doi:10.2489/jswc.67.2.37A FEATURE Enhancing services: Designing for multifunctionality Mike Dosskey, Gary Wells, Gary Bentrup, and Doug Wallace

t is increasingly recognized that ecosys- framework that is useful for guiding how 2010). Historically, the structure of these tem services provide a foundation for might be managed for multiple landscapes has been modified mainly to I the well-being of individuals and soci- ecosystem services (figure 1). According to enhance crop production, but successes ety (MEA 2005). managers typically the MEA concept, ecosystem services are toward that goal created other problems. strive to enhance particularly desirable ser- ecological functions that provide human Conservation focused initially on con- vices. For example, farmers crops and benefits such as and shelter and they trolling erosion of the that manage the soil and hydrologic conditions consist of numerous interrelated biotic and supports the agricultural production to favor crop production. In agricultural abiotic processes (MEA 2003). This con- service. Now, however, conservationists regions such as the US Corn Belt, excep- cept can be expanded by noting that while additionally seek to enhance quality, tionally high agricultural production has are naturally multifunctional, increase , and sequester been achieved, but at the expense of other they provide more or less of the services carbon, among other ecosystem services, ecosystem services, including abundant that people want within limits determined and to provide them in a sustainable man- wildlife and clean water. In the past, land by structure. Through modifica- ner. Since crop production for food and Copyright © 2012 Soil and Society. All rights reserved.

managers were unaware of these tradeoffs tions to landscape structure, however, land monetary benefits remains a primary Journal of Soil and Water Conservation or simply considered them less impor- managers can rebalance ecosystem services service from agricultural landscapes, land- tant in favor of a collective mindset to in favor of those that are particularly desir- scape modification for bolstering other maximize agricultural production. More able. To favor agricultural production, for ecosystem services must be accomplished recently, however, there has been rising example, structural modifications are typi- efficiently, at low cost, and with minimum demand for a broader range of ecosystem cally made to vegetation type and genetic loss of crop production. services coupled with documented degra- pool (crop variety and weed control), dation of landscape capabilities to provide chemical pools (fertilizer), and hydro- CONSERVATION PRACTICES them. Concern over these circumstances logic routing (drainage and ). Enhancement of ecosystem services from has grown among policymakers, scien- Landscape design, from this perspective, agricultural landscapes in the United tists, and conservationists (MEA 2005), is a systematic method for deciding how States is frequently accomplished by using

and there is now a general recogni- landscape structure should be modified methods developed and promoted by the 67(2):37A-41A tion that we must be more deliberate in to favor those ecosystem services that we USDA Natural Conservation managing our agricultural landscapes for want or need to enhance (Selman 2009). Service (NRCS). The building blocks multiple ecosystem services (Brandt and Enhancing multifunctionality to pro- of the USDA NRCS methods are con- Vejre 2004; Foley et al. 2005; Palmer et vide multiple ecosystem services has servation practices, each having specific www.swcs.org al. 2004; Secchi et al. 2008). How should become particularly important for agri- design criteria for the purpose of solving conservation planners go about this task? cultural landscapes (Jordan and Warner a single or limited set of problems. For What methods are available to guide

them toward this goal? In this paper, we Figure 1 present a conceptual framework and discussion of some approaches to conser- Linkage between landscape structure, ecosystem services, and human benefits. Adapted from Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA 2005). vation planning that may help to move this endeavor forward. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) program produced a conceptual

Mike Dosskey and Gary Bentrup are research ecologist and research landscape planner, respectively, USDA Service, National Agroforestry Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. Gary Wells is a landscape architect, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (retired), National Design, Construction, and Soil Mechanics Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. Doug Wallace is formerly national agroforester, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (retired), National Agroforestry Center, Lincoln, Nebraska.

JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION MARCH/APRIL 2012—VOL. 67, NO. 2 37A example, a Contour Buffer Strip prac- wildlife habitat, while other services that the current system of 159 practices will tice (code 332) is designed to increase they could also provide, such as air qual- exacerbate complexity of the system. infiltration, reduce transport of sediment, ity, aesthetics, recreation, and restoration and reduce sheet and rill erosion (USDA of natural ecological patterns and pro- IMPROVING THE USE OF NRCS 2011a). To apply practices, a con- cesses are often not considered. A practice CONSERVATION PRACTICES servationist identifies a problem that exists design cannot be intentionally adjusted for The use of USDA NRCS practices for on a site and then determines a practice a service that is not specifically listed as a enhancing ecosystem services could be or suite of practices that can adequately purpose or consideration of the practice. improved in three ways. First, practice mitigate it. This approach has worked Third, conservation practices do not purposes and considerations could be very well over past decades to reduce soil contain design criteria for providing land- broadened to allow greater range of design erosion while sustaining high levels of scape-scale ecosystem services. Creating adjustments for multiple benefits, even agricultural production. landscape structures like corridors for if they diminish the primary purpose(s). As conservationists strive to bolster enhancing populations of certain wild- Although current standards maintain the additional ecosystem services, however, species may work only if connectivity distinct identity of each practice and ensure some limitations of the USDA NRCS is created across large distances that may a base level of performance, they also limit methods begin to emerge. First, individual include multiple farms or entire water- the flexibility for designing simultaneously conservation practices have restricted flex- sheds or even regions. Practices, however, for additional benefits. Finding efficient Copyright © 2012 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.

ibility to be designed to optimize multiple are typically planned and designed for compromises among design criteria for Journal of Soil and Water Conservation ecosystem services. Typically, each practice individual sites or farm fields. Whole- different ecosystem services would be a is restricted to a few stated purposes, a nar- farm conservation planning and design are fundamental part of designing a practice row range of acceptable design, and may infrequently done. Consequently, success for multiple ecosystem services. be limited to application on only certain in creating larger-scale landscape structures Second, the USDA NRCS’s National land uses. Design adjustments may be con- like corridors is achieved mainly through Planning Procedures (USDA NRCS sidered for enhancing certain additional unsystematic installation on multiple sites 2011c), coupled with Area-Wide Planning services, but only to the extent that they until an appropriate scale of connectiv- (USDA NRCS 2011b) and Rapid do not diminish effectiveness for the stated ity is achieved. While USDA NRCS does Watershed Assessment (USDA NRCS purposes. Adjustments are not allowed provide procedures for landscape-level 2009), should get more widespread use. for other ecosystem services that a prac- planning that would help chart critical These procedures identify multiple land-

tice may be capable of providing that are locations for individual installations across use concerns and goals, recognize the 67(2):37A-41A beyond the range of requirements for the landscapes, including Area-Wide Planning interconnections between individual sites stated purposes and considerations. Each (USDA NRCS 2011b) and National and farms within larger planning units of these rules is intended to standardize Planning Procedures (USDA NRCS (e.g., watersheds), and assess the cumulative the design and application of a practice 2011c), they are rarely used. effects of proposed actions on the needs www.swcs.org to ensure acceptable performance and Fourth, the process of selecting and and issues of each scale. Properly nesting accounting for the stated purposes. On designing USDA NRCS practices has site-scale practices within a landscape con- the other hand, they limit optimization of become complex. There are currently 159 text is especially important for efficiently

the design of a practice, which may dimin- conservation practices, including 38 veg- enhancing ecosystem services that accrue ish performance for a stated purpose, in etative practices that are applicable to crop with landscape-scale applications. order to deliver a broader range of desired land (USDA NRCS 2011a); although, for Third, greater use could be made of ecosystem services. As a consequence, in any one state the number of approved the agency’s existing worksheet tools order to deliver multiple benefits, two or practices may be smaller. Many practices for developing conservation plans with more practices may need to be installed in have overlapping purposes and similarities Resource Management Systems, including separate locations, which may reduce crop in their design criteria. These common- Conservation Practices Physical Effects, acreage unacceptably, instead of a single, alities can lead to confusion in the process Site-Specific Practice Effects Worksheet, optimal, and less area-demanding practice of selecting the most efficient practice or Conservation Effects for Decisionmakers, in one location. suite of practices for enhancing multiple and Resource Management Systems Second, not every ecological services. Options Worksheet. In the planning and has an USDA NRCS practice designed Fifth, despite the comprehensiveness of design process, a Conservation Practices specifically for providing that service. conservation practices, new purposes (or Physical Effects assessment, for example, For example, vegetative conservation ecosystem services) continue to emerge would be used to evaluate the multiple practices (i.e., practices that involve estab- that are not addressed by existing practices. impacts of each practice and suites of lishment and management of vegetation) In response, new conservation practices practices which would feed back into the are designed primarily, if not exclusively, are developed for addressing the new pur- planning process to identify opportuni- to control erosion, manage water, pro- poses. However, adding new practices to ties for refining and improving the plan. duce marketable products, and provide Currently, there is no provision for using

38A MARCH/APRIL 2012—VOL. 67, NO. 2 JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION Conservation Practices Physical Effects change in perspective from site problem one ecosystem service has a conflicting or assessments to assist the design process. and practice to ecosystem function and cancelling effect on others. Optimization service provides an easier framework for is an inherent part of the process of creat- LANDSCAPE ECOLOGICAL PLANNING assessing and integrating multiple ecosys- ing multifunctional designs. AND DESIGN tem services and scales. For example, it Further improvement in the provision of becomes easier to visualize how a grassed EXAMPLE OF ECOLOGICAL DESIGN multiple ecosystem services will require waterway that is designed to reduce gully To illustrate how an ecological design pro- even greater flexibility for optimizing erosion could be designed and managed cess might work, we will focus on a subset multiple ecosystem services into applica- to additionally function as a runoff filter of 11 USDA NRCS conservation prac- tions of individual practices and for placing and as a connection in a wildlife corridor tices commonly called vegetative buffers. these multifunctional practices at strategic without having to install three separate Vegetative buffers are strips of permanent locations and times across landscapes. Area practices. vegetation typically installed within or at efficiency and cost-effectiveness of prac- The USDA NRCS National Planning the margins of crop land (or other land tices would be enhanced by (1) designing Procedures (USDA NRCS 2011c) pro- uses) and include field borders, contour each installation for optimum combina- vides a framework suitable for conducting buffers, grassed waterways, and riparian tions of services; (2) targeting locations landscape ecological planning and design. forest buffers, among others. They can and emphasizing design features that pro- The planning area is delineated and land- potentially enhance a wide variety of Copyright © 2012 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.

duce disproportionately greater benefits scape conditions are assessed and mapped. ecosystem services in an extensively agri- Journal of Soil and Water Conservation and synergies; (3) avoiding locations and Both public and landowner objectives cultural setting. In an ecological design minimizing design features that produce and constraints are defined and the rel- process, distinctions between these prac- conflict, cancelling effects, or negative evant landscape functions are identified. tices would dissolve and only the design consequences; and (4) tailoring the design Alternative patterns of landscape struc- criteria for enhancing different ecological from location to location depending on ture for achieving multiple ecosystem functions would remain. The design cri- site capabilities and landowner preferences. services are proposed and evaluated using teria would pertain to where permanent These qualities are implied goals of landscape ecology principles. Then, site vegetation should be located, what the landscape ecological planning and design designs are created by optimizing design dimensions should be, what vegetation (Ahern 2006; Ndubisi 2002; Selman 2009; criteria for the set of functions that must type(s) and structure these areas should Steinitz 1990). The process of planning be performed at each specific location. To contain, and how it should be managed. for these qualities is facilitated by under- support this latter step, substantial design A conservationist can begin to design a 67(2):37A-41A standing how landscapes are currently criteria can be obtained from the cur- vegetative buffer by organizing the desired functioning and how a modification of rent criteria for USDA NRCS practices. functions (identified earlier in the plan- landscape structure would affect ecologi- Compromises and tradeoffs likely will be ning process) and their design criteria into cal functioning and services provided. A needed in the designs where a criterion for a matrix like the one illustrated in table www.swcs.org

Table 1 Example of a function-criteria matrix for designing a vegetative buffer that would perform three different conservation functions. Only a few design criteria are shown in this simplified matrix in order to clearly illustrate the process of comparing criteria to deter-

mine compatibility.

Criterion type Design criteria Compatibility Function A: Provide shaded Function B: Stabilize eroding Function C: Provide aquatic habitat stream bank pollinator habitat

Location Near the water’s edge. Both sides of stream. Near water and moist soil. Compatible, but Function B has the most On west and south sides As close to the toe of the Within 300 m of cropland. stringent criterion for the final design. of stream. bank as possible. Dimensions Minimum width 10 m. Minimum width 5 m. Minimum width unknown. Compatible, but Function A has the most stringent criterion for the final design. Vegetation Trees, mature height > 30 m. Trees and shrubs, mature Nectar and pollen producing Conflict: tall trees on high banks Fast growing. height < 10 m with plants. may topple and increase bank erosion. Dense foliage. open crowns. Trees and shrubs for shelter. Compromise: select tall species having Moderate herbaceous Retain snag trees. open crowns and low weight, avoid ground cover. placing tall species on high banks, maintain snag trees away from bank. Management Weed control through year 3. Weed control through year 3. Protect from pesticides. Compatible, but need to ensure weed control does not adversely impact Function C.

JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION MARCH/APRIL 2012—VOL. 67, NO. 2 39A Figure 2 Conceptual diagram of a vegetative buffer designed to provide three ecosystem services: provide shaded aquatic habitat, stabilize eroding stream bank, and provide pollinator habitat. Copyright © 2012 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

1. The matrix would be used to compare and optimizing design criteria, designs for dard designs to each specific site problem. design characteristics for each function individual sites within a landscape could It would require conservationists to have with those of the other functions. This be adjusted to contribute to desired land- greater technical knowledge of land- process identifies criteria that are compat- scape-scale functions. scape functions and processes, skills to ible as well as some that conflict. Tradeoffs An ecological design process for buffers juggle several functions and design cri- often will be required to reconcile conflicts can be further enhanced by considering teria simultaneously, and more time and and optimize a final design. Among com- how the surrounding landscape could effort to devote to developing landscape patible criteria, one may be more stringent be designed to improve their effective- and site plans. There is also a deficiency

and will determine the final design, such ness. For example, tillage practices could of quantitative metrics and design cri- 67(2):37A-41A as for location and dimensions for the buf- be changed to improve infiltration and teria for many ecosystem functions (ELI fer in table 1. A final site design for this reduce peak runoff in the adjacent stream, 2003). This deficiency seriously limits example is illustrated in figure 2. For con- thereby helping to reduce bank erosion planners’ ability to assess potential impacts flicting criteria, such as for vegetation in and reducing or eliminating the buf- and optimize multiple functions. Scientific www.swcs.org this example, compromises may produce a fer width required for this purpose. By deficiency, however, also plagues the cur- design that provides acceptable, albeit less considering the larger landscape, the con- rent practices system (Maresch et al. 2008). than desired, levels of individual functions. servationist could minimize land taken out Enhancement of landscape-scale functions

If an acceptable compromise cannot be of production for a vegetative buffer and is limited further to the extent that mul- found, then the desired functions cannot still produce the desired service. Using the tiple individual landowners choose (for be performed at the same location. process of ecological design, whole agri- their own reasons) not to contribute to a Some ecosystem functions that veg- cultural landscapes can be designed for landscape-scale plan (Rickenback 2011). etative buffers can enhance require design land-use synergies that yield even more Finally, gauging impacts on ecosystem ser- and implementation at a landscape scale. efficient and more sustainable production vices in terms of acres of applied practices In our example, the function “Provide of ecosystem services. can act as a disincentive for achieving con- pollinator habitat” may require the loca- servation efficiency. tion criterion to include “Dispersed TRADEOFFS placement throughout the planning area” While unrestricted landscape ecologi- A WAY FORWARD in order to produce a significant area- cal planning and design may maximize For now, landscape ecological planning wide effect on pollination. If we added provision of ecosystem services and cost- and design is a vision for where conserva- the function “Provide a corridor for wild- effectiveness, it would be more difficult to tion development ultimately needs to go life movement,” then a location criterion conduct than the current USDA NRCS in order to satisfy increasing demand for might include “Continuous along his- system. The difficulties range from man- multiple ecosystem services. The USDA torical dispersion and migration routes,” power skills to scientific deficiencies to NRCS system of conservation planning and vegetation criteria would include policy and program needs. Landscape and practice application contains many the appropriate structure for the desired planning and design is more complex elements of landscape ecological plan- species. Through a process of comparing than simply matching one of several stan- ning and design and seems to be evolving

40A MARCH/APRIL 2012—VOL. 67, NO. 2 JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION toward this vision; however, in its present T. Holloway, E.A. Howard, C.J. Kucharik, C. for sustaining ecosystem services from private form it contains significant limitations. Monfreda, J.A. Patz, I.C. Prentice, N. Ramankutty, . Journal of Soil and Water Conservation Many of these limitations are tradeoffs and P.K. Snyder. 2005. Global consequences of 66(4):91A-96A. dictated by institutional needs, includ- . Science 309:570-574. Secchi, S., J. Tyndall, L.A. Schulte, and H. Asbjornsen. ing policy and program requirements. Jordan, N., and K.D. Warner. 2010. Enhancing the 2008. High crop prices and conservation: Raising Consequently, many of the agency’s tools Multifunctionality of US Agriculture. BioScience the stakes. Journal of Soil and water Conservation are not being used to their fullest capabil- 60(1):60-66. 63(3):68A-73A. ity. However, the pressure to achieve more Maresch, W., M. R. Wallbridge, and D. Kugler. 2008. Selman, P. 2009. Planning for landscape multifunc- kinds and greater levels of ecosystem ser- Enhancing conservation on agricultural land- tionality. : Science, Practice, & vices from agricultural landscapes at lower scapes: A new direction for the Conservation Policy 5(2):45-52. cost is likely to continue increasing into Effects Assessment Project. Journal of Soil and Steinitz, C. 1990. A framework for theory appli- the future and, along with it, the pressure Water Conservation 63(6):198A-203A. cable to the education of landscape architects to improve the methods. MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). (and other professionals). 2003. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: A Landscape Journal 9(2):136-143. REFERENCES Framework for Assessment. Washington, DC: USDA NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Ahern, J. 2006. Theories, methods, and strategies Island Press. Service). 2009. Rapid Watershed Assessment. for sustainable landscape planning. In Landscape MEA. 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Washington, DC: USDA Natural Resources Copyright © 2012 Soil and Water Conservation Society. All rights reserved.

Research to Landscape Planning: Aspects of Current State and Trends Assessment. Washington, Conservation Service. http://www.nrcs.usda. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation Integration, Education, and Application, eds. B. DC: Island Press. gov/programs/rwa. Tress, G. Tress, and P. Opdam, pp.119-131. New Ndubisi, F. 2002. Managing change in the landscape: USDA NRCS. 2011a. National Handbook of York, NY: Springer. A synthesis of approaches for ecological planning. Conservation Practices. Washington, DC: USDA Brandt, J., and H. Vejre. 2004. Multifunctional land- Landscape Journal 21(1-02):138-155. Natural Resources Conservation Service. scapes – motives, concepts and perspectives. In Palmer, M., E. Bernhardt, E. Chornesky, S. Collins, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/standards/ Multifunctional Landscapes Volume I: Theory, A. Dobson, C. Duke, B. Gold, R. Jacobson, S. nhcp.html. Values and History, eds. J. Brandt and H. Vejre, pp. Kingsland, R. Kranz, M. Mappin, M.L. Martinez, USDA NRCS. 2011b. Area-Wide Planning. 3-31. Southampton, UK: WIT Press. F. Micheli, J. Morse, M. Pace, M. Pascual, S. Washington, DC: USDA Natural Resources ELI ( Institute). 2003. Palumbi, O.J. Reichman, A. Simons, A. Townsend, Conservation Service. http://www.nedc.nrcs. Conservation Thresholds for Land Use Planners. and M. Turner. 2004. Ecology for a crowded usda.gov/catalog/areaconsplan.html.

Washington, DC: Environmental Law Institute. planet. Science 304:1251-1252. USDA NRCS. 2011c. National Planning Procedures 67(2):37A-41A Foley, J.A, R. DeFries, G.P. Asner, C. Barford, G. Rickenback, M., L.A. Schulte, D.B. Kittredge, Handbook, Title 180. Washington, DC: USDA Bonan, S.R. Carpenter, F.S. Chapin, M.T. W.G. Labich, and D.J. Shinneman. 2011. Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:// Coe, G.C. Daily, H.K. Gibbs, J.H. Helkowski, Cross-boundary cooperation: A mechanism directives.sc.egov.usda.gov. www.swcs.org

JOURNAL OF SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION MARCH/APRIL 2012—VOL. 67, NO. 2 41A