agroecosystems has not been included. Several ecosystem service frameworks have been recently developed. We have elected to review the results of our literature search for NZ agro-ecosystems using four of the more well-known frameworks. First, is the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), which closely follows the ecosystem services typology of Costanza et al. (1997) and

Please cite this article as: van den Belt, M., Blake, D., Ecosystem services in new Zealand agro-ecosystems: A literature review. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.005i

M. van den Belt, D. Blake / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

e4

Daily (1997). Second, we present our findings based on the Ecosystem Service Partnership (ESP) (www.esp.org) framework, which allows us to view the topic of agro-ecology ecosystem services in NZ via ‘themes’. Third, we review the body of literature through the Haines-Young & Potschin (2010a,b) framework. This framework is relevant as it aligns closely with the evolving United Nations System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (United Nations, 2014) and aims to achieve consistent classification systems and accounting principles (Boyd & Banzhaf, 2007). Last, we view the 58 articles through the lens of ‘The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity’ (TEEB) framework, which works toward capturing values and providing incentives for improved decision making.

3. Results 3.1. Overview of literature on agro-ecology ecosystem services in NZ The substantial increase since 2004 in the number of academic articles referring to the concept of ecosystem services in relation to agro-ecosystems in NZ is illustrated in Fig. 1. However, how the ecosystem services concept is used, varies widely across articles. Of the 58 articles, only 5 explicitly provide a definition of the concept ecosystem services; 53 use the term ecosystem services without a definition. Six articles refer to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) framework; one article refers to Dominati et al. (2010). The 51 other articles do not refer to a specific classification system or definition. Of the 58 studies, some authors (Halloy et al., 2000; Abell et al., 2011; Tait et al., 2011; Barratt et al., 2011; Fukuda et al., 2011; Greenslade et al., 2013; Myers et al., 2013) mention ecosystem services indirectly. These articles do not explicitly consider ecosystem services in their study but refer to other authors who do. For example, Fukuda et al. (2011) measure invertebrate abundance and diversity, and imply that these invertebrates are important for their contribution to ecosystem services but do not assess, quantify or value any ecosystem services directly. The fragmented rather than bundled manner in which various ecosystem service are addressed becomes clear in Fig. 2, as most articles (19) report on one single ecosystem service and only one article conceptually addresses 22 ecosystem services. Alternatively, most studies covered a limited number (between 1 and 5)

of ecosystem services. Only 8 studies considered more than 6 ecosystem services. The next step is to gain an understanding of how this body of agroecosystem service literature is evolving. We have done this by categorising the literature using four different ecosystem services frameworks. Appendix A lists all articles and their key focus, land use, and scale. The numbering of the articles in Appendix A is used in the subsequent analysis of the four frameworks.

3.2. Overview of the four ecosystem service frameworks used to assess agro-ecology ecosystem services in NZ 3.2.1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) is well-known in part due to the large number of scientists involved (over 1300) in putting this framework together over a period of four years (2001–2005) under the auspices of the United Nations. This framework delivers a high level classification of ecosystem services, i.e. provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services (Fig. 3). Table 1 illustrates the biomes of interest, in this case, agroecosystem land uses (i.e. pasture, dairy, arable land and vegetables, kiwi and apple orchards, vineyards, forest and afforestation) in relation to these generic ecosystem services. The areas with numbers refer to the references found as part of our search, corresponding to Appendix A. Where the areas in the matrix are blank no literature is currently available; fifty per cent of our matrix is currently blank. However, the blank areas are of interest either directly (e.g. sooner) or indirectly (e.g. later and when relating agro-ecosystem to neighbouring biomes and land uses). In other words, the blank areas represent topics that are likely to gain importance when multi-scale integrated approaches are developed. The challenge with filling in Table 1 is that terminology is used inconsistently. Therefore, we made some generalisations: Natural habitat provision, shelter belts and biological control are included under ‘genetic resources’; Air quality is listed under ‘climate regulation'; Disturbance regulation and flood protection are clustered under ‘water regulation'; waste treatment comes under ‘water purification’; Sediment capture and the mitigating of soil erosion come under ‘soil formation’. Gas regulation is included under ‘biogeochemical processes'.

20 18

Number of articles

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

1

2

3 4 5 6 8 9 12 14 15 19 Number of ecosystem services considered in each article

22

Fig. 2. Frequency of the number of ecosystem services mentioned or studied in the articles analysed. Three articles did not mention specific ecosystem services and they have not been included.

Please cite this article as: van den Belt, M., Blake, D., Ecosystem services in new Zealand agro-ecosystems: A literature review. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.005i

M. van den Belt, D. Blake / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

e5

Fig. 3. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment framework (2005), featuring 20 ecosystem services that contribute to human well-being.

Table 1 also shows the total number of studies mentioning or studying each ecosystem service (columns) and the number of articles related to each land use (rows). Much of the attention was given to regulating and supporting services for water purification/ regulation, soil formation and retention, carbon sequestration/ climate regulation and genetic resources/biological control. It is of interest that the provisioning services (e.g. food, fuel, fibre) are not strongly emphasized, which may indicate that the ecosystem services terminology is currently used to frame non-market arguments concerning food production and its economic value. There is ample room to fill in the blanks in the academic literature, especially toward the cultural ecosystem services. We found no evidence in the academic literature on ecosystem services of agro-ecosystems in NZ that a link with well-being (as shown in Fig. 3) has been explicitly made. This omission indicates an important strand for future research. In NZ, with its indigenous population (Māori), this connection is extremely relevant.

3.2.2. Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP) The Ecosystem Service Partnership (ESP) (www.esp.org) allows its partners/members and other users of the ESP website to approach the ecosystem services concept from the perspective of (1) biomes, (2) sectors, (3) regional/national geography and (4) themes. The organization of the ESP website is considered a framework as it represents the various work streams pursued by scientists and practitioners in this field. Following the ESP framework, which is largely self-organizing, our review addresses the biomes of ‘rural and cultivated landscapes’ and ‘forests’. As with Section 3.2.1, we sub-divided this biome into pasture, dairy, arable land and vegetables, kiwi and apple orchards, vineyards, forest and afforestation, as those were the land uses where the literature reported on the use of the ecosystem services concept. It is noted that ‘forestry’ is a separate biome in the ESP framework. The ESP sector working groups also include ‘agro-ecology’; however, no literature is cited under this link (accessed on 1 April 2014). Oceania as a region has a New Zealand chapter; the short publication list for Oceania has one reference included in this literature review (accessed on 1 April 2014). The thematic working groups provide a relevant framework to structure our literature review. The ESP themes are listed in Table 2. Of the 12 themes (and 6 additional sub-themes), 9 themes provided useful categories for the academic literature we retrieved from the various databases. Some articles were not possible

to classify using this framework (17, 19, 24, 27, 40, 41, 48) while others appear under multiple themes. In the ESP framework, theme 9, Application of ecosystem services in planning and management, aims to understand the implication of the ecosystem service concept into land planning, management, governance and decision-making. However, in NZ the concept of ecosystem services has not been explicitly integrated into decision-making and thus the articles classified in this theme do not review case studies of ecosystem services integration in practice. Instead, the 28 articles classified in this theme consider one of the key questions outlined by the ESP working group for this theme: ‘What are the potential impacts of alternative planning proposals and management measures on ES demand and supply’. These articles are primarily concerned with the issues of farm-scale, land management decisions, and their implication for service supply. As shown in Table 2, the majority of articles mentioning ecosystem services in agro-ecosystems are concerned with planning and management, followed by monetary valuation, quantifying and modelling the effects of land-use change and land management decisions on the provision of ecosystem services including potential trade-offs. Following is a discussion of the NZ agro-ecosystem literature guided by the ESP framework. 3.2.2.1. Ecosystem service assessment frameworks and typologies. One article addresses the need for a ‘best practice’ approach when implementing the concept of ecosystem services. Dominati et al. (2014) develop a methodology, based on the framework of Dominati et al. (2010), to quantify and value 14 soil ecosystem services provided on land under dairy management. The proxies used are based on soil capacity to generate flows from natural capital stocks, thus extending from previous studies which were mainly concerned with the status of natural capital stocks. The results show that the total value of services under dairy management is between $12,207 and $22,282 per hectare per year, with the services of filtering of nutrients and contaminants of the highest value.

3.2.2.2. Biodiversity and ecosystem services. Five articles contribute towards better understanding of the relationship between biodiversity and other ecosystem properties with ecosystem services. Ecosystem functioning is emphasized. Hahner et al. (2014) investigates the

Please cite this article as: van den Belt, M., Blake, D., Ecosystem services in new Zealand agro-ecosystems: A literature review. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.005i

e6

Food

Fresh water

Fuelwood Fibre

Pasture Dairy Arable land and vegetables Kiwi and apple orchards Vineyards

37 20 43, 44 17 9

1, 8, 10, 11, 48 7, 29 13, 14

20 43

17 9, 12

Forest and afforestation Multiple

4, 21 55, 56

3,4, 21,22, 58 12, 16, 38,49, 50, 55, 56

Total

10

32

32

43

43, 44, 51

Total

6

and number of articles related to each land use (rows) b.

Biochemicals Genetic resources

13

4, 58

6 Aesthetic

18, 21 38, 55

b

58

24 3 Recreation and ecotourism

Pasture Dairy Arable land and vegetables Kiwi and apple orchards Vineyards Forest and afforestation Multiple

a

20 43, 44 17

a

1 Inspirational

Climate regulation

Water regulation

Water purification

27, 34, 37 7,20, 25 13, 39, 43, 44, 45

8, 46, 47, 57 7,20 13, 15, 43, 44, 51

8, 46, 47, 48 7, 20 13,14, 43, 44, 51

2,48, 52, 57 20, 29, 49, 50 13

35,53 5,9, 23, 24, 26, 28, 30, 31, 33, 54 3, 4,21, 58 36, 56

17 9

29 Educational

3,4, 21,22, 37, 58 16,38, 42, 49 55, 56

2

0

13, 40, 41, 43, 44

3, 4 12, 38,49, 55

58 38,42, 49, 55

5 Nutrient cycling

1 Primary production

6

34, 46, 47, 57

34

13, 43, 44, 45, 51

13, 43, 44, 45

43

38, 55

5 3,4,21,22, 37 19, 20, 42, 49

37 16, 42, 55, 56

3

17

13

43

0

32

16 Soil formation

9

4

Spiritual and religious

2, 17

25 17 Sense of place Cultural heritage

38

Pollination

2

Article 6 is excluded, as it does not refer to any specific ecosystem services. As multiple land uses refer to a whole catchment or where the article referred simply to ‘agricultural’ without further definition, some articles show up under ‘multiple' and other land uses, e.g. ‘number 20’.

Total 17 6 10 4 11 7 11

M. van den Belt, D. Blake / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

Please cite this article as: van den Belt, M., Blake, D., Ecosystem services in new Zealand agro-ecosystems: A literature review. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.005i

Table 1 Land use and associated ecosystem services, number of articles mentioning each ecosystem service (columns)

M. van den Belt, D. Blake / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

e7

Table 2 ESP themes found among reviewed literature. Thematic working groups of ESP

Number of articles

Articles per Appendix A

1. ES assessment frameworks and typologies 2. Biodiversity and ecosystem services 3. Ecosystem service indicators 4. Mapping ecosystem services 5. Modelling ecosystem services 6. Valuation of ecosystem services 6A. Cultural services and values 6B. Ecosystem services and public health 6C. Economic and monetary valuation 6D. Value integration 7. Ecosystem services in trade-off analysis and project evaluation 8. Ecosystem services and disaster risk reduction 9. Application of ecosystem services in planning and management 9A. Restoring ecosystems and their services

1 5 4 6 13

20 2, 34, 40, 41, 57 2, 36, 46, 47 4, 15, 21, 22, 37, 44 3, 4, 11, 12, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 37, 52, 55, 56

17

7, 8, 9, 13, 18, 20, 21,22, 37, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 50, 51, 58

6 0 28 0

4, 14, 21, 22, 37, 55

10. Co-investment and reward mechanisms for ecosystem services 10A. Ecosystem services and poverty alleviation 11. ES accounting and greening the economy 12. Governance and institutional aspects

0 0 0 3

capacity of a diverse range of native plants to enhance the provision of freshwater and water purification through modifying soil nutrient and trace element mobility in dairy farming systems. Results suggest that riparian planting may lead to the enhancement of freshwater and water purification ecosystem services. The findings of Rader et al. (2012, 2013) provide an overview of the activity patterns of pollinators in vegetable fields, and consequences for the provision of the service of pollination. Aslam et al. (2009) and Wakelin et al. (2013) are concerned with the soil's ability (through microbial activity) to provide the ecosystem services of filtering organic pesticides and biogeochemical cycling (principally nutrient cycling). Both these articles suggest that land management practices have a significant effect on microbial communities associated with effects on litter decomposition and soil carbon sequestration. 3.2.2.3. Ecosystem provision of these ecosystem services. Laliberte and Tylianakis (2012) found that soil resource availability and sheep grazing intensity caused changes in grassland plant functional composition and service indicators. Five articles address the need to develop biodiversity indicators for the delivery of ecosystem services from agricultural systems. Schon et al. (2011, 2012) discuss the development of an indicator linked to soil services for NZ pastoral systems. These studies show that certain soil invertebrate species may be useful as indicator species to determine whether land management practices are impacting negatively or positively on the provision of ecosystem services such as nutrient cycling. Aslam et al. (2009) discuss the use of 3 pesticide filtering indicators linked with soil organic carbon in organic and integrated apple orchards, and in pasture. Soil hydrophobicity, soil organic carbon content, and microbial activity proved to be good indicators for predicting the soil's filtering service. MacLeod et al., 2012b describe a bird monitoring scheme on kiwifruit, sheep and beef, and dairy, which was the first step in a long-term process to develop indicators for monitoring the impact of land-use change.

3.2.2.4. Mapping ecosystem services. Six articles include mapping of the spatial distribution of ecosystem services (Sandhu et al., 2008; Czerepowicz et al., 2012; Dymond et al., 2012a, 2012b;

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 16, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 39, 44, 45, 46, 47, 53, 54, 57

1, 16, 38

Mason et al., 2012; Ausseil et al., 2013). These studies map the supply of ecosystem services based on different land uses and scenarios, mainly at a regional scale. The ecosystem services mapped are climate regulation (carbon sequestration and methane and nitrous oxide emissions), soil retention/regulation of erosion, regulation of water flow, maintenance of clean water, food and fibre production, provision of natural habitat, and biodiversity. Sandhu et al. (2008) extrapolated ecosystem service values from field data to map twelve ecosystem services for the region of Canterbury. Methods used to map ecosystem services include ecological process-based models (Dymond et al., 2012a, 2012b; Ausseil et al., 2013). For example, Ausseil et al. (2013) map the values of six ecosystem service indicators at the national scale by up-scaling ecological process-based models such as CenW. This model integrates factors and processes such as interception of radiation and CO2 uptake, which affect tree growth (Kirschbaum, 1999). 3.2.2.5. Modelling ecosystem services. The ESP framework positions a need for spatial and dynamic modelling tools for ecosystem services. All articles under Section 3.2.2.4 Mapping ecosystem services are a lso included in this Section 3.2.2.5 Modelling ecosystem services. Of the 58 articles reviewed, 13 describe an ecosystem services modelling process (Ausseil et al., 2010, 2013; Clothier et al., 2007, 2008; Czerepowicz et al., 2012; Daigneault et al., 2011; Dominati et al., 2014; Dymond et al., 2012a, 2012b; Mason et al., 2012; Tanner and Kadlec, 2013; van den Belt et al., 2013a, 2013b). These models include the ecological process-based models described in the previous section, system dynamics model built in STELLA™ (van den Belt et al., 2013a, 2013b); simple first-order dynamic model that accounts for hydrology, nitrate concentrations, internal hydraulic efficiency and water temperature (Tanner and Kadlec, 2013); process-based dynamic model, the Soil Plant Atmosphere System Model (SPASMO) (Dominati et al., 2014); a regression model for predicting shelterbelt above-ground biomass based on spatial and spectral attributes extracted for field-sampled shelterbelts (Czerepowicz et al., 2012). 3.2.2.6. Economic and monetary valuation. Valuation of ecosystem services has been a main theme of 17 articles (Baskaran et al., 2009a, 2009b, 2010; Cullen et al., 2004; Dhakal et al., 2012, Dominati et al., 2014, Dymond et al., 2012a, 2012b; Mason et al., 2012; Samarasinghe and Greenhalgh, 2013; Sandhu et al., 2008,

Please cite this article as: van den Belt, M., Blake, D., Ecosystem services in new Zealand agro-ecosystems: A literature review. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.005i

e8

M. van den Belt, D. Blake / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

2010a, b; Tait et al., 2011, 2012; Takatsuka et al., 2009; Yao et al., 2014). This research can be divided between literature that looks at (1) the economic benefits derived from certain ecosystem services in agricultural land using bottom-up, field-based data; (2) economic benefits of land-use change; and (3) assessment of the societal value attributed to the enhancement or stopping of negative impacts on ecosystem services using contingent valuation or choice modelling. First, Sandhu et al. (2008, 2010a,b) use a combination of methods, i.e. market prices, field measurements converted to market prices, avoided costs, and GIS-based extrapolations. They find that arable land in Canterbury provides a range of market and non-market ecosystem services with significant economic value. The total economic value (TEV) of 12 ecosystem services (2 market and 10 non-market) on Canterbury's arable land amounted to around US$ 468 million annually (Sandhu et al., 2008). At farm scale, biological control of pests, soil formation, and the mineralization of plant nutrients were found to contribute a TEV of US $66–538/ha/year in organic fields and US$31–355/ha/year in conventional fields on Canterbury farms (Sandhu et al., 2010a). The value of non-market ecosystem services was significantly higher in organic fields (US$460–5240/ha/yr) compared with conventional fields (US$50–1240/ha/yr). Second, at a national scale spatial models have been used to demonstrate the economic values of land use change: the net environmental benefit, measured as changes in erosion rates, water yield and carbon storage, of afforestation of non-forested areas by exotic forests exceed NZ $400/ha in the North Island and NZ $250 in the South Island (Dymond et al., 2012b). Third, the eliciting of societal values using stated preference methods (choice modelling, contingent valuation) and the benefit transfer method to assess willingness-to-pay has been undertaken for a small number of ecosystem services or attributes from NZ agro-ecosystems (Takatsuka et al., 2009; Baskaran et al., 2009a, 2009b, 2010; Tait et al., 2011, 2012). These studies show that the wider NZ community expects and values the provision, enhancement, and restoration of ecosystem services by the agricultural sector. For example Baskaran et al. (2009a) found that households are willing to pay NZ$14.35 each, on average, for an improved dairy landscape in terms of nonmarketed environmental attributes, such as water quality and quantity. Takatsuka et al. (2009) show that ecosystem services from arable land in NZ are highly valued by the wider community. For a combination of policies that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and nitrate leaching, and increase soil quality and the variety of scenic views, households in Canterbury are willing to pay NZ$245.02 per household; the rest of NZ are willing to pay NZ $209.92 annually. Households linked with wine-growing in the Hawke's Bay value water quality, a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and an increase in natural habitat and biodiversity (Baskaran et al., 2010). These studies indicate that values of ecosystem services are heterogeneous across regions and socio-economic groups. For example, people in Canterbury are more concerned about greenhouse gas emissions than people in other parts of the country, who are more concerned about nitrate leaching (Takatsuka et al., 2009). Baskaran et al. (2010) found heterogeneity in people's preferences regarding the ecosystem services associated with wine growing between two regions of NZ.

use spatially explicit models to simulate the effect of different scenarios. To date they have mainly focused on a few ecosystem services: flood protection, erosion control, carbon sequestration, water yield, agricultural production, and biodiversity. Land management decisions at local, regional, and national level can result in trade-offs between ecosystem services and have wider implications for different agricultural sectors. Modelling infers that while afforestation of hill slopes by Pinus radiata can lead to higher carbon sequestration (than in pasture and compared with indigenous shrubland) and better erosion control, it can also lead to a decrease in water yield at the catchment level (Ausseil and Dymond, 2010; Ausseil et al., 2013) and increased erosion at harvest time (Dymond et al., 2012b). This decrease in water yield could have negative implications for sectors that depend on irrigation further downstream. Other research examines the potential trade-offs between agricultural production and the services of provision of natural habitat (and associated biodiversity benefits) and climate regulation (Dymond et al., 2012a). This study found that there are 2 million hectares of land in NZ where the benefit gained from an increase in biodiversity would outweigh the loss of returns from agricultural production. It was also shown that there are over 700,000 ha of land where carbon storing potential for climate regulation would provide more benefit than pasture, due to limited stock-carrying capacity. Mason et al. (2012) investigated whether a trade-off exists when investment is directed toward mitigating negative impacts of agriculture on ecosystem services, instead of investing in restoration of biodiversity. Biodiversity is used as an intrinsic goal and is not equated to a specific ecosystem service or bundle thereof. They found that when restoration effort was directed towards mitigating the impacts of agriculture on ecosystem services (e.g. reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, soil retention, and provision of quality water), the result was lower biodiversity gains, as measured in terms of representativeness of indigenous vegetation. Attention is drawn to a trade-off between built capital and natural capital in the Manawatū catchment of New Zealand (van den Belt et al., 2013a). The study demonstrates limited substitutability between these capitals with a simple system dynamics model. An ‘investment trap’ is revealed when a reinforcing feedback loop comes into play: tax is invested in human-made flood protection that leads to increased investment in assets behind such protection as the perceived risk is seen to be reduced, which in turn requires more flood protection. A balancing feedback loop, based on investment in natural capital as an essential ecological infrastructure, may be a more effective alternative. Reforestation and restoration of forest and wetlands deliver a slower, but in the long term more cost-effective, service of flood protection compared with human-made flood protection. The ability to make trade-offs between current and future desirable states and ‘time preferences’ for ecosystem services becomes important. Similarly, Currane-Cournane et al. (2014) demonstrate the trade-off being made in the Auckland region due to planning decisions to convert high-class land, good for vegetable production, to urban development. The authors recommend that the value of soil ecosystem services should be taken into account in planning decisions.

3.2.2.7. Ecosystem services in trade-off analysis and project evaluation. Six studies have explicitly analysed possible tradeoffs in the supply of ecosystem services as a result of land management decisions (Ausseil et al., 2013; Currane-Cournane et al., 2014; Dymond et al., 2012a, 2012b; Mason et al., 2012; van den Belt et al., 2013a). With one exception, all these studies

3.2.2.8. Application of ecosystem services in planning and management. Almost half the articles (28) deal with the potential or observed impacts of alternative land management measures and agricultural practices on the supply of ecosystem services. These can be divided amongst articles that look at:

Please cite this article as: van den Belt, M., Blake, D., Ecosystem services in new Zealand agro-ecosystems: A literature review. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.005i

M. van den Belt, D. Blake / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

(1) the difference between organic and conventional management measures for the provision of ecosystem services (Fukuda et al., 2011; MacLeod et al., 2012a; Navntoft et al., 2009; Sandhu et al., 2010b; Sandhu et al., 2008; Todd et al., 2011). (2) management measures to increase biological control in vineyards, for example by providing food and habitat sources for beneficial species in vineyards (Barnes et al., 2010; Gurr et al., 2005), the use of native plants in vineyards (Tompkins, 2008; Fiedler et al., 2008), the use of cover crops (Jacometti et al., 2007b), management of the understorey (Jacometti et al., 2007a), and the introduction of predator bird species (Kross et al., 2012), (3) afforestation versus pastoral use of land and the effect on the provision of ecosystem services (Ausseil et al., 2010, 2013; Dymond et al., 2012a, 2012b). (4) the effect of agricultural intensification on: provision of freshwater (Caruso et al., 2013), on soil and plant biodiversity (Schon et al., 2011, 2012; Laliberte and Tylianakis, 2012), on soil biogeochemical cycling of nutrients (Wakelin et al., 2013), (5) use of native plants to increase biodiversity (Gillespie and Wratten, 2012) and improve water purification through riparian planting (Hahner et al., 2014), (6) engineering-based remediation and policy instruments for nutrient load reduction to improve water quality (Abell et al., 2011), (7) effects of organic carbon input on soil pesticide filtering capacity (Aslam et al., 2009), (8) effect of introduction of genetically manipulated plants on invertebrates (Barratt et al., 2011). The reviewed articles that consider organic versus conventional management provide evidence that organic management practices have the potential to enhance the provision of certain ecosystem services across different agro-ecosystems. Different types of biological control can be enhanced by organic farming practices (Jacometti et al., 2007a, 2007b; Sandhu et al., 2008, 2010b; Navntoft et al., 2009) and the ecosystem service of shelterbelts and hedges increases significantly in organic fields compared with conventional ones (Sandhu et al., 2008). In other instances there was no difference in the provision of specific ecosystem services in organic fields compared with conventionally farmed fields. It was shown that the services of soil formation and the rate of nutrient mineralization levels were not significantly different between organic and conventional farms in Canterbury (Sandhu et al., 2010b). Importantly, no significant difference was found in the provisioning service of food (yield) between organic and conventional farming. The conclusion reached was that certain ecosystem services compensate for reduced amounts synthetic inputs (Sandhu et al., 2010b). 3.2.2.9. Governance and institutional aspects. Three articles discuss the potential or observed implications of policies on the provision of ecosystem services, although it must be noted that these policies are not formulated using the ecosystem services concept. Daigneault et al. (2011) examine the effect of policies for carbon prices and nutrient reduction caps on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and nutrient loading levels, Abell et al. (2011) discuss four main policy instruments used to decrease diffuse nutrient pollution from pastoral land use, and Myers et al. (2013) examine the effectiveness of policy approaches to prevent damage to wetlands and the ecosystem services they provide. 3.2.3. Haines-Young and Potschin (2010a,b) cascading framework Haines-Young & Potschin (2010a,b) provide a cascading framework from biome, function, service, benefit to value (Fig. 4). This

e9

framework is influenced by two perspectives: (1) the desire to account for ecosystem services and avoid double counting by economists, and (2) the desire to provide an opportunity for natural scientists rapidly to communicate the value of particular ecological structures and processes. With this structure, supporting and cultural ecosystem services are easily ignored, as nonmarket values appear at the end of the cascade. As the flow of ecosystem services portrayed is linear or unidirectional, mimicking a production chain, it implies a ‘trickling down' of natural capital to provide value for people. Appreciated for its simplicity, this framework relies in theory on policy action to correct cumulative pressures – if values are perceived. Such feedback is required to manage people actively to allow natural capital to function and provide essential services and benefits, whether people perceive such values or not. In doing so, this framework shows similarities to the DPSIR (Driver–Pressure–State–Impact– Response) model. In this cascading framework, ecosystem function (or ecological phenomena) determines the capacity of ecosystems to provide ecosystem services and benefits. Ecosystem function takes place regardless of whether anyone wants or needs the service. An example of this is ‘nitrate attenuation’, i.e. the ability of a soil system to break down nitrate, thereby assimilating waste from e.g. dairy farming. Ecosystem service is the portion of ecosystem function that contributes directly or indirectly to human welfare. Welfare gains, in the form of ecosystem benefits flow from ecosystem services. The Haines-Young & Potschin (2010a,b) cascading framework positions the MEA ‘supporting services' in ‘final ecosystem services' to avoid double counting. This allocation has important implications that trace back to underlying worldviews relating to how the human system and welfare is positioned in relation to ecosystems, and the definition ‘natural capital’ used. A more thorough review of the framework is beyond the scope of this article. We proceed to position the body of academic literature from our search alongside this framework (Table 3). Some articles could not be classified using this framework: i.e. 11, 14, 19, 27, and 36. Following the definitions of the cascade framework, biophysical structure and process are the most represented steps in our articles. Ecosystem functions (the next most represented) are related to soil properties, determining the potential capacity to deliver a service, such as soil fertility, water retention and nitrogen attenuation. Though ecosystem services such as food, soil formation, water purification, biodiversity, and protection from disturbances are derived from ecosystem functions, only two studies address this explicitly. No welfare gains in the form of ecosystem benefits were explicitly covered in the articles. These benefits can be viewed through different value perspectives and this is indeed where the emphasis on valuation appears, as in Section 3.2.2.5. Although the definitions and terminology are not very clear (i.e. not yet ready for accounting purposes), this framework reveals that the emphasis in the body of literature reviewed is on the supply of ecosystem services (i.e. biophysical structure and process and ecosystem function). The demand for ecosystem services is expressed via monetary valuation of ecosystem services, not surprising, given that agro-ecosystems are closely aligned with economic activities and associated worldviews. From an agroecosystem perspective, this framework provides an incremental step in the direction of understanding ecosystem services but does not provide a strong foundation to consider non-market, indirect or indigenous values. Considered through this framework, cumulative pressures are largely missing in our body of literature.

3.2.4. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) Following from a United Nations Environment Programme initiative (2007–2010), TEEB has evolved into an international

Please cite this article as: van den Belt, M., Blake, D., Ecosystem services in new Zealand agro-ecosystems: A literature review. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.005i

M. van den Belt, D. Blake / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

e10

Biophysical structure or process (e.g., rural and cultivated: pasture, arable, kiwifruit and vineyards)

Function (e.g., soil fertility, water retention, nitrogen attenuation

Service (e.g., food provisioning, soil formation, water purification, pollination, biodiversity, disturbance protection)

Policy Action

Benefits (e.g., milk, meat, vegetables, fruit, resilience, safety

Cumulative Pressures

Value (e.g., market and non-market or direct and indirect values or western and indigenous values)

Fig. 4. Haines-Young and Potschin (2010a,b) cascading framework, where ecosystem services ‘trickle down' to provide value.

Table 3 Cascading steps identified in reviewed literature. Haines-Young & Potschin (2010a,b)

Number of articles

Articles per Appendix A

Biophysical structure or process Ecosystem function Ecosystem service Ecosystem benefit Ecosystem values Cumulative pressures Policy action

19 16 2 0 15 1 3

3, 4, 5, 6, 15, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 35, 37, 39, 46, 47, 48, 53, 54 2, 10, 12, 17, 24, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 40, 41, 46, 47, 52, 57 20, 56

cross-organization. TEEB has three steps to the management of values that people derive from ecosystems (Fig. 5). In essence, the TEEB framework clusters and links the ESP themes previously discussed into a process suitable for decision support for projects, government, and business. Therefore, we refer to Section 3.2.2 for the evaluation of the agro-ecosystem literature as this applies to the TEEB framework. Of more interest is the research agenda following a TEEB framework application in The Netherlands (TEEB, 2010) and reported on in Braat and de Groot (2012). We reflect on where the NZ body of literature exhibits existing strengths and potential for future research (Table 4). In our opinion, however, pinning this literature against this TEEB-based research agenda omitted the majority of the articles, i.e., 1,2,5,6,10,11,14, 19, 23–31, 33–41, 46– 48, 53, 54, and 57). Reviewing our literature according to this adapted version of TEEB recommendations (Braat and de Groot, 2012), reveals the emphasis on spatial mapping and modelling capacity that is being directed towards assessing ecosystems services in the NZ literature, as presented in Sections 2.2.2.4–5. However, there is room to advance toward multi-scale, integrated and dynamic modelling. Viewed in this manner, valuation and trade-offs (Section 3.2.2.6–7) are again strongly represented; however, the valuation studies included in this review are not ‘models' but carry out choice experiments or assess willingness to pay. Finally, the academic body of literature has not reached into studying governance and institutional changes at multiple scales or development of new institutions to deal with the unique characteristics of an ecosystem services approach. This would also require inclusion of biomes beyond agro-ecosystems.

7, 8, 9, 13, 18, 20, 32, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 50, 51, 58 55 1, 16, 38

3.3. Other themes linking into the ecosystem services concepts and frameworks Independent of the ecosystem services frameworks, the reviewed articles highlighted three management themes: organic farming, enhancement of ecosystem services through management, and impacts from land use (Table 5). As highlighted in the introduction, these management themes are indicative of a continuum between ecological and agricultural intensification, crossing the dependency between natural and human systems that the ecosystem services approach is aiming to highlight. Negative land use and land-use management impacts on ecosystem services dominate this body of literature. Solutions-orientated approaches, such as the enhancement of ecosystem services through management and organic farming, are a minority. Another way to evaluate the literature is from a scale perspective. One of the strengths of an ecosystem service approach is the potential to interlink different scales (Costanza, 2008). Fig. 6 shows that at present the ecosystem services approach is primarily used at a farm level, followed by regional (often catchment) level. Its use at a national level is lagging and an international or global scale connection is currently non-existent. Three articles address multiple scales.

4. Future research suggestions for ecosystem services research in agro-ecosystems in NZ Viewing the agro-ecosystem academic literature in NZ through evolving frameworks gives an overview of the research gaps and potential policy implications. While acknowledging the

Please cite this article as: van den Belt, M., Blake, D., Ecosystem services in new Zealand agro-ecosystems: A literature review. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.005i

M. van den Belt, D. Blake / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

Identify & Assess - Indicators - Mapping - Quantification

Estimate values - Valuation in physical units - Ranking - Valuation in monetary terms

e11

Capture values Incentives - Subsidies - Fiscal - Payments for ES - Policy change • Institutional • Instrumental

Fig. 5. TEEB framework toward capturing values for decision support.

Table 4 TEEB-based research agenda reflected in reviewed literature. Step

Action and research agenda (Braat and de Groot, 2012)—adapted.

Identify and assess

1. Tools to contribute to adequate mapping of land- and sea-scape areas in terms of ecosystem service 2 provision. 2. Tools to contribute to better assessment of spatial and temporal dynamics of service provision, especially 6 in relation to beneficiaries. 3. Models to assess total social value at different geographical scales of bundles of ecosystems services. 0 4. Models to assess consequences of land-use changes for ecosystems services, benefits, and economic 6 value. 1. Valuation and benefit transfer method: Models for easy but correct adjustment of monetary values of 14 ecosystem services when making use of generic and average values for specific situations. 2 2. Relevant ecological knowledge in economic decision-making. Models for applying ecological knowledge about system dynamics (including carrying capacity constraints, non-linearities and boundary effects) in valuation and decision contexts. 3. The relationships between natural capital (ecosystems, biological diversity; stocks) and the ecosystem services 1 (flows). Determine desirable levels of substitution between natural capital and built capital. 1. Natural capital and ecosystem services value in regional planning: Embed mapping, assessment, valuation, 0 and accounting of natural capital and ecosystem services in planning procedures, legal systems and education systems to train professionals in these fields. 2. Payments and compensation for ecosystem services: Inclusion of non-market values in regional planning 0 and investment decisions may take place by extension of market-based (or market-like) schemes of Payments (or compensation) for Ecosystem Services (PES). 3. Trade flow policies based on ecosystem service value: a new WTO Restructure the international markets for 0 goods and services, and subsequently the pricing mechanisms for trade flows, incorporating the real values (including the externalities) of the trade commodities based on ecosystem services accounting.

Estimate and demonstrate

Capture and manage values

Number of articles

Articles per Appendix A

3, 4 15, 20, 21, 22, 55, 56

3, 4, 12, 16, 37, 52 7, 8, 9, 13, 18, 32, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49 50, 51, 58 55, 56

55

Table 5 Management themes using ecosystem services concept. Management themes

Organic farming

Enhancement of ecosystem services through management

Land use and management impacts, or loss of ecosystem services

19, 29

1, 2, 8, 9, 32, 34, 37, 46, 47, 52, 57 7, 20 13, 14, 15, 51 2, 17 9, 26 3, 4, 18, 21, 22, 58 11, 12,16, 38, 49, 50, 55, 56 35

Land use Pasture Dairy Arable and vegetables Kiwi and apple orchards Vineyards Forest and afforestation Multiple Total number of articles

25 39, 43, 44, 45 35, 36, 53 5, 23, 28, 30, 31, 33

8

contributions of the literature to date, the results make apparent the following challenges in the NZ research context: (1) a fragmented use of the ecosystem services concept; (2) a disconnect between assessment of supply and demand for ecosystem

8

services; (3) a need for participatory approaches beyond monetary valuation of stated preferences to facilitate effective implementation of the ecosystem service concept; (4) a lack of dynamic, multiscale research; and (5) a need for research into the institutional

Please cite this article as: van den Belt, M., Blake, D., Ecosystem services in new Zealand agro-ecosystems: A literature review. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.005i

M. van den Belt, D. Blake / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

e12

35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Farm

Regional incl. catchment

National

Multi-scale: farm and regional

Multi-scale: Not specified regional and national

Fig. 6. Number of articles addressing various scales: farm, regional, national, none or and multiple scales.

4.2. Matching supply and demand for ecosystem services

have been no efforts to assess (mis-)matches between ecosystem service supply and non-market demand, in a spatially explicit and integrated manner. Finding a balance between ecosystem service supply and demand is an important step towards sustainable use of ecosystems (Burkhard et al., 2012b; Willemen et al., 2012). Demand for services can come both from on-farm and off-farm, for example, from urban areas (Kroll et al., 2012). This means the ecosystem services approach should be used across the urban-agricultureconservation gradient at multiple scales (i.e. from local to regional, national, and global scale). Spatially explicit, dynamic modelling tools such as Multi-scale Integrated Modelling of Ecosystem Services (MIMES)1 have shown potential for supply and demand assessment, both in New Zealand (www.ifs.org.nz) and overseas (Boumans and Costanza, 2007). Research questions need to include: where in the landscape certain ecosystem services generated by agro-ecosystems are demanded and consumed, how (mis) matches change over time, and who is affected. Fig. 7 illustrates the connection between supply and demand for ecosystem services in a dynamic framework. Fig. 7 provides an integrated framework of how the supply and demand for ES can be interconnected in a causal loop diagram to dynamically ‘identify & assess' and ‘estimate & demonstrate' value changes as per the TEEB research recommendations (Table 4). Natural capital (1) is represented by agro-ecosystems and these biomes supply ecosystem services (2). The majority of the articles in this review focus on this aspect, which is closely aligned with the ecosystems part of the MEA framework. Fig. 7 also illustrates that economic sectors are the beneficiaries of ecosystem service supply (3). Through delivering economic services (4), economic sectors increasingly put pressure on natural capital (5). This step is congruent with the cascading framework. Economic sectors also require/demand ecosystem services (6) to continue these marketbased activities. When the demand for ecosystem services (6) is compared with the supply of ecosystem services (2), there is a gap (7) – either abundance or shortage. This is what we highlight as ‘value' similar to the TEEB framework. Depending on the size and the direction of this ecosystem service gap over time (7), actions (8) can be taken to maintain or enhance natural capital (1) in its ability to supply ecosystem services (2), again congruent with the

The majority of the studies focus on the supply side of ecosystem services. The valuation studies carried out to date provide an initial estimation of the demand for certain nonmarket ecosystem services from agro-ecosystems. However, there

1 The MIMES acronym is currently used to refer to Multi-scale Integrated Modelling for Ecosystem Services, whereas an earlier version of this work used this acronym for Multi-scale integrated Model of the Earth Services.

aspects of the use of ecosystem services in management. We make some suggestions for future research in NZ. 4.1. Overcoming fragmentation with a consistent approach The current use of the concept of ecosystem services in NZ literature is not standardised; authors make use of the ecosystem service concept to differing degrees, and many articles do not provide definitions of what they mean by ecosystem services. This fragmentation can impede understanding and application of this concept by stakeholders and decision-makers and also hamper research efforts. Future efforts in New Zealand would ideally use the concept of ecosystem services and associated terminology in a consistent manner, through providing clear definitions (Dhakal et al., 2010). The use of the concept should be consistent with international standardization efforts such as the evolving guidelines developed under United Nations System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (United Nations, 2014). In part, the fragmentation in NZ literature is due to a focus on individual ecosystem services rather than ‘bundles of services' or a comprehensive accounting system. Understanding the relationships between ecosystem management and bundles of services has been emphasized as a research priority in the international literature (de Groot et al., 2010; Burkhard et al., 2012a; Braat and de Groot, 2012). In the NZ literature reviewed, the number of services considered by each study was low and the most frequent number of ecosystem services assessed per study was ‘one’ (Fig. 2). It is important to consider the full range of services or ‘bundles of ecosystem services’. This can lead to the identification of ‘win–win’ scenarios between marketed and non-marketed services from agro-ecosystems (e.g. Porter et al., 2009). In the NZ literature there is evidence of possible win–win scenarios in organically managed agro-ecosystems (e.g. Sandhu et al., 2010b). More research is needed to evidence how multiple ecosystem services can be supplied within and across landscapes. The concepts of ‘jointness in production’ (Wossink and Swinton, 2007) or multi-functional landscapes (Crossman and Bryan, 2009) will be useful.

Please cite this article as: van den Belt, M., Blake, D., Ecosystem services in new Zealand agro-ecosystems: A literature review. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.005i

M. van den Belt, D. Blake / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

(1) Natural Capital: Agro-ecosystems

O (5) Pressures

S S

(8) Actions

S S S

(2) Supply of ecosystem services

? (7) Ecosystem service values: gap ? (6) Demand for ecosystem services S

(9) Non-market (4) Economic demand: Culture, (3)Economic services S health, other species sectors S Fig. 7. Causal loop diagram illustrating value of ecosystem services through relative supply and demand of ecosystem services derived from natural capital, emphasizing both market and non-market demand. S ¼ same, i.e. the connection moves in the same direction. O ¼opposite, i.e. the connection moves in the opposite direction.?¼ unknown, where direction depends on a relative direction. (Adapted from van den Belt et al., 2013c; van den Belt and Cole, 2014).

TEEB framework. The demand for ecosystem services (6) is greater when the non-market demand for ecosystem services (9) is also included; it was clear from our review that cultural ecosystems services and non-market values are underrepresented in this body of literature. Where benefits from ecosystem services are perceived, non-market values (9) can be revealed, stated or calculated through TEV case studies. Currently, we have a better understanding of natural capital (1) and ecosystem service supply (2) than ecosystem service demand (6), which is in part determined by people's perceptions. The demand is likely to be much larger than is currently perceived or can be perceived through non-market assessments. The perception of the gap between supply and demand of ecosystem services (7) should ideally become the focus of participatory processes and governance (see TEEB recommendation for capturing and managing value) through adaptive management. The primary message from Fig. 7 is the importance of a strong ‘feedback loop’ between supply and demand of ecosystem services. In addition, value is not necessarily mediated through a market. Supply and demand of (often invisible) ecosystem services need to be assessed relative to each other rather than in an absolute manner. At a framework level the importance of feedback loops is often stressed (e.g. TEEB, 2010; Braat and de Groot, 2012). However, this is not often implemented in applications or historically reflected on, due to the relatively recent introduction of the ecosystem service concept. The dynamic framework emphasizes the importance of systems thinking, especially across time and geographic scales. This contrasts with the focus of the literature reviewed where benefits perceived (and possibly valued) are a subset of seemingly unconnected ecosystem services considered on a short-term or incremental provisioning basis. Having the ability to take into account feedback loops and time delays provides an additional window into trade-off needs at longer time frames and larger geographic scales. The ecosystem services concept inherently requires interaction between natural and social sciences and many different sub-disciplines and has the scope to be an organizing principle. 4.3. Participatory approaches beyond monetary valuation In New Zealand, as elsewhere (Paetzold et al., 2010; Burkhard et al., 2012b), demand for ecosystem services is less wellunderstood than is the supply of ecosystems services. Often, understanding of demand is attempted through total economic valuation (e.g. use and non-use values). Valuation methods used in the NZ agro-ecosystem literature to date are limited to stated

e13

preference approaches and an experimental ‘bottom–up’ approach to estimate economic value of ecosystem services based on field data. The limitations of stated preference approaches for valuation have been noted (TEEB, 2010). The social sciences can make important contributions to the understanding and defining of demand profiles for ecosystem services. Demand may differ between various ethnic, socio-economic, cultural, and spiritual groups, as well as between private (in this case agri-business) and public perspectives (Zhang et al., 2007; Paetzold et al., 2010; Ribaudo et al., 2010; Chan et al., 2012). The limitations of TEV show clearly in the case of ‘cultural and spiritual ecosystem services'. Cultural values are difficult to express in monetary terms, and it may be inappropriate to do so. Therefore, they are often excluded from ecosystem service assessments (Chan et al., 2012). NZ has a rich, but often grey, literature base of Māori and multi-cultural values not connected to the ecosystem service approach. There is potential to do this and contribute to the co-creation of multi-cultural solutions, coinvestment and social enterprises in a way that coordinates the future demand and supply of ecosystem services. Surveys can be used to elicit demand profiles (beyond willingness to pay) to provide knowledge about groups. Increasingly, participatory processes are used to establish demand profiles for ecosystem services and co-create knowledge with groups (Lopes and Videira, 2013; van den Belt et al., 2013b). 4.4. Addressing multiple scales in time and space Ecosystem services from agro-ecosystems are supplied and demanded at multiple geographic scales, from local to regional/ catchment to national and even global scales (Zhang et al., 2007). Supply and demand is also heterogeneous across time (Hein et al., 2006; Costanza, 2008; de Groot et al., 2010). For this reason, ecosystem service supply and demand must be analysed spatially across a landscape and at multiple scales. Integrated assessment models are being used increasingly to characterize the state of complex ‘socio-cultural-economic-ecological' systems, and as a method to organize and explore the future under alternative ‘scenarios' at multiple scales; e.g. MIMES (Boumans and Costanza, 2007; and www.ifs.org.nz). As acknowledged by some authors (Dymond et al., 2012b; Ausseil et al., 2013), the temporal and spatial variation has not often been fully taken into account. While observation-based studies contribute important insights, they often lack adequate time series. The statistics-based modelling approaches used have not dynamically captured changes in ecosystem service provision over time. 4.5. Institutionalising the ecosystem services concept In order to manage land for the maintenance and provision of ecosystem services it is important that there are institutions with the ability to act at and across appropriate temporal and spatial scales (Zhang et al., 2007). In the literature reviewed the institutional aspect of managing natural capital and ecosystem services in agro-ecosystems has seldom been addressed. Our review indicates that to date NZ has not institutionalized the ecosystem services concept in a cohesive manner in its resource management or policy. In this respect the country lags, compared with outcomes from reviews carried out elsewhere, for example, in China, Latin America and USA, where initiatives such as ‘payments for ecosystem services' have become increasingly common (Zhang et al., 2010; Balvanera et al., 2012; Molnar and Kubiszewski, 2012). Initiatives to manage the negative impacts of agriculture on the NZ environment have been implemented in recent decades at national, regional, and farm level. While some of these initiatives

Please cite this article as: van den Belt, M., Blake, D., Ecosystem services in new Zealand agro-ecosystems: A literature review. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.005i

M. van den Belt, D. Blake / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

e14

resemble a ‘payments for ecosystem services (PES)’ approach, they do not explicitly draw on the ecosystems framework. For example, the Sustainable Land Use Initiative in the Manawatu catchment resembles a PES approach, where urban tax payers directly fund erosion control measures by farmers on highly erodible hills (Horizons Regional Council, 2007). Such initiatives generally focus on one service, such as erosion control, with water quality and biodiversity as secondary achievements. Structuring natural resource management initiatives through the ecosystem service concept could provide a way to consider multiple benefits, which has been shown to be more cost-effective (Crossman and Bryan, 2009). It could also provide a common language at the science– policy interface (Granek et al., 2010). There is a need for research into how institutions can take into account the issue of public versus private demand for ecosystem services (Goldman et al., 2007; Fisher et al., 2009). Most of the ecosystem services impacted by agro-ecosystems are in fact ‘demanded' by societal groups (outside the markets), and are derived from ‘common assets'. Effective management of common assets potentially requires new institutions (Farley and Costanza, 2010). There are signs that the NZ private sector recognizes the importance of ecosystem services (SBC, 2012). However, our literature review shows no evidence that research into the agro-ecosystem business sector in NZ has generated a link to the ecosystem services concept. Developing a consistent methodology to account for and report ‘return on investment’ from the natural capital used in agroecosystems and evaluation would complement the existing NZ based ecosystem services literature (van den Belt and Blake, 2013). In international literature there does not appear to be a consensus on the way ecosystem services priorities and challenges are defined. The recently published System of EnvironmentalEconomic Accounting 2012: Central Framework (United Nations, 2014) may help develop a more coherent international agenda. It is important to develop a NZ-relevant ecosystem service approach; however, this should also be aligned with international initiatives. Efforts to build adaptive capacity for institutions and the capability to deal with the complexities of the ecosystem service concept are crucial.

in the agro-ecosystem literature in NZ, and the scope and character of this body of research remains fragmented and diverse. Review through the lens of 4 frameworks (MEA, ESP, HainesYoung & Potschin, and TEEB) provide insights into the current strengths of this body of literature, as well as the research gaps. MEA assists with an overview of ecosystem services, but we could not establish a link with well-being. ESP emphasizes themes including ‘mapping', ‘modelling’, ‘planning and management’ and ‘monetary valuation’ where this body of literature exhibits strengths, while cultural values, risk and disaster, governance and institutional aspects have not yet linked into this space. While the cascading Haines-Young and Potschin framework prepares us for an accounting framework, the fragmented use of the ecosystem service terminology and scope leaves a gap to be filled. In addition, the feedback through cumulative pressures and ‘policy action’ is weak. On the other hand, TEEB is primarily focussed on enabling action and guides toward implementation. To sustain an interest in pursuing the full potential of the ecosystem services approach as an organizing principle, the next generation of NZ research in this area could benefit from a multiscale, integrated approach in both research and applications. Matching supply and demand of ecosystem services over time and space seems crucial for effective management. Furthermore, we argue that for this literature to continue making a contribution towards reaching the full potential of the ecosystem services paradigm, a visible connection to decision-making within and across institutions needs to be demonstrated. This should be supported by a comprehensive research strategy.

Acknowledgements This research was funded by the New Zealand Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment (Integrated Freshwater Solutions: MAUX1002). Thanks to Vicky Forgie for helpful suggestions. Constructive feedback from two anonymous reviewers led to significant improvements. We appreciate Anne Austin for copy editing.

5. Conclusion Appendix A This review of 58 recent articles suggests the ecosystem services concept has a pluralistic interpretation and application

See Table A1.

Table A1 Numbered list of reviewed literature on agro-ecosystems in New Zealand. Number Publication

Aim of research

Agroecosystem

Scale

1 2

Abell et al. (2011) Aslam et al. (2009).

Describes actions for nutrient load reduction Effect of land management for soil organic carbon on filtering capacity of soil

Regional Farm

3

Ausseil and Dymond (2010) Ausseil et al. (2013)

Impacts of land use change (afforestation) on ecosystem services

Pasture Orchard, pasture Pasture

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Presentation of spatially explicit models for indicators of ecosystem services for rapid evaluation of land-use scenarios Barnes (2010) Land management practices to increase biological control Barratt et al. (2011) Identifying potentially significant effects of stressors (GM) on invertebrate community and the ecosystem services they provide. Baskaran et al. (2009a) Uses choice modelling (CM), to elicit households' willingness to pay (WTP) for improvements in ecosystem service quality. Baskaran et al. Uses choice modelling (CM), to elicit households' willingness to pay (WTP) for improvements in (2009b) ecosystem service quality. Baskaran et al. (2010) Provide values for ES and test methods Caruso et al. (2013) Evaluate impact of agricultural intensification on water pollution levels Clothier et al. (2008) How ES and natural capital value can be used in planning, modelling pollution and implications for policy

Dairy

Regional (Catchment) Regional, farm Farm Not specified Regional

Pasture

National

Vineyard Pasture Multiple

Regional Regional Farm

Pasture Vineyard Pasture

Please cite this article as: van den Belt, M., Blake, D., Ecosystem services in new Zealand agro-ecosystems: A literature review. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.005i

M. van den Belt, D. Blake / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

e15

Table A1 (continued ) Number Publication

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

21

22

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

51 52 53 54 55

Aim of research

Agroecosystem

Clothier et al. (2007)

How models can be used to describe processes in soil-plant-atmosphere systems to better understand Multiple and protect them and ecosystem services Cullen et al. (2004) Describes ecosystem services from New Zealand agro-ecosystems and examines issues in valuation. Arable Curran-Cournane et al. Quantifies the amount of high class land that has been converted for urban use Vegetable (2014) Czerepowicz et al. Method for mapping shelterbelts, and method to estimate carbon quantities Pasture, arable (2012) Daigneault et al. Assess changes in land use, enterprise distribution, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and nutrient Multiple (2011) loading levels, due to policy implementation, using model Deurer et al. (2012) Explanations for the accumulation of soil organic carbon under a wheel track Orchard Dhakal et al. (2012) Examines the current and potential economic value of recreation by users of a New Zealand peri-urban Forest planted forest. Dodd et al. (2008) Reports on stakeholder process to explore a multiple goal approach to the management of North Island Multiple hill and Dominati et al. (2014). Tests the steps required to transform a theoretical natural capital/ecosystem service framework for soils Multiple into an operational model. Each of the services provided by a volcanic soil under a pastoral dairy use are quantified and valued. Dymond et al. (2012a) Assess opportunities for restoring indigenous forest from grassland: biodiversity benefit versus Multiple agricultural production. (Pasture, forest) Dymond et al. (2012b) Assess tradeoffs between the regulation of soil erosion, provision of fresh water, and climate regulation Multiple associated with new Pinus radiata forests in New Zealand (Pasture, forest) Fiedler et al. (2008) Discusses land management to increase biological control Vineyard Frank et al., (2007) Understand the role of predator taxa in pest management (biological control) Vineyard Fukuda et al. (2011) Impact of farming practice (organic) on invertebrate abundance and diversity Dairy Gillespie and Wratten Effect of ES enhancement on biodiversity Vineyard (2012) Greenslade et al. Records of Collembola species in soil Pasture (2013) Gurr et al. (2005) Review conservation biological control work in Australasia Vineyard Dairy Hahner et al. (2014) Investigates whether native endemic plant assemblages (in restoration work) have remediation potential, through modifying soil nutrient and trace element mobility and enhance ecosystem service provision. Jacometti et al., 2007a. Impact of management (mulch) on ecosystem service (biological control) Vineyard Jacometti et al. Impact of cover crop mulch on provision of ecosystem services Vineyard (2007b) Kerr and Swaffield Discusses Q method and choice experiment methods Pasture (2012) Kross et al. (2012) Impact of introduction of predator species on pest bird species Vineyard Laliberte and Effect of land use on biodiversity and effects on ecosystem functions Pasture Tylianakis (2012) MacLeod et al. 2012a Assess difference in bird density between organic and integrated management Kiwifruit orchard MacLeod et al. 2012b Describe a bird monitoring scheme for eventual use as indicator Multiple Mason et al. (2012) Identify spatially where trade-offs most occur between biodiversity gain and agricultural production Pasture

Scale

Farm Regional Regional Farm Regional (Catchment) Farm Regional, farm Regional (Catchment) Farm

National

National

Farm Farm Farm Farm Farm Farm Farm

Farm Farm Regional Farm Farm Farm

Effectiveness of regulation to protect wetlands and ES Effect of farming practices (organic) on seed predation (biological control) Activity patterns of pollinators and impact on pollination services Activity patterns of pollinators and impact on pollination services Apply a hedonic pricing method to assess whether the value of inherent characteristics of natural soil capital stocks are reflected in rural farmland values This paper describes ES associated with arable farming in Canterbury, New Zealand and analyses the results of a survey of farmers' perceptions of these services. Sandhu et al. (2008) Quantifies the TEV of 12 ecosystem services, using experimental approach, comparing organic and conventional. Extrapolates to find value for region, with spatial mapping. Sandhu et al. (2010b) Quantifies 3 key supporting ES associated with highly modified arable landscapes in New Zealand using a novel, experimental ‘bottom-up' approach, comparing conventional and organic Schon et al. (2011) Impact on invertebrates from land management. Schon et al. (2012) Impact on invertebrates from land management. Snelder et al. (2001) Classify rivers based on underlying ecosystem processes for management Tait et al. (2011) Estimates benefits of mitigating agricultural impacts on rivers and streams, using WTP and CE Tait et al. (2012) Employs choice experiment (CE) methodology and spatially related water quality data in a Geographical Information System (GIS) to evaluate the influence of local water quality on respondents' WTP Takatsuka et al. (2009) Uses CVM and choice modelling to estimate values of ES

Multiple Arable Vegetable Vegetable Multiple

Farm Regional (Catchment) national Farm Farm Farm Regional

Arable

Regional

Arable

Regional

Arable

Farm

Pasture Pasture Pastoral Dairy Dairy

Farm Farm Regional Regional Regional

Arable

Tanner and Kadlec (2013) Todd et al. (2011)

Evaluate the influence of influent hydrological regimes on nitrate-N removal performance in surface-flow wetlands. Effect of management state (organic) on taxonomic richness

Pastoral

Regional, National Regional (Catchment) Farm

Tompkins (2008) van den Belt et al. (2013a)

Effect of native plants on biological control Present a model used for system dynamic simulation of natural capital and ES

Myers et al. (2013) Navntoft et al. (2009) Rader et al. (2012) Rader et al. (2013) Samarasinghe and Greenhalgh (2013) Sandhu et al. (2007)

Kiwifruit orchard Vineyard Multiple

Farm Regional (Catchment)

Please cite this article as: van den Belt, M., Blake, D., Ecosystem services in new Zealand agro-ecosystems: A literature review. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.005i

M. van den Belt, D. Blake / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

e16

Table A1 (continued ) Number Publication

Aim of research

Agroecosystem

Scale

56

Describes a mediated modelling process for watershed management

Multiple

Impact of land management on soil microbial communities and functional processes associated with soil biogeochemical cycling (principally nutrient cycling). Present findings from survey data obtained in a discrete choice experiment designed to estimate the non-market values for a proposed biodiversity enhancement programme in New Zealand's planted forests.

Pasture

Regional (Catchment) Farm

Forest

National

57

van den Belt et al. (2013b) Wakelin et al. (2013)

58

Yao et al. (2014)

References Abell, J.M., Hamilton, D.P., Paterson, J., 2011. Reducing the external environmental costs of pastoral farming in New Zealand: experiences from the Te Arawa lakes, Rotorua. Australas. J. Environ. Manage. 18 (3), 139–154. Aslam, T., Deurer, M., Müller, K., Clothier, B.E., Rahman, A., Northcott, G., Ghani, A., 2009. Does an increase in soil organic carbon improve the filtering capacity of aggregated soils for organic pesticides?—A case study. Geoderma 152, 187–193. Ausseil, A.G.E., Dymond, J.R., 2010. Evaluating ecosystem services of afforestation on erosion-prone land: a case study in the Manawatu catchment, New Zealand. In: D.A.Swayne, WY, Voinov, A.A., Rizzoli, A, Filatova, T. (Eds.), International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software. Ottawa, Canada. Ausseil, A.G.E., Dymond, J.R., Kirschbaum, M.U.F., Andrew, R.M., Parfitt, R.L., 2013. Assessment of multiple ecosystem services in New Zealand at the catchment scale. Environ. Model. Softw. 43, 37–48. Ballantine, D., Booker, D., Unwin, M., Snelder, T., 2010. Analysis of national river water quality data for the period 1998–2007. Prepared for Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, NZ (Report CHC2010-038). Balvanera, P., Uriarte, M., Almeida-Leñero, L., Altesor, A., DeClerck, F., Gardner, T., Hall, J., Lara, A., Laterra, P., Peña-Claros, M., Silva Matos, D.M., Vogl, A.L., Romero-Duque, L.P., Arreola, L.F., Caro-Borrero, A.P., Gallego, F., Jain, M., Little, C., de Oliveria Xavier, R., Paruelo, J.M., Peinado, J.E., Poorter, L., Ascarrunz, N., Correa, F., Cunha-Santino, M.B., Hernάndez-Sάnchez, A.P., Vallejos, M, 2012. Ecosystem services research in Latin America: the state of the art. Ecosyst. Serv. 2 (0), 56–70. Barnes, A.M., Wratten, S.D., Sandhu, H.S., 2010. In: Prange, R.K., Bishop, S.D. (Eds.), Harnessing Biodiversity to Improve Vineyard Sustainability. ISHS Acta Horticulturae, p. 873 (Organic Fruit Conference). Barratt, B.I.P., Todd, J.H., Burgess, E.P.J., Malone, L.A., 2011. Developing biosafety risk hypotheses for invertebrates exposed to GM plants using conceptual food webs: a case study with elevated triacylglyceride levels in ryegrass. Environ. Biosaf. Res. 9 (3), 163–179. Barry, L.E., Yao, R., Paragahawewa, U., Harrison, D.R., 2012. Where and how can policy encourage afforestation to avoid soil erosion? 2012 NZARES Conference. Nelson, New Zealand, New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society. Baskaran, R., Cullen, R., Colombo, S., 2009a. Estimating values of environmental impacts of dairy farming in New Zealand. NZ J. Agric. Res. 52 (4), 377–389. Baskaran, R., Cullen, R., Takatsuka, Y., 2009b. Estimating the value of agricultural ecosystem services: a case study of New Zealand pastoral farming. Australas. J. Environ. Manage. 16 (2), 103–112. Baskaran, R., Cullen, R., Colombo, S., 2010. Testing different types of benefit transfer in valuation of ecosystem services: New Zealand winegrowing case studies. Ecol. Econ. 69 (5), 1010–1022. Boumans, R., Costanza, R., 2007. The multiscale integrated Earth Systems model (MIMES): the dynamics, modelling and valuation of ecosystem services, p104– 108. In: Bers, C., Petry, D., Pahl-Wostl, C., (eds.), 2007. Global Assessments: Bridging Scales and Linking to Policy. Report on the joint TIAS-GWSP workshop held at the University of Maryland University College, Adelphi, USA, 10 and 11 May 2007. GWSP Issues in Global Water System Research, No.2. GWSP IPO, Bonn. Available at: 〈www.gwsp.org〉. Boyd, J., Banzhaf, S., 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol. Econ. 63, 616–626. Braat, L.C., de Groot, R., 2012. The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosyst. Serv. 1 (1), 4–15. Burkhard, B., de Groot, R., Costanza, R., Seppelt, R., Jørgensen, S.E., Potschin, M., 2012a. Solutions for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol. Indicators 21 (0), 1–6. Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Nedkov, S., Müller, F., 2012b. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indic. 21 (0), 17–29. Caruso, B., O'Sullivan, A., Faulkner, S., Sherratt, M., Clucas, R., 2013. Agricultural diffuse nutrient pollution transport in a mountain wetland complex. Water Air Soil Pollut. 224 (10), 1. Chan, K.M.A., Guerry, A.D., Balvanera, P., Klain, S., Satterfield, T., Basurto, X., Bostrom, Ann, Chuenpagdee, R., Gould, R., Halpern, B.S., Hannahs, N., Levine, J., Norton, B., Ruckelhaus, M., Rusell, R., Tam, J., Woodside, U., 2012. Where are

cultural and social in ecosystem services? a framework for constructive engagement. BioScience 62 (8), 744–756. Clothier,B.E., Green, S.R. & Deurer, M. (2007) Modelling the soil-plant-atmosphere system: prospects, problems and pitfalls. In Oxley, L. & Kulasiri, D. (eds) MODSIM 2007 International Congress on Modelling and Simulation. Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand, December 2007. Clothier, B., Mackay, A., Mills, T., Parfitt, R., 2008. Natural capital, land-use planning and nutrient issues. NZ J. Forest. 53 (2), 8–10. Crossman, N.D., Bryan, B.A., 2009. Identifying cost-effective hotspots for restoring natural capital and enhancing landscape multifunctionality. Ecol. Econ. 68 (3), 654–668. Cullen, R., Takatsuka, Y., Wilson, M., Wratten, S. D., 2004. Ecosystem services on New Zealand arable farms. Paper presented at the 2004 New Zealand Agricultural and Resource Economics Society (Inc.) Conference. Blenheim, New Zealand. Also published online at AgEcon Search. 〈http://purl.umn.edu/ 97777〉; 〈http://hdl.handle.net/10182/3960〉. Curran-Cournane, F., Vaughan, M., Memon, A., Fredrickson, C.,2014. Trade-offs between high class land and development: Recent and future pressures on Auckland's valuable soil resources, Land Use Policy, Available online 20 March 2014. ISSN 0264-8377, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.02.020. (〈http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837714000489〉). Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., van den Belt, M., 1997. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260. Costanza, R., 2008. Ecosystem services: multiple classification systems are needed. Biol. Conserv. 141 (2), 350–352. Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Sutton, P.C., van der Ploeg, S., Anderson, S, Kubiszewski, I., Farber, S., Turner, K., 2014. Changes in the glogal value of ecosystem services. Glob. Environ. Change 26 (1), 152–158. Czerepowicz, L., Case, B.S., Doscher, C., 2012. Using satellite image data to estimate aboveground shelterbelt carbon stocks across an agricultural landscape. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 156, 142–150. Daigneault, A., Greenhalgh, S., Samarasinghe, O., Sinclair, R., 2011. Estimating cobenefits to New Zealand agricultural climate policy. In: New Zealand Association of Economists Annual Meeting Wellington, New Zealand. Daily, G., 1997. Nature's Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington DC. Daily, G.C., Polasky, S., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Mooney, H.A., Pejchar, L., Ricketts, T.H., Salzman, J., Shallenberger, R., 2009. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front. Ecol. Environ. 7 (1), 21–28. Daly, H., Farley, J., 2010. Ecological Economics: Principles and Applications, 2nd Edition Island Press, Washington, D.C.. Farley, J., 2012. Ecosyst. Serv. Econ. Debate 1 (1), 40–49. de Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., Willemen, L., 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol. Complex. 7 (3), 260–272. Deurer, M., Müller, K., Kim, I., Huh, K.Y., Young, I., Jun, G.I., Clothier, B.E., 2012. Can minor compaction increase soil carbon sequestration? A case study in a soil under a wheel-track in an orchard. Geoderma 183–184, 74–79. Dhakal, B., Yao, R.T., Turner, J.A., Barnard, T., 2010. A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils. Ecol. Econ. 69 (9), 1858–1868. Dhakal, B., Yao, R.T., Turner, J.A., Barnard, T., 2012. Recreational users' willingness to pay and preferences for changes in planted forest features. Forest Policy. Econ. 17 (C), 34–44. Dodd, M.B., Wedderburn, M.E., Parminter, T.G., Thorrold, B.S., Quinn, J.M., 2008. Transformation toward agricultural sustainability in New Zealand hill country pastoral landscapes. Agric. Syst. 98, 95–107. Dominati, E., Patterson, M., MacKay, A., 2010. A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils. Ecol. Econ. 69 (9), 1858–1868. Dominati, E., Mackay, A., Green, S., Patterson, M., 2014. A soil change-based methodology for the quantification and valuation of ecosystem services from agro-ecosystems: A case study of pastoral agriculture in New Zealand. Ecol. Econ.0921-8009100, 119–129, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.02.008 (April 2014) 〈http:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914000445〉.

Please cite this article as: van den Belt, M., Blake, D., Ecosystem services in new Zealand agro-ecosystems: A literature review. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.005i

M. van den Belt, D. Blake / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎ Dymond, J.R., Ausseil, A.G., Kirschbaum, M.U.F., Carswell, F.E., Mason, N.W.H., 2012a. Opportunities for restoring indigenous forest in New Zealand. J. R. Soc. NZ 43 (3), 141–153. Dymond, J.R., Ausseil, A.G.E., Ekanayake, J.C., Kirschbaum, M.U.F., 2012b. Tradeoffs between soil, water, and carbon—A national scale analysis from New Zealand. J. Environ. Manage. 95 (1), 124–131. Dymond, J.R. ed. (2013). Ecosystem Services in New Zealand – Conditions and Trends. Farley, J., Costanza, R., 2010. Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global. Ecol. Econ. 69 (11), 2060–2068. Fiedler, A.K., Landis, D.A., Wratten, S.D., 2008. Maximizing ecosystem services from conservation biological control: the role of habitat management. Biol. Control1049-964445 (2), 254–271, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2007.12.009 〈http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1049964407003210〉. Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., Morling, P., 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 68 (3), 643–653. Foley, J.A., DeFries, R., Asner, G.P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S.R., Chapin, F.S., Coe, M.T., Daily, G.C., Gibbs, H.K., Helkowski, J.H., Holloway, T., Howard, E.A., Kucharik, C.J., Monfreda, C., Patz, J.A., Prentice, I.C., Ramankutty, N., Snyder, P.K., 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science 309 (5734), 570–574. Frank, S.D., Wratten, S.D., Sandhu, H.S., Shrewsbury, P.M., 2007. Video analysis to determine how habitat strata affects predator diversity and predation of Epiphyas postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) in a vineyard. Biol. Control 41 (2), 230–236. Fukuda, Y., Moller, H., Burns, B., 2011. Effects of organic farming, fencing and vegetation origin on spiders and beetles within shelterbelts on dairy farms. NZ J. Agric. Res. 54 (3), 155–176. Gillespie, M., Wratten, S., 2012. The importance of viticultural landscape features and ecosystem service enhancement for native butterflies in New Zealand vineyards. J. Insect Conserv. 16 (1), 13. Goldman, R.L., Thompson, B.H., Daily, G.C., 2007. Institutional incentives for managing the landscape: inducing cooperation for the production of ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 64 (2), 333–343. Granek, E.F., Polasky, S., Kappel, C.V., Reed, D.J., Stoms, D.M., Koch, E.W., Kennedy, C. J., Cramer, L.A., Hacker, S.D., Barbier, E.B., Aswani, S., Ruckelshaus, M., Perillo, G. M.E., Silliman, B.R., Muthiga, N., Bael, D., Wolanski, E., 2010. Ecosystem Services as a common language for coastal ecosystem-based management (Los Servicios del Ecosistema como un Lenguaje Común para el Manejo de Costas Basado en Ecosistemas). Conserv. Biol. 24 (1), 207–216. Greenslade, P., Boyer, S., Wratten, S., 2013. New records of springtails in New Zealand pasture: how well are our pastoral invertebrates known? NZ J. Agric. Res. 56 (2), 93–101. Gurr, G.M., Wratten, S.D., Kehrli, P. Scarratt, S., 2005. Cultural manipulations to enhance biological control in Australia and New Zealand progress and prospects. In: Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Biological Control of Arthropods, pp. 154–166. Hahner, J.L., Robinson, B.H., Hong-Tao, Z., Dickinson, N.M., 2014. The phytoremediation potential of native plants on new zealand dairy farms. Int. J. Phytoremed. 16 (7–8), 719–734, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15226514.2013.856845 (To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15226514.2013.856845). Halloy, S.R.P., Mark, A.F., Dickinson, K.J.M., 2000. Management of New Zealand's terrestrial biodiversity as a complex adaptive system. Complex. Int. 08 (Paper ID: halloy02, URL) 〈http://www.complexity.org.au/ci/vol08/halloy02/〉. Haines-Young, R. & Potschin, M. 2010a. Proposal for a common international classification of ecosystem goods and services (CICES) for integrated environmental and economic accounting. Haines-Young, R. H. & Potschin, M. P. 2010b. The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli, D. & Frid, C. (eds.) Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis. Cambridge University Press. Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R.S., van Ierland, E.C., 2006. Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 57 (2), 209–228. Horizons Regional Council, 2007. Sustainable Land Use Initiative. Horizons Regional Council. Horizons Regional Council, Palmerston North. Jacometti, M.A., Wratten, S.D., Walter, M., 2007a. Management of understorey to reduce the primary inoculum of Botrytis cinerea: Enhancing ecosystem services in vineyards. Biol. Control 1, 57, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2006.10.001. Jacometti, M.A., Wratten, S.D., Walter, M., 2007b. Enhancing ecosystem services in vineyards: using cover crops to decrease botrytis bunch rot severity. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 5 (4), 305–314. Kerr, G.N., Swaffield, S.R., 2012. Identifying cultural service values of a small river in the agricultural landscape of Canterbury, New Zealand, using combined methods. Soc. Nat. Resour. 25 (12), 1330–1339. Kirschbaum, M.U.F., 1999. CenW, a forest growth model with linked carbon, energy, nutrient and water cycles. Ecol. Model. 118 (1), 17–59. Kroll, F., Müller, F., Haase, D., Fohrer, N., 2012. Rural–urban gradient analysis of ecosystem services supply and demand dynamics. Land Use Policy 29 (3), 521–535. Kross, S.M., Tylianakis, J.M., Nelson, X.J., 2012. Effects of introducing threatened falcons into vineyards on abundance of passeriformes and bird damage to grapes. Conserv. Biol. 1, 142, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01756.x/ abstract. Laliberte, E., Tylianakis, J.M., 2012. Cascading effects of long-term land-use changes on plant traits and ecosystem functioning. Ecology 93, 145–155. Lopes, R., Videira, N., 2013. Valuing marine and coastal ecosystem services: an integrated participatory framework. Ocean Coast. Manage. 84 (0), 153–162.

e17

MacLeod, C.J., Moller, H., 2006. Intensification and diversification of New Zealand agriculture since 1960: an evaluation of current indicators of land use change. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 115 (1–4), 201–218. MacLeod, C.J., Blackwell, G., Benge, J., 2012a. Reduced pesticide toxicity and increased woody vegetation cover account for enhanced native bird densities in organic orchards. J. Appl. Ecol. 49 (3), 652–660, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1365-2664.2012.02135.x. MacLeod, C., Blackwell, G. 1,3, Weller, F., Moller, H., 2012b. Designing a bird monitoring scheme for New Zealand's agricultural sectors. NZ J. Ecol. 36 (3) (0-0 Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, New Zealand). Mason, N.W.H., Ausseil, A.G.E., Dymond, J.R., Overton, J.M., Price, R., Carswell, F.E., 2012. Will use of non-biodiversity objectives to select areas for ecological restoration always compromise biodiversity gains? Biol. Conserv. 155, 157–168. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment, Washington, DC. Ministry for Primary Production, 〈http://www.mpi.govt.nz/environment-natural-re sources/funding-programmes/irrigation-acceleration-fund〉 (accessed 1.05.2014). Moller, H., MacLeod, C.J., Haggerty, J., Rosin, C., Blackwell, G., Perley, C., Meadows, S., Weller, F., Gradwohl, M., 2008. Intensification of New Zealand agriculture: Implications for biodiversity. NZ J. Agric. Res., R. Soc. NZ 51, 253–263. Molnar, J.L., Kubiszewski, I., 2012. Managing natural wealth: research and implementation of ecosystem services in the United States and Canada. Ecosyst. Serv. 2 (0), 45–55. Myers, S.C., Clarkson, B.R., Reeves, P.N., Clarkson, B.D., 2013. Wetland management in New Zealand: are current approaches and policies sustaining wetland ecosystems in agricultural landscapes? Ecol. Eng. 56, 107–120. Navntoft, S., Wratten, S.D., Kristensen, K., Esbjerg, P., 2009. Weed seed predation in organic and conventional fields. Biol. Control 49 (1), 11–16. Paetzold, A., Warren, P.H., Maltby, L.L., 2010. A framework for assessing ecological quality based on ecosystem services. Ecol. Complex. 7 (3), 273–281. Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, 2004. Growing for good: intensive farming, sustainability and New Zealand's environment. Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Wellington. Porter, J., Costanza, R., Sandhu, H., Sigsgaard, L., Wratten, S., 2009. The value of producing food, energy, and ecosystem services within an agro-ecosystem. AMBIO: J. Hum. Environ. 38 (4), 186–193. Power, A.G., 2010. Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philos. Trans. Royal S. B: Biol. Sci. 365 (1554), 2959–2971. Rader, R., Howlett, B.G., Cunningham, S.A., Westcott, D.A., Edwards, W., 2012. Spatial and temporal variation in pollinator effectiveness: Do unmanaged insects provide consistent pollination services to mass flowering crops? J. Appl. Ecol. 49 (1), 126–134. Rader, R., Edwards, W., Westcott, D.A., Cunningham, S.A., Howlett, B.G., 2013. Diurnal effectiveness of pollination by bees and flies in agricultural Brassica rapa: implications for ecosystem resilience. Basic Appl. Ecol. 14 (1), 20–27. Ribaudo, M., Greene, C., Hansen, L., Hellerstein, D., 2010. Ecosystem services from agriculture: Steps for expanding markets. Ecol. Econ. 69 (11), 2085–2092. Samarasinghe, O., Greenhalgh, S., 2013. Valuing the soil natural capital: a New Zealand case study. Soil Res. 4, 278. Sandhu, H.S., Wratten, S.D., Cullen, R., 2007. From poachers to gamekeepers: perceptions of farmers towards ecosystem services on arable farmland. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 5 (1), 39–50. Sandhu, H.S., Wratten, S.D., Cullen, R., 2010b. The role of supporting ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable farmland. Ecol. Complex. 7 (3), 302–310. Sandhu, H.S., Wratten, S.D., Cullen, R., 2010a. Organic agriculture and ecosystem services. Environ. Sci. Policy 13 (1), 1–7. Sandhu, H.S., Wratten, S.D., Cullen, R., Case, B., 2008. The future of farming: the value of ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable land. An experimental approach. Ecol. Econ. 64 (4), 835–848. SBC, 2012. Vision 2050 NZ: The Report. Sustainable Business Council, NZ. Schmidt, J., Kienze, S.W., Srinivasan, M.S., 2009. Estimating increased evapotranspiration losses caused by irrigated agriculture as part of the water balance of the orari catchment, Canterbury, New Zealand. J. Hydrol. NZ 48 (2), 73–94. Schon, N.L., Mackay, A.D., Gray, R.A.J., Minor, M.A., 2011. Influence of phosphorus inputs and sheep treading on soil macrofauna and mesofauna in hill pastures. NZ J. Agric. Res. 54 (2), 83–96. Schon, N.L., Mackay, A.D., Minor, M.A., 2012. Relationship between food resource, soil physical condition, and invertebrates in pastoral soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 76 (5), 1644–1654. Seppelt, R., Dormann, C.F., Eppink, F.V., Lautenbach, S., Schmidt, S., 2011. A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J. Appl. Ecol. 48 (3), 630–636. Snelder, T., Biggs, B., Weatherhead, M., 2001. Inclusion of ecosystem concepts in integrated management of river resources. IAHS Publ. 272, 379–386. Statistics New Zealand, 2009. Measuring New Zealand's Progress Using a Sustainable Development Approach: 2008. Statistics New Zealand, Wellington. Tait, P., Baskaran, R., Cullen, R., Bicknell, K., 2011. Valuation of agricultural impacts on rivers and streams using choice modelling: a New Zealand case study. NZ J. Agric. Res. 54 (3), 143–154. Tait, P., Baskaran, R., Cullen, R., Bicknell, K., 2012. Nonmarket valuation of water quality: addressing spatially heterogeneous preferences using GIS and a random parameter logit model. Ecol. Econ. 75, 15–21. Takatsuka, Y., Cullen, R., Wilson, M., Wratten, S., 2009. Using stated preference techniques to value four key ecosystem services on New Zealand arable land. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 7 (4), 279–291.

Please cite this article as: van den Belt, M., Blake, D., Ecosystem services in new Zealand agro-ecosystems: A literature review. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.005i

e18

M. van den Belt, D. Blake / Ecosystem Services ∎ (∎∎∎∎) ∎∎∎–∎∎∎

Tanner, C.C., Kadlec, R.H., 2013. Influence of hydrological regime on wetland attenuation of diffuse agricultural nitrate losses. Ecol. Eng. 56, 79–88. TEEB, 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations. Tilman, D., Fargione, J., Wolff, B., D'Antonio, C., Dobson, A., Howarth, R., Schindler, D., Schlesinger, W.H., Simberloff, D., Swackhamer, D., 2001. Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science 292 (5515), 281–284. Tilman, D., Cassman, K.G., Matson, P.A., Naylor, R., Polasky, S., 2002. Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature 418 (6898), 671–677. Todd, J.H., Malone, L.A., McArdle, B.H., Benge, J., Poulton, J., Thorpe, S., Beggs, J.R., 2011. Invertebrate community richness in New Zealand kiwifruit orchards under organic or integrated pest management. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 141 (1/2), 32–38, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.02.007. Tompkins, J.M., 2008. Endemic New Zealand plants for pest management in vineyards. In: Mason, P.G., Gillespie, D.R., Vincent, C (Eds.), 3rd International Symposium on Biological Control of Arthropods. USDA Forest Service, Christchurch, New Zealand, pp. 234–245. Townsend, M., Thrush, S.F., Carbines, M.J., 2011. Simplifying the complex: an ‘Ecosystem Principles Approach’ to goods and services management in marine coastal ecosystems. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 434, 291–301. UNCTAD, 2013. Trade and Environment Review 2013: Wake up before it is too late. United Nations Publication. U. N. C. o. T. a. Development, United Nations. United Nations, 2014. System of Environmental-Economic Accounting 2012: Central Framework—final, official publication. 〈http://unstats.un.org/unsd/ envaccounting/pubs.asp〉 (accessed on 30.03.14). van den Belt, M., 2011. Ecological economics of estuaries and coasts Chapter 1. In: van den Belt, Costanza, R (Eds.), Treatise on Estuarine and Coastal Science. I. W. E. a. M. D. S. (eds), Volume 12. Academic Press, Burlington MA. van den Belt, M., Bowen, T., Slee, K., Forgie, V., 2013a. Flood protection: highlighting an investment trap between built and natural capital. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 49, 681–692.

van den Belt, M., Schiele, H., Forgie, V., 2013b. Integrated freshwater solutions—a New Zealand application of mediated modelling. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 49, 669–680. van den Belt, M., Boumans, R., Ausseil, A-G., 2013c. Toolkits for valuing natural capital and informing decision-making. Workshop at the 6th Annual International Ecosystem Services Partnership Conference. Bali, Indonesia, 26–30 August 2013. van den Belt, M., and Blake, D., 2013. ‘Investing in natural capital and getting returns’ at Sustainability Conference 2013. Massey University. 15 November 2013, Auckland, New Zealand. van den Belt, M., Cole, A., 2014. Ecosystem goods and services in marine protected areas (MPAs), Science for Conservation 326. Department of Conservation, Wellington p. 96. Wakelin, S.A., Barratt, B.I.P., Gerard, E., Gregg, A.L., Brodie, E.L., Andersen, G.L., DeSantis, T.Z., Zhou, J., He, Z., Kowalchuk, G.A., O'Callaghan, M., 2013. Shifts in the phylogenetic structure and functional capacity of soil microbial communities follow alteration of native tussock grassland ecosystems. Soil Biol. Biochem. 57, 675–682. Willemen, L., Veldkamp, A., Verburg, P.H., Hein, L., Leemans, R., 2012. A multi-scale modelling approach for analysing landscape service dynamics. J. Environ. Manage. 100, 86–95. Wossink, A., Swinton, S.M., 2007. Jointness in production and farmers' willingness to supply non-marketed ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 64 (2), 297–304. Yao, R.T., Scarpa, R., Turner, J.A., Barnard, T.D., Rose, J.M., Palma, J.H.N., Harrison, D. R., 2014. Valuing biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand's planted forests: socioeconomic and spatial determinants of willingness-to-pay. Ecol. Econ.0921-800998, 90–101, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.12.009 〈http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800913003649〉. Zhang, W., Ricketts, T.H., Kremen, C., Carney, K., Swinton, S.M., 2007. Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol. Econ. 64 (2), 253–260. Zhang, B., Li, W., Xie, G., 2010. Ecosystem services research in China: progress and perspective. Ecol. Econ. 69 (7), 1389–1395.

Please cite this article as: van den Belt, M., Blake, D., Ecosystem services in new Zealand agro-ecosystems: A literature review. Ecosystem Services (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.05.005i