A review of ecosystem services research in Australia reveals a gap in integrating climate change and impacts on ecosystem services

Abstract

Ecosystem services (ES) are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. A substantial part of human well-being is dependent on the sustainable flow of ES. Climate change, economic growth and an increasing human population has placed greater pressures on global ES. Australia’s ecosystems are among the most vulnerable sectors to climate change. Hence, a comprehensive review is necessary to explore ES research that integrates climate change impacts. Our review reveals that ES research in Australia, stimulated in the early 2000s, has continued to increase consistently after the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Australian ES research has primarily focused on the impact of land-use change and management, policy and governance issues, but less on the impact of climate change on ES. Climate change models show that climate will threaten most of the main ES in Australia by 2050. For the sustainable management of these ES – incorporating climate change – ecosystem and ES specific adaptations are suggested as the best sustainable policy tools for the future. Therefore, further research needs to incorporate climate change and ES for evidence-based sustainable management of Australia’s ES. We provide the following recommendations for future ES research: (i) evaluating the extent and trend of climate change impacts on ES through consideration of different climate change scenarios; (ii) preparing vulnerability maps of important ES that are likely to be sensitive to climate change and (iii) developing ecosystem and ES specific adaptations to climate change that involve key stakeholders.

Keywords:

• climate change
• ecosystem services
• adaptation
• stakeholder involvement
• land-use change
• Australia

Introduction

Ecosystem services (ES) are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems (MA 2005). They are highly valuable but go largely unrecognised by society (Costanza et al. 1997) and have been described as nature’s gift to households, communities and economies (Boyd & Banzhaf 2007). ES provide many necessities to societies (such as food and clean water) (MA 2005) and form a distinct relationship between ecosystems and society (Metzger & Schröter 2006). Substantial parts of human well-being depend on the flow of ES (Costanza et al. 1997; Kremen & Ostfeld 2005). Human well-being, through the use of ES, is the core issue in the ES concept (Costanza et al. 1997; Daily 1997; MA 2005; Boyd & Banzhaf 2007; Fisher et al. 2009). As global populations increase so does the ever increasing use of ES (Carpenter et al. 2009). Economic growth, high population growth, increasing global consumption patterns and climate change have placed significant pressures on ES (Vitousek 1997; Williams et al. 2003; Seppelt et al. 2011; Shaw et al. 2011). Additionally, land-use change has resulted in large-scale changes in the reliable supply of ES (Schröter et al. 2005). The ‘Millennium Ecosystem Assessment’ (MA) (2005) has ascertained that 15 of the 24 recognised ES are in declining stages across the globe. Deterioration of ES will certainly affect human well-being, as there is an innate linkage between them (Shaw et al. 2011).

ES research has emerged as an important research issue over the past decade (Fisher et al. 2009), but is still considered to be at an evolving stage (Carpenter et al. 2006; Sachs & Reid 2006; Fisher et al. 2009). The MA (2003, 2005) was the first international dynamic and integrated document that reported on ES research globally. It established ES as a policy tool for sustainable natural resource management (Seppelt et al. 2011) as well as providing scientific evidence for policymakers about the consequences of changes of ES to human well-being (Pert et al. 2010). Scientists and policymakers have continued to conduct further ES research in recent years (Fisher et al. 2009). For example, Seppelt et al.’s (2011) global review on ES studies evaluated the current trend, spatial distribution, weakness and future direction of ES research. While Egoh et al. (2007) completed a global review on ES studies, focusing on conservation assessment.

Australia has been described as one of the ‘mega-biodiverse’ countries in the world, exhibiting a very wide range of species and ecosystems (Pittock et al. 2012). Within Australia, the term ES has been widely used since the 2000s (Pittock et al. 2012). Distinguished pioneer publications in ES in the late 1990s (Costanza et al. 1997; Daily 1997) inspired early ES research in Australia (Pittock et al. 2012). Since then, several studies on ES have been conducted and significant investment has also been made in ES research in Australia (Binning et al. 2001; Abel et al. 2003). Currently, incorporation of ES in many different environmental policies is very common in Australia (Wallace 2007; Pittock et al. 2012). Ensuring a continuous supply of ES requires effective conservation and management of critical ecosystem processes (vanJaarsveld et al. 2005). Managing sustainable ecosystems is a challenge for Australia (Pittock et al. 2012) due to the diverse and complex natural ecosystems found across the continent. Sustainable management of ES is as complex, if not more than ecosystem management (Kremen 2005). Climate change further adds to the challenges and complexity of the sustainable management of ES. Scientists have revealed that natural ecosystems are one of the most vulnerable sectors to climate change in Australia (Stafford Smith & Ash 2011). Regardless of the different aspects of ES research undertaken, Pittock et al. (2012) addressed the state of ES knowledge in Australia and their policy implications. More recently, Plant and Ryan (2013) also used a review of ES research in Australia in their research which provided a snapshot of the trend of ES research in Australia.

Our comprehensive and detailed review of ES research in Australia will help policymakers, natural resource managers and scientists identify research gaps and prioritise research aimed at the sustainable management of ES under climate change scenarios across the continent. Our review aims to summarise and identify the current trend, distribution and core facts pertaining to ES studies across Australia. Climate change maps are also generated for 2030 and 2050 across Australia for IPCC (2007) SRES B1 and IPCC SRES A1F1 emission scenarios using OzClim climate change model developed by CSIRO. We use ES study regions as a demonstrative example of the possible effects of climate change on ES. Based on this example, we further identify the important issues needed to be considered in ES research in Australia in the face of human-induced climate change.

Methods

Literature inventory

Our study is based on publications found in the ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar databases searched in July 2013. We have conducted a title, keywords and abstract search in Scopus using the words ‘ecosystem service(s) AND Australia’ and found 185 journal articles (Figure 1a). Subsequently, we made a quick review of these journal articles and found 37 articles had a major focus on ecosystem services. We then performed a title search in the ISI Web of Knowledge, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar where search terms included the words ‘ecosystem service(s) AND Australia’, ‘ecosystem valuation AND Australia’, ‘ecological service (s) AND Australia’, ‘environmental service (s) AND Australia’ (further details of search are provided in Table 1). We only considered peer-reviewed journal articles and conference papers published in the last 20 years (1993–2013), with other publications manually removed. In all databases searched, results with environmental service(s) were manually screened as there were some unrelated publications to ES. In this way we found an additional 15 publications. We extended our exploration to most of the well-accepted databases for the inclusion of all possible publications in the present study. Furthermore, we have included nine pertinent ES research publications in Australia (i.e. Binning et al. 2001; Abel et al. 2003; Maher & Thackway 2007; Bryan et al. 2009; Bryan, Crossman et al. 2011; Bryan, Raymond et al. 2011; Crossman et al. 2010; Chong 2012; Cork et al. 2012) as these publications were missed due to our search criteria and were considered instrumental in ES research beginnings in Australia. Altogether we have selected 61 publications that were reviewed thoroughly (see Appendix) and then categorised (elaboration of each category in Table 1) into temporal distribution (Figure 1b); spatial distribution (Figure 2); different factor levels (Figure 3); studied ecosystems and ecosystem services (Figures 4 and 5); and focused issues of ES research in Australia (Figure 6). Given that the OzClim climate change model uses surface air temperature and not ocean temperature, our analysis excluded ES research conducted in marine ecosystems, such as the Great Barrier Reef of Queensland (e.g. Bohensky et al. 2011).

Figure 1. (a) Number of journal articles since 1993 using the search terms ecosystem service (s) and Australia in title, abstract and keywords in Scopus in July 2013 (*until July 2013). (b) Distribution of publications reviewed in the present study (*until July 2013).

Table 1. Features of inventory, searched databases and terms and the elaboration of categories used in analysis.

Features/categories	Description
Features of inventory
Searched databases	ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar
Searched words	Title, Keywords and Abstract search in Scopus: ecosystem service (s), Australia (additional field) Title search in ISI Web of Knowledge, Scopus, ScienceDirect and Google Scholar: ecosystem service (s), ecosystem valuation, ecological service (s), environmental service (s), Australia (additional field)
Elaboration of categories used in analysis
Scale of the study	Local: study based on a project level; catchment: study based on a single catchment; regional: study based on more than one catchment, region or state; national: study based on more than one state, policy, approaches and theoretical analysis without mentioning any particular territory.
Studied ecosystem	Categorised according to dominant land uses; other: review articles, approaches and theoretical studies
Offsite effects	Local decision can effect ES supply of another place
Trade-off analysis	Change in different ES as well as change in same ES between present and future; other: review articles
Stakeholder involvement	Active involvement of stakeholder in research process; other: review articles
Scenarios	Land use: plausible land use/management options in future; political: plausible policy/planning options; other: review articles, approaches and theoretical studies
Indicators used	Biophysical: publications assessed the distribution and attributes of ES; economic: publications analysed monetary value of ES; social: publications reflected community perceptions, social preferences to ES and community evaluated interrelationship among ES; policy: publication used different existing policies to frame ES as well as discussed possible future policy issues related with ES; combined: publication used more than one above categorical indicator; other: publication described theories and approaches of ES assessment.
Data source	Primary: direct data collection and measurement of ES; secondary: proxy presentation of ES by map; other: publications discussed theoretical and analytical approach

Figure 2. Spatial distribution of ecosystem services research across Australia which are reviewed in the present study.

Figure 3. The percentage of ecosystem services research according to different factor levels analysed.

Figure 4. The number of ecosystem services considered in each study.

Figure 5. Representation of studied ecosystem services. In figure: agriculture production includes crop yields, food & fibre production, forage production, improved grazing; climate regulation includes carbon emission reduction, carbon sequestration, carbon stock; recreation includes improved recreation, recreational fisheries; nutrient cycling includes nitrogen supply, nutrient management.

Figure 6. Focus of issues of ecosystem services research in publications.

Generating climate change scenarios

Climate change scenario maps (mean annual temperature change and annual rainfall change) were generated from the base year 1990 across Australia for low-emission scenarios IPCC SRES B1 and high emission scenarios IPCC SRES A1F1 for the years 2030 and 2050 using the advance module of OzClim¹ climate change model. The distribution of most ES studies regions (Figure 7) in the output map was used as an example to represent the threat of climate change to ES.

Figure 7. Climate change across Australia for IPCC SRES B1 and A1F1 emission scenarios for 2030 and 2050 (output from OzClim climate model) with inserted location of most ES researches, size of circle indicates the relative no. of ES research, B = Goulburn Broken Catchment (n = 5), E = Wheat belt (n = 2), G = Gwydir catchment (n = 2), H = Glenelg Hopkins Catchment (n = 2), L = Lachlan catchment (n = 2), M = Murray Darling Basin (n = 13), P = Myponga River Catchment (n = 2), Q = South East Queensland Region (n = 4), S = Tropical savannah (n = 3), T = Tully Murray catchment (n = 2), W = Wet Tropics (n = 2).

Results

Temporal and spatial distribution

Our search terms revealed that the first Australian publication of ES was published in 1998, although we had fixed the search year since 1993. Starting with only one publication in 1998 ES research in Australia remained somewhat static until 2004. It has increased consistently since 2007 with publication numbers peaking in 2010 with 32 publications (Figure 1a). The reviewed articles we primarily focused for our discussion occurred from 2001 to 2013 (Figure 1b).

South Australia (n = 16) appears to be the centre of ES research in Australia, followed by Victoria (n = 13) and Queensland (n = 10). A number of ES research publications in New South Wales (n = 6), Northern Territory (n = 6) and Western Australia (n = 3) were found while very few occurred in the Australian Capital Territory (n = 1) and Tasmania (n = 1) (Figure 2). Most of the studies in South Australia were conducted in the Murray-Darling Basin region (13 of 16). ES research is also highly concentrated in areas such as the Goulburn Broken Catchment (n = 5); Glenelg Hopkins Catchment (n = 2) of Victoria; Gwydir Catchment of New South Wales; Tully Murray Catchment (n = 2) Far North Queensland; South East Queensland (SEQ) region (n = 4); Wet Tropics of Queensland (n = 2) and the Tropical Savannah Catchment of Northern Territory (n = 3). Our study revealed that the ‘catchment’ scale was the most popular physical boundary of ES research representing 44% of total ES research, followed by the regional scale 23% (Figure 3). Although 18% of ES research has been focused at the national scale (Figure 3), most of these were either review work or presented theoretical aspects and conceptual frameworks of ES rather than on-ground ES research.

Data sources

Our study revealed that 48% of ES research was derived from primary data sources. These studies are based on direct field observations, measurements, scoring and ranking of ES. Furthermore, 28% of ES research originated from secondary data sources. These studies used proxies for ES, such as land-use/land-cover maps or other proxy data. Moreover, 25% of ES studies were derived from other data sources (Figure 3) that presented theoretical, conceptual or policy framework approaches for assessment, understanding, planning and management of ES, primarily based on reviews.

Use of indicators

Our study revealed that 25% of ES research has utilised biophysical indicators, while 20% used economic indicators (monetary values), 15% social indicators and 25% combined indicators (Figure 3) (see Table 1 for further elaboration of indicators). Furthermore, 7% of ES studies have dealt with policy issues exclusively based on reviews. In the past, most of the research used combined indicators. For example, in the Goulburn Broken Catchment of Victoria through the Ecosystem Services Project (Binning et al. 2001; Proctor et al. 2002; Abel et al. 2003; Cork 2003; Cork & Proctor 2005) indicators were combined. More recently, a model has been developed supporting investment decision making for natural capital and ecosystem services. This has been applied in the Murray-Darling Basin where stakeholders were involved in quantifying the management priorities for capital assets and ecosystem services (Bryan 2010). Furthermore, cost-effective hotspots for natural capital restoration (species and ecosystems, soil and water resources, atmosphere) have been identified in the Lower Murray region of southeastern Australia (Crossman & Bryan 2009).

In a biophysical context, researchers have evaluated the spatial distribution of ES (Pert et al. 2010; Butler et al. 2011; Baral et al. 2013); examined the relative importance of ES and ecosystems (Pert et al. 2010; Baral et al. 2013); identified ES, ecosystem functions and indicators (Butler et al. 2011); and assessed the impact of land management on ES (Collard & Zammit 2006; Cork et al. 2012). Furthermore, Ens (2012) has used Cyber Tracker Technology to monitor ecological outcomes of payments for environmental services, and Kragt and Robertson (2012) simulated the possibility of ES production in association with agricultural production. In an economic context, scientists have used spatial approaches for the economic valuation of ES (Baral et al. 2009), environmental flow provision, opportunity cost of ES (Karanja et al. 2008) and for assessing the cost of running auction-based approaches for purchasing environmental services (Lowell et al. 2007). Greiner et al. (2008) presented the conceptual challenges of payment for environmental services, and Zander and Garnett (2011) evaluated the intention of Australians to pay Indigenous Australians for the conservation of their land using nation-wide interviews.

In a social context, scientists have evaluated Natural Resource Management (NRM) practitioners’ understandings about the concept of ES (Plant & Ryan 2013). Furthermore, Maynard et al. (2011) developed an ES framework for ES planning and NRM engaging various stakeholders. This framework is widely recognised across Australia for ES planning, management and assessment. Scientists have also mapped ES using social values (Raymond et al. 2009) and identified priority areas for ES management and investment decisions (Bryan et al. 2009; Bryan, Raymond et al. 2010). Researchers have also assessed the role of ES to the well-being of Indigenous Australian communities (Kaur 2007). Furthermore, van Riper et al. (2012) has recently conducted interviews with recreationists evaluating 12 different types of social values: aesthetic, biological diversity, cultural, economic, future, historic, intrinsic, learning, life sustaining, recreation, spiritual and therapeutic values.

In a policy context, scientists have conceptualised ES, conferred different existing policies and examined the possibility of using ES for human well-being (Pittock et al. 2012). Scientists have also discussed policy consistency regarding ES in Australia (Pittock et al. 2012) as well as the ambiguity about ES rights (Tovey 2008), and the associated politics in environmental services marketing in Australia (Verran 2011). Analyses have also compared the historical inclusion of ES in Melbourne’s strategic spatial plans with Stockholm’s strategic spatial plans (Wilkinson et al. 2013). In the other indicators context, at the very early evolving stage of ES in Australia, scientists created a framework for NRM in Australia, in 2001, which accommodated the ES concept (Cork et al. 2001). The Australian government has also published a report summarising available approaches and tools that are being used by State and Federal Government agencies in Australia for ES provided by vegetation and used for assessment of ES with an emphasis on production landscapes (Maher & Thackway 2007).

Components of ES research

Global ES research studies commonly utilise scenario analyses, stakeholder involvement, trade-off analyses and offsite effects. Scenarios are plausible options for the future. There are three types of scenarios usually considered in ES research: (i) land use, (ii) political/policy and (iii) climate change scenarios. Twenty-three percent of the ES research we examined used scenarios (13% political scenarios and 10% land-use scenarios). Scientists have identified the quantitative and qualitative variation of ES supply considering different land-use scenarios (Butler et al. 2011; Kragt & Robertson 2012), identified alternative management options for investment decisions through considering effective ES mangement (Bryan et al. 2009) and analysed alternative management scenarios for enhanching ES and biodiversity benefits (Bryan & Kandulu 2009). Moreover, researchers have analysed ecological, economic and social benefits that might be derived from ES through regarding policy options across different catchments in Australia (Proctor et al. 2002; Abel et al. 2003; Cork 2003; Cork & Proctor 2005; Bryan et al. 2009). Scientists have also compared two scenarios as ecologically weighted efficient and socially weighted efficient for investment decisions in environmental flow (a regulating ES) considering ecosystem health (Bryan et al. 2013).

Any group or individual who can affect or is affected by ES are known as stakeholders (Heina et al. 2006). Our study revealed that stakeholders have been involved with 43% of ES research. Those commonly involved in ES process are scientists, (local) experts in their respective fields, community leaders, NRM bodies, (local) community people and tourists. Researchers have utilised expert knowledge to rank the relative capacity of ES (Baral et al. 2013); for developing approaches for ES planning and assessment (Maynard et al. 2011); and standardising ecosystem function data layers for ES mapping (Petter et al. 2013). Additionally, Australian ES researchers have utilised community leaders’ opinions and interviews for categorising ES under different sectors and preparing different land-use and policy scenarios for ES management (Binning et al. 2001; Proctor et al. 2002; Abel et al. 2003; Cork 2003; Cork & Proctor 2005; Crossman et al. 2010; Bryan, Crossman et al. 2011). Scientists have also utilised community representatives and NRM bodies to identify, map and value the ES in respective catchment areas (Abel et al. 2003; Bryan et al. 2009; Bryan, Grandgirard et al. 2010; Bryan, Raymond et al. 2010, 2011; Raymond et al. 2009; Hatton MacDonald et al. 2013) and conducted interviews about stakeholders’ understandings of ES and the implications for NRM (Plant & Ryan 2013). Others have used tourist interviews to identify the spatial distribution of ES and estimated several social values (van Riper et al. 2012), as well as asking the general public to evaluate their willingness to pay for ecosystem services (Zander & Garnett 2011).

The degree of response of each ES to change varies according to those that are recognised as trade-offs (Seppelt et al. 2011). Our study revealed that 13% of ES researchers had analysed and performed trade-off analysis between multiple ES due to land-use change (Butler et al. 2011; Kragt & Robertson 2012; Baral et al. 2013), as well as policy change (Abel et al. 2003; Cork 2003; Cork & Proctor 2005). Scientists also analysed trade-offs between carbon sequestration and other multiple ES production using different planting options (e.g. monoculture plantation) (Perring et al. 2012). Our study revealed that offsite effects have only been considered in 3% of ES research outputs.

Studied ecosystems and ecosystem services

Agricultural ecosystems (44% of total studies) were the predominant ecosystem type where ES research had been conducted, while forest ecosystems occupied 18% of total studies (Figure 3). Furthermore, 10% of ES research has been conducted in coastal ecosystems and complex landscapes (Figure 3). Dryland agriculture and Rangelands were the dominant land uses in agriculture ecosystems and complex landscapes. Additionally, wetlands, sugarcane, bushland, rainforests and urban ecosystems were common in complex ES landscape-level studies, and production forests, rainforest and Eucalyptus plantations were common in forest ecosystems. Although a number of ecosystems occur in the Murray-Darling Basin of South Australia and Goulburn Broken Catchment of Victoria, we categorised them both primarily as agriculture ecosystems.

The number of individual ES covered in each study varied from one to more than 30. We found that out of 61 studies, 10 included more than 8 ES each, and another 10 studies included only 1 ES in each study (Figure 4). While 24 studies had not specified any ES, these studies were mostly theoretical approaches, conceptual framework and policy perspectives. Many ES studies in Australia have focused on one or few ES (Pittock et al. 2012). Although several ES studies in Australia focused on few ES, our study revealed that a large number of ES were included in studies which were focused on ES economic and social values and policy analysis. The MA has not recognised ‘biodiversity’ as an ES – instead, it represented biodiversity as a unique entity (MA 2003). However, many scientists have subsequently assessed biodiversity as an ES. In Australia, 12 studies have assessed biodiversity as an ES (Figure 4) (Abel et al. 2003; Cork 2003; Curtis 2004; Karanja et al. 2008; Baral et al. 2009, 2013; Bryan & Kandulu 2009; Butler et al. 2011; Zander & Garnett 2011; George et al. 2012; Perring et al. 2012; Wilkinson et al. 2013). Our study revealed that broadly 34 different ES, distributed over four MA (2003, 2005) categories (provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting), have been studied (Figure 5). Agricultural production (n = 21 studies, 28% of provisioning services); water regulation and climate regulation (n = 20 studies each, 19% studies of regulating services); and water provision (n = 16 studies, 21% studies of provisioning services) appear to be the most common of ES research in Australia, followed by soil erosion control, pollination (n = 15 studies each), nutrient cycling (n = 14 studies) and aesthetics (n = 13 studies). Although climate regulation represents 19% of studies in the regulating ES category (Figure 5), it primarily includes carbon emission reduction, carbon sequestration and carbon stock studies. For example, Baral et al. (2013) have assessed the spatial distribution of carbon stocks along with other ecosystem services in a complex production landscape of southwestern Victoria. They have also spatially assessed the impacts of land-use change on carbon stocks and other ecosystem services (water regulation, biodiversity, forage production, timber production and water provision) over the last 200 years. Porfirio et al. (2010) have estimated carbon storage in biomass and net ecosystem carbon exchange between the land surface and the atmosphere to quantify the potentiality of human-modified landscapes to provide ecosystem services in the Australian Capital Territory region.

Focused issues of ecosystem services research

About 48% of ES studies were focused on the ecological and economic impacts on ES due to land-use change and change in land management approaches. Few studies (15%) have been conducted that focus on policy and governance issues. Furthermore, social valuation of ES has been covered in very few studies (8%) (Figure 6). Noteworthy, in our research, was the absence of studies that focused on evaluating ES from a climate change perspective. We found no (Australian) studies that had examined the future trend of ES under different climate change scenarios, vulnerability of different ecosystems and ES, and available adaptation options. However, some scientists have evaluated the impacts of different climate change scenarios on alternative spatial policy options (Bryan, Crossman et al. 2011); mapped ecological values of habitat of threatened species due to climate change (Bryan, Raymond et al. 2011); analysed the variation of nutrient retention in tidal mangroves with rainfall variation (Adame et al. 2010); considered species’ responses to climate change as one of the indicators for investment decisions (Crossman et al. 2011); conceptualised the adaptive capacity through learning from historical examples (Bussey et al. 2012); and assessed usefulness of agroforestry systems for carbon sequestration and other ES in the face of climate adaptation and mitigation (George et al. 2012).

Discussion

Studies of ES have attracted researchers worldwide after the assimilation of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) (2003, 2005). ES research in Australia also gained further momentum after 2006, post the MA. Several collaborative ES studies have been conducted at the catchment scale across Australia (Pittock et al. 2012), and hence the ‘catchment scale’ has evolved as a popular spatial unit of ES research. The Ecosystem Services Project (http://www.ecosystemservicesproject.org) was one of the pioneer ES projects in Australia, implemented by CSIRO² in the Goulburn Broken Catchment, Victoria, in 1999 (Cork 2003). This project played a significant role in the early stages of ES research in Australia. At that time scientists used combined indicators such as biophysical, economic and social indicators for ES assessment and informing Australian policy decisions. More recently, ES research has adopted spatial analyses using biophysical indicators.

Stakeholder involvement is one of the most common components of ES research that was also recognised in the MA (2003, 2005). When stakeholders are involved, it increases the wider acceptance of ES planning and management (Maynard et al. 2011). A stakeholder engagement review conducted in the USA reported that stakeholder engagement is useful for better incorporation of public knowledge and values, conflict resolution, trust establishment and improved understanding of environmental problems (Beierle & Konisky 2001). However, stakeholder engagement in planning is sometimes difficult when they have prior expectations from the institution and/or power in the current decision-making process (Spash 2007). Stakeholders’ attitudes and behaviours towards conservation actions depend on their level of knowledge and information (Lichtenberg & Zimmerman 1999). The value of any ES depends on the stakeholders’ views and needs (Vermeulen & Koziell 2002). Therefore, ES-oriented management actions should reflect the desire and aspirations of stakeholders. It is noteworthy that various stakeholders have been involved in a substantial number of ES research studies in Australia.

Trade-offs can occur in temporal and spatial patterns (Steffan-Dewenter et al. 2007) due to feedback in ecological processes (Rodríguez et al. 2006). Trade-offs occur between different ES as well as between the present and future supply of the same ES (Carpenter et al. 2006). Understanding trade-offs, synergies and interactions among multiple ES is important for making better informed NRM decisions (Bennett et al. 2009); hence, trade-off analysis is a popular approach for effective ES management and planning (Rodríguez et al. 2006). Furthermore, designating the physical boundary of an ES production area is always difficult. Sometimes ES production areas and ES benefit areas are different due to flow effects (Fisher et al. 2009). Local decisions can affect delivery of ES some distance away with significant offsite effects emerging (Seppelt et al. 2011). Therefore, offsite effects need to be considered in ES management at the landscape level (Fisher et al. 2009); however, offsite effects are not widely evaluated in ES research across the world (Seppelt et al. 2011). Our study also revealed that offsite effects had been incorporated in very few ES research studies.

Ecosystem services research is still in the evolving stage of development across the world. Globally, scientists have been assessing different aspects of ES, such as quantifying and mapping ES (Egoh et al. 2008; Kalacska et al. 2008; Naidoo et al. 2008; Eigenbrod et al. 2010; Deng et al. 2011; Li et al. 2011; Anderson-Teixeira et al. 2012), developing practical frameworks for the assessment of ES (Posthumus et al. 2010), describing the nature of relationships between ES and biodiversity (Egoh et al. 2009, 2010) and developing models (such as InVEST) and web-based tools (such as ARIES) for ES analysis (Nelson et al. 2009; Youn et al. 2011; Johnson et al. 2012). A number of studies on these aspects have also been conducted in Australia (please see Appendix, Figures 3, 4 and 5 for details).

In the Australian literature, we found a number of ES research studies which assessed various land-use change scenarios and policy/political scenarios (Figure 3). Notably, we found no studies that had used ES in climate change scenarios. However, Bryan, Raymond et al. (2011) analysed four different policy options: random, cheapest, the best for NRM and the most cost-effective to achieve NRM targets under future climate change scenarios but few ES are embedded into the NRM targets. Notably, ES research in Australia emphasising other climate change issues like impacts, vulnerability, resilience and adaptation are also absent in the literature, whereas climate change impact on ES has recently been assessed in California and Europe (Metzger & Schröter 2006; Shaw et al. 2011; Ding & Nunes 2014). Shaw et al. (2011) have assessed the climate change impact on California’s ES under IPCC (2007) high and low greenhouse gas emission scenarios using dynamic global vegetation model (DGVM). They have found that the provision and value of ES will decline under most of the future greenhouse gas trajectories. Ding and Nunes (2014) have recently modelled the impact of climate change on ES across European forests. They have found that climate change impacts on ES are regionally specific. They have also found a strong relationship between temperature and the value of ES; however, the direction of the relationship may be either positive or negative depending on the type of ES under consideration. A similar study in Australia would contribute significantly to our knowledge of climate change impacts on Australia’s ES, which are substantially lacking at present.

If we consider the regions where most of the ES research studies have been undertaken as the ‘hotspots’ for providing ES in Australia, climate change will significantly affect most of these hotspots, thereby affecting ES. In most locations, mean annual temperatures will rise 1–2 °C by 2030 and 2–3 °C by 2050 from the base year 1990 for low-emission scenarios IPCC SRES B1, while 1–2 °C by 2030 and 3–4 °C by 2050 for high-emission scenarios IPCC SRES A1F1 (Figure 7). Additionally, rainfall will decrease from 50–100 mm by 2030 and 100–150 mm by 2050 for IPCC SRES B1 scenarios. For high-emission scenarios IPCC SRES A1F1, rainfall will decrease from 100–150 mm by 2030 and 150–200 mm by 2050 from the base year 1990 (Figure 7). Similarly, researchers have also predicted a rising trend of mean annual temperatures across most of Australia, although annual rainfall and moisture patterns are likely to vary widely with geographic location (CSIRO and Australian Bureau of Meteorology 2007; Medlyn et al. 2011; Wood et al. 2011). Historically, it has also been noted that mean surface temperatures in Australia have increased by more than 1 °C over the period 1910 to 2009, whereas the average global temperature has increased around 0.7 °C over the past century (Braganza & Church 2011). A decreasing trend of annual rainfall over most of the populated parts of Australia, as high as 50 mm/decade in some regions, has also been recorded from 1970 to 2011 (Bureau of Meteorology Australian Government 2012).

It is notable that a number of ES research studies have been conducted across Australia over the last 20 years (Figures 1a, b, Appendix). However, forest ecosystems and climate regulation ES have only been evaluated in a few studies (Figures 3 and 5), regardless of the role that forest ecosystems play in climate regulation. Furthermore, ES research studies in Australia have covered a wide range of factors focusing principally on land-use change and management, whereas studies on integrating climate change and ES are significantly lacking to date. In Australia, impacts of land-use change and management on ES would be largely positive when compared with other countries in the world, due to vegetation dominant land use, sustainable conservation and effective policy implementation capacity and management excellence. Australia is a country of diverse ecosystems, which provide significant and mostly unrecognised ES for community well-being. It is also apparent that social, ecological and economic values of these ES to the Australian economy are enormous, but not recognised by policymakers. Australia is highly vulnerable to climate change and contains many natural and relatively intact ecosystems that are considered among the most vulnerable ecosystems due to their low coping range and low adaptive capacity (Stafford Smith & Ash 2011). Our study revealed that the combined effects of temperature rise and a decrease in rainfall threaten Australia’s ES (Figure 7). Therefore, Australia’s ES are probably under more threat from climate change than many other parts of the world and will be affected even more substantially in the future. As the magnitude of climate change is not uniform across all Australian ecosystems (Figure 7), and resilience of all ES to climate change is not the same, the consequences of climate change for Australia’s ecosystems and ES will vary, both spatially and temporally. For the sustainable management of Australian ES under climate change, ecosystems and ES-specific adaptation would be the best sustainable policy tool providing adaptation options that are derived from evidence-based research integrating climate change and ES.

From our study, we conclude that three key research issues need to be addressed to integrate climate change and ES in Australia: (i) evaluating the extent and trend of climate change impacts on ES considering different climate change scenarios; (ii) preparing vulnerability maps of important ES that are likely to be sensitive to climate change and (iii) developing ecosystem and ES-specific adaptations to climate change that involve different stakeholders.

Stephen M. Turton

Centre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University, Cairns, QLD 4870, Australia

Petina L. Pert

Centre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University, Cairns, QLD 4870, Australia and CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, PO Box 12139, Earlville BC QLD 4870, Australia

Mohammed Alamgir

Centre for Tropical Environmental and Sustainability Science, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, James Cook University, Cairns, QLD 4870, Australia

Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Acknowledgements

We thank Professor Jeffrey Sayer for reading earlier version of the manuscript and providing his constructive comments. We are also thankful to the Australian Government Endeavour Postgraduate Award programme for funding the whole PhD study of the first author as this study has been conducted as a part of his PhD research. We would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their useful comments which improved the paper.

Notes

1. CSIRO developed OzClim climate change model to generate climate change scenarios across Australia (http://www.csiro.au/ozclim/home.do).

2. Australia’s national scientific research agency, CSIRO – Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, and is one of the world’s largest and most diverse scientific research organisations.

Appendix Articles that were reviewed in the present study

Abel N, Cork S, Gorddard R, Langridge J, Langston A, Plant R, Proctor W, Ryan P, Shelton D, Walker B, Yialeloglou M. 2003. Natural values: exploring options for enhancing ecosystem services in the Goulburn Broken Catchment. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra, Australia, p. 139.

Adame MF, Virdis B, Lovelock CE. 2010. Effect of geomorphological setting and rainfall on nutrient exchange in mangroves during tidal inundation. Marine and Freshwater Research 61: 1197-1206.

Banerjee O, Bark R, Connor J, Crossman ND. 2013. An ecosystem services approach to estimating economic losses associated with drought. Ecological Economics 91: 19-27.

Baral H, Kasel S, Keenan R, Fox J, Stork N. 2009. GIS-based classification, mapping and valuation of ecosystem services in production landscapes: A case study of the Green Triangle region of south-eastern Australia. In: Thistlethwaite R, Lamb D, Haines R. (Eds.), IFA Conf. Proc., Caloundra, Queensland, Australia, pp. 64-71.

Baral H, Keenan RJ, Fox JC, Stork NE, Kasel S. 2013. Spatial assessment of ecosystem goods and services in complex production landscapes: A case study from south-eastern Australia. Ecological Complexity 13: 35-45.

Binning C, Cork S, Parry R, Shelton D. 2001. Natural Assets: An inventory of ecosystem goods and services in the Goulburn Broken Catchment. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra, Australia, p.136.

Blanche KR, Ludwig JA, Cunningham SA. 2006. Proximity to rainforest enhances pollination and fruit set in orchards. Journal of Applied Ecology 43 (6):1182-1187.

Bryan BA, Kandulu JM. 2009. Cost-effective alternatives for mitigating Cryptosporidium risk in drinking water and enhancing ecosystem services. Water Resources Research 45 (8), art. no. W08437.

Bryan BA, Grandgirard A, Ward JR. 2009. Managing natural capital and ecosystem services: identifying strategic regional priorities in the South Australian Murray-Darling Basin. CSIRO Water for a healthy Country National Research Flagship, p. 30.

Bryan BA. 2010. Development and application of a model for robust, cost-effective investment in natural capital and ecosystem services. Biological Conservation 143 (7): 1737-1750.

Bryan BA, Raymond CM, Crossman ND, Macdonald DH. 2010a. Targeting the management of ecosystem services based on social values: Where, what, and how? Landscape and Urban Planning 97 (2): 111-122.

Bryan BA, Grandgirard A, Ward JR. 2010b. Quantifying and exploring strategic regional priorities for managing natural capital and ecosystem services given multiple stakeholder perspectives. Ecosystems 13 (4): 539-555.

Bryan BA, Kandulu JM. 2011. Designing a policy mix and sequence for mitigating agricultural non-point source pollution in a water supply catchment. Water Resources Management 25 (3): 875-892.

Bryan BA, Crossman ND, King D, Meyer WS. 2011a. Landscape futures analysis: assessing the impacts of environmental targets under alternative spatial policy options and future scenarios. Environmental Modelling and Software 26: 83-91.

Bryan BA, Raymond CM, Crossman ND, King D. 2011b. Comparing spatially explicit ecological and social values for natural areas to identify effective conservation strategies. Conservation Biology 25 (1): 172-181.

Bryan BA, Higgins A, Overton IC, Holland K, Lester RE, King D, Nolan M, MacDonald DH, Connor JD, Bjornsson T, Kirby M. 2013. Ecohydrological and socioeconomic integration for the operational management of environmental flows. Ecological Applications 23(5): 999-1016.

Bussey M, Carter RW, Keys N, Carter J, Mangoyana R, Matthews J, Nash D, Oliver J, Richards R, Roiko A, Sano M, Thomsen DC, Weber E, SmithTF. 2012. Framing adaptive capacity through a history-futures lens: Lessons from the South East Queensland Climate Adaptation Research Initiative. Futures 44 (4): 385-397.

Butler JRA, Wong GY, Metcalfe DJ, Honzák M, Pert PL, Rao N, van Grieken ME, Lawson T, Bruce C, Kroon FJ. 2011. An analysis of trade-offs between multiple ecosystem services and stakeholders linked to land use and water quality management in the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment. doi: 0.1016/j.agee.2011.08.017.

Chong J. 2012. Ecosystem services and water planning in Murray-Darling Basin. The Australasian Journal of Natural Resources Law and Policy 15 (1): 17-41.

Collard S, Zammit C. 2006. Effects of land-use intensification on soil carbon and ecosystem services in Brigalow (Acacia harpophylla) landscapes of southeast Queensland, Australia. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 117 (2): 185-194.

Cook DC, Thomas MB, Cunningham SA, Anderson DL, De Barro PJ. 2007. Predicting the economic impact of an invasive species on an ecosystem service. Ecological Applications 17 (6): 1832-1840.

Cork S, Eadie L, Mele P, Price R, Yule D. 2012. The relationships between land management practices and soil condition and the quality of ecosystem services delivered from agricultural land in Australia. Kiri-ganai Research Pty Ltd, Canberra, Australia, p. 117.

Cork SJ, Proctor W. 2005. Implementing a process for integration research: Ecosystem services project, Australia. Journal of Research Practice 1(2):1-25.

Cork SJ, Shelton D, Binning C, Parry R. 2001. A framework for applying the concept of ecosystem services to natural resource management in Australia. In: Rutherford I, Sheldon F, Brierley G, Kenyon C. (Eds.), Third Australian Stream Management Conference August 27-29, 2001. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Cooperative Research Centre for Catchment Hydrology: Brisbane, pp. 157-162.

Cork SJ. 2003. The nature and value of ecosystem services in Australia. In: Allsopp N, Palmer AR, Milton SJ, Kirkman KP, Kerley GIH, Hurt CR, Brown CJ. (Eds.), International Rangelands Congress, Durban, South Africa.

Crossman ND, Bryan BA. 2009. Identifying cost-effective hotspots for restoring natural capital and enhancing landscape multifunctionality. Ecological Economics 68 (3): 654-668.

Crossman ND, Connor JD, Bryan BA, Summers DM, Ginnivan J. 2010. Reconfiguring an irrigation landscape to improve provision of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 69 (5): 1031-1042.

Crossman ND, Bryan BA, King D. 2011. Contribution of site assessment toward prioritising investment in natural capital. Environmental Modelling and Software 26 (1): 30-37.

Curtis IA. 2004. Valuing ecosystem goods and services: a new approach using a surrogate market and the combination of a multiple criteria analysis and a Delphi panel to assign weights to the attributes. Ecological Economics 50 (3-4): 163-194.

Eldridge DJ, Freudenberger D. 2005. Ecosystem wicks: woodland trees enhance water infiltration in a fragmented agricultural landscape in eastern Australia. Austral Ecology 30 (3): 336-347.

Ens EJ. 2012. Monitoring outcomes of environmental service provision in low socio-economic indigenous Australia using innovative CyberTracker Technology. Conservation and Society 10 (1): 42-52.

Garrick D, Siebentritt MA, Aylward B, Bauer CJ, Purkey A. 2009. Water markets and freshwater ecosystem services: policy reform and implementation in the Columbia and Murray-Darling Basins. Ecological Economics 69 (2): 366-379.

George SJ, Harper RJ, Hobbs RJ, Tibbett M. 2012. A sustainable agricultural landscape for Australia: A review of interlacing carbon sequestration, biodiversity and salinity management in agroforestry systems. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 163: 28-36.

Gollan JR, de Bruyn LL, Reid N, Wilkie L. 2013. Monitoring the ecosystem service provided by dung beetles offers benefits over commonly used biodiversity metrics and a traditional trapping method. Journal for Nature Conservation 21 (3): 183-188.

Greiner R, Cocklin C, Gordon IJ. 2008. Conceptual and theoretical aspects of ‘payments for environmental services’ in the tropical savannas of northern Australia. Proceedings of the 15th Biennial Conference of the Australian Rangeland Society, 28 September - 2 October, Charters Towers, Queensland.

Greiner R, Gordon I, Cocklin C. 2009. Ecosystem services from tropical savannas: Economic opportunities through payments for environmental services. Rangeland Journal 31 (1): 51-59.

Greiner R, Stanley O. 2013. More than money for conservation: Exploring social co-benefits from PES schemes. Land Use Policy 31: 4-10.

Hatton MacDonald D, Bark R, MacRae A, Kalivas T, Grandgirard A, Strathearn S. 2013. An interview methodology for exploring the values that community leaders assign to multiple-use landscapes. Ecology and Society 18 (1):29 http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05191-180129.

Karanja F, Reid N, Cacho O. 2008. Economic valuation of ecosystem services from environmental flow provision in the Gwydir catchment, north-western NSW, Australia. 28th Annual Conference of the International Association for Impact Assessment, 4-10 May 2008, Perth Convention Exhibition Centre, Perth, Australia, pp. 1-6.

Kaur K. 2007. Linking ecosystem services to well-being: A case study of Aboriginal communities in northern Australia. Australian Aboriginal Studies 2007(2): 145.

Kragt EM, Robertson JM. 2012. Modelling trade-offs between ecosystem services and agricultural production in Western Australia. In: Seppelt R, Voinov A, Lange S, Bankamp D. (Eds.), International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software Managing Resources of a Limited Planet. International Environmental Modelling and Software Society (iEMSs), Sixth Biennial Meeting, Leipzig, Germany.

Lowell K, Drohan J, Hajek C, Beverly C, Lee M. 2007. A science-driven market-based instrument for determining the cost of environmental services: A comparison of two catchments in Australia. Ecological Economics 64: 61-69.

Maher C, Thackway R. 2007. Approaches for measuring and accounting for ecosystem services provided by vegetation in Australia. The Bureau of Rural Sciences, Commonwealth of Australia, p. 55.

Maynard S, James D, Davidson A. 2011. An adaptive participatory approach for developing an ecosystem services framework for South East Queensland, Australia. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 7 (3): 182-189.

Miehle P, Grote R, Battaglia M, Feikema PM, Arndt SK. 2010. Evaluation of a process-based ecosystem model for long-term biomass and stand development of Eucalyptus globulus plantations. European Journal of Forest Research 129 (3): 377-391.

Perring MP, Standish RJ, Hulvey KB, Lach L, Morald TK, Parsons R, Didham RK, Hobbs RJ. 2012. The Ridgefield Multiple Ecosystem Services Experiment: Can restoration of former agricultural land achieve multiple outcomes? Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 163: 14-27.

Pert PL, Butler JRA, Brodie JE, Bruce C, Honzák M, Kroon FJ, Metcalfe D, Mitchell D, Wong G. 2010. A catchment-based approach to mapping hydrological ecosystem services using riparian habitat: a case study from the Wet Tropics, Australia. Ecological Complexity 7 (3): 378-388.

Petter M, Mooney S, Maynard SM, Davidson A, Cox M, Horosak I. 2013. A methodology to map ecosystem functions to support ecosystem services assessments. Ecology and Society 18 (1): 31. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05260-180131

Pittock J, Cork S, Maynard S. 2012. The state of the application of ecosystems services in Australia. Ecosystem Services 1(1): 111-120.

Plant R, Ryan P. 2013. Ecosystem services as a practicable concept for natural resource management: some lessons from Australia. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management. doi:10.1080/21513732.2012.737372.

Porfirio LL, Steffen W, Barrett DJ, Berry SL. 2010. The net ecosystem carbon exchange of human-modified environments in the Australian Capital Region. Regional Environmental Change 10 (1): 1-12.

Proctor W, Cork S, Langridge J, Langston A, Abel N, Howden M, Anderies M, Parry R, Shelton D. 2002. Assessing ecosystem services in Australia. 7th Biennial Conference of the International Society for Ecological Economics, 6-9 March 2002, Sousse, Tunisia, p. 16.

Raymond CM, Bryan BA, MacDonald DH, Cast A, Strathearn S, Grandgirard A, Kalivas T. 2009. Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 68 (5): 1301-1315.

Schellhorn NA, Macfadyen S, Bianch FJJA, Williams DG, Zalucki MP. 2008. Managing ecosystem services in broadacre landscapes: What are the appropriate spatial scales? Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48 (12): 1549-1559.

Sherren K, Fischer J, Clayton H, Schirmer J, Dovers S. 2010. Integration by case, place and process: Transdisciplinary research for sustainable grazing in the Lachlan River catchment, Australia. Landscape Ecology 25 (8): 1219-1230.

Tovey JP. 2008. Whose rights and who's right? Valuing ecosystem services in Victoria, Australia. Landscape Research 33 (2): 197-209.

van Riper CJ, Kyle GT, Sutton SG, Barnes M, Sherrouse BC. 2012. Mapping outdoor recreationists' perceived social values for ecosystem services at Hinchinbrook Island National Park, Australia. Applied Geography 35 (1): 164-173.

Verran H. 2011. Imagining nature politics in the era of Australia's emerging market in environmental services interventions. Sociol. Rev. 59 (3): 411-431.

Wilkinson C, Saarne T, Peterson GD, Colding J. 2013. Strategic spatial planning and the ecosystem services concept - an historical exploration. Ecology and Society 18 (1): 37. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ES-05368-180137.

Zander KK, Garnett ST. 2011. The economic value of environmental services on Indigenous-held lands in Australia. PloS one. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023154.

Zander KK, Parkes R, Straton A, Garnett ST. 2013. Water ecosystem services in Northern Australia-how much are they worth and who should pay for their provision? PloS one 8 (5), art.no. e64411.