Analysing Landscape Futures for Dryland Agricultural Areas: a Case Study in the Lower Murray Region of Southern Australia

  • Brett A Bryan
  • Neville D Crossman
  • Darran King
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)


There is an urgent need to reverse the declining environmental condition of rural landscapes across southern Australia. Current approaches focus on natural resources management planning, policy and decision making at the regional level. Regional plans and associated onground investment have the potential to have widespread and long-lasting environmental, economic and social impacts. However, rarely are these impacts quantified and clearly understood.

In this chapter we describe part of a large integrated project called the Lower Murray Landscape Futures (LMLF) which aimed to assess the impact of regional plans for the Lower Murray on selected environmental and socioeconomic indicators under alternative future landscape scenarios with input from stakeholders. The dryland component of the LMLF is a large-scale integrated regional planning and landscape futures analysis focussing on issues such as: agricultural production including food, fibre and bioenergy production; soil erosion; loss of terrestrial biodiversity; rising watertables; and the salinisation of the land and waterways. The project was designed to be inclusive and engender collaboration amongst researchers, participation by regional stakeholders, and communication to regional stakeholders and communities.

The intention is to provide useful evidence-based natural resourcemanagement planning advice to regional agencies. Landscape futures are plausible spatial arrangements of management actions (vegetation management, ecological restoration, conservation farming, deep-rooted perennials, biomass, and biofuels) that achieve regional natural resource management targets, assessed under six policy options and five climatic and economic scenarios. The triple bottom line impacts of landscape futures under each scenario and policy option were then assessed and visualised. The costs and benefits of landscape futures were compared and the trade-offs assessed to inform regional planning in the Lower Murray.


Wind Erosion Natural Resource Management Policy Option Ecological Restoration Conservation Farming 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baker JP, Hulse DW, Gregory SV, White D, Van Sickle J, Berger PA, Dole D, Schumaker NH (2004) Alternative futures for the Willamette River basin, Oregon. Ecological Applications 14:313–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker JP, Landers DH (2004) Alternative futures analysis for the Willamette River basin, Oregon. Ecological Applications 14:311–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berger PA, Bolte JP (2004) Evaluating the impact of policy options on agricultural landscapes: an alternative-futures approach. Ecological Applications 14:342–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bryan BA, Crossman ND (in press) Systematic regional planning for multiple objective natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management,doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.06.003Google Scholar
  5. Bryan BA, Crossman ND, King D, McNeill J, Wang E, Barrett G, Ferris MM, Morrison JB, Pettit C, Freudenberger D, O’Leary G, Fawcett J, Meyer W (2007a) Lower Murray landscape futures dryland component: volume 2 – analysis of regional plans and landscape futures. Land Technologies Alliance and CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryan BA, Crossman ND, King D, McNeill J, Wang E, Barrett G, Ferris MM, Morrison JB, Pettit C, Freudenberger D, O’Leary G, Fawcett J, Meyer W (2007b) Lower Murray landscape futures dryland component: volume 3 – preliminary analysis and modelling. Land Technologies Alliance and CSIRO Water for a Healthy Country, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  7. Carpenter SR, Pingali PL, Bennet EM, Zurek MB (2005) Ecosystems and human wellbeing: scenarios. Millenium ecosystem assessment report volume 2. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  8. Dole D, Niemi E (2004) Future water allocation and in-stream values in the Willamette River Basin: a basin-wide analysis. Ecological Applications 14:355–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hulse DW, Branscomb A, Payne SG (2004) Envisioning alternatives: using citizen guidance to map future land and water use. Ecological Applications 14:325–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. IPCC (2001) Climate change 2001: mitigation. Third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Raskin PD (2005) Global scenarios: background review for the millennium ecosystem assessment. Ecosystems 8:133–142Google Scholar
  12. Raskin P, Kemp-Benedict, E (2002) GEO scenario framework. Background paper for UNEP’s third Global Environmental Outlook Report. United Nations Environment Program, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  13. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Santelman MV, White D, Freemark K, Nassauer JI, Eilers JM, Vaché KB, Danielson BJ, Corry RC, Clark ME, Polasky S, Cruse RM, Sifneos J, Rustigian HCoiner C, Wu J, Debinski D (2004) Assessing alternative futures for agriculture in Iowa, USA. Landscape Ecology 19:357–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Schumaker NH, Ernst T, White D, Baker J, and Haggerty P (2004) Projecting wildlife responses to alternative future landscapes in Oregon’s Willamette Basin. Ecological Applications 14:?381–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schwartz P (1996) The art of the long view: planning for the future in an uncertain world. Doubleday, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Steinitz C (1990) A framework for theory applicable to the education of landscape architects (and other environmental design professionals). Landscape Journal 9:136–143Google Scholar
  18. Steinitz C, Arias H, Bassett S, Flaxman M, Goode T, Maddock T III, Mouat D, Peiser R, Shearer A (2003) Alternative futures for changing landscapes – the Upper San Pedro River Basin in Arizona and Sonora. Island Press, Washington,DCGoogle Scholar
  19. Suppiah R, Preston B, Whetton PH, McInnes KL, Jones RN, Macadam I, Bathols J, Kirono D (2006) Climate change under enhanced greenhouse conditions on South Australia. An updated report on: Assessment of climate change, impacts and risk management strategies relevant to South Australia. Climate Impacts and Risk Group, CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, VictoriaGoogle Scholar
  20. Theobald D (2005) Landscape patterns of exurban growth in the USA from 1980 to 2020. Ecology and Society 10:32. Available online, Scholar
  21. Van Sickle J, Baker J, Herlihy A, Bayley P, Gregory S, Haggerty P, Ashkenas L, Li J (2004) Projecting the biological condition of streams under alternative scenarios of human land use. Ecological Applications 14:368–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ward JR, Trengove G (2005) Developing re-vegetation strategies by identifying biomass based enterprise opportunities in the mallee areas of South Australia. CSIRO client report for South Australian Department Water, Land, Biodiversity and ConservationGoogle Scholar
  23. Wilhere GF, Linders MJ, Cosentino BL (2007) Defining alternative futures and projecting their effects on the spatial distribution of wildlife habitats. Landscape and Urban Planning 79:385–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Williams J, Saunders D (2005) Land use and ecosystems. In: Goldie J, Douglas B, Furnass B (eds) In search of sustainability. CSIRO Publishing, VictoriaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brett A Bryan
    • 1
  • Neville D Crossman
    • 1
  • Darran King
    • 1
  1. 1.CSIRO, UrrbraeSouth AustraliaAustralia

Personalised recommendations