Journal of Environmental Management 270 (2020) 110475

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Review

Demonstrating efficacy of rural land management actions to improve water

quality - How can we quantify what actions have been done?
Katharina Doehring a, *, Roger G. Young a, Christina Robb b
a
Cawthron Institute, Nelson, New Zealand
b
Happen Consulting, Christchurch, New Zealand

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Despite several decades of encouraging land management actions to improve water quality on rural land, we are
Land management still struggling to accurately quantify what management actions have been implemented, where these actions
Mitigation actions have been used and the intensity of implementation. This is largely because standardised approaches to recording
Sustainable land use
and reporting of land management actions have not been established, resulting in a lack of robust information
Indicators
that can be used to determine the effectiveness and longevity of these actions at a catchment or larger scale.
Management strategies
Environmental recording Better information on the effectiveness of different land management actions will provide land managers with
Environmental reporting more certainty that their investments in land management actions will make a difference. We reviewed a total of
91 global publications and proceedings between 1989 and 2019 which assessed the complexities related to
recording and reporting sustainable land use actions with a focus on freshwater ecosystems in rural areas in the
developed world. We then summarised these complexities (i.e., temporal and spatial lag-effects, confidentiality
issues, lack of data robustness) and mined the literature about methodologies on how actions can be measured,
how to address the challenges with doing this and recommended a suite of indicators of land management ac­
tions that could be standardised and widely used to improve water quality. Our review of literature identified
numerous sources describing land management actions, but little information on standardised indicators of
location, scale and intensity of the most common actions. Some common actions are measured using a wide
variety of incompatible approaches (e.g., riparian management is often indicated by length of fencing, width of
vegetated buffer strips, proportion of the catchment with stock exclusion), whereas other indicators of land
management action are at such a high level (e.g., costs) that they do not provide information on the actions used.
The scale/intensity of land management efforts is often not reported spatially with information typically
restricted to small scales such as single point location information, making it difficult, if not impossible to
determine the scale of actions within a catchment relative to a given water quality monitoring site.

1. 1.Introduction eroded fine sediment (Basher, 2013; Davies-Colley, 2013; Wilcock et al.
1999). At larger scales, in particular, the management of these diffuse
Globally, the long-lasting impacts of agricultural production on the pollutants is commonly referred to as a ‘wicked problem’ (Defries and
rural environment are well recognised (Clark and Tilman, 2017; Food Nagendra, 2017) as they originate from multiple sources, are influenced
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2016; Molden, by multiple drivers and actors with contrasting values and spread across
2007; Steinfeld et al. 2006). The impacts on water quality are particu­ complex systems where possible solutions will vary from place to place
larly prevalent, including elevated concentrations of diffuse pollutants (Gunningham and Sinclair, 2005; Kumar et al. 2019; Patterson et al.
such as nutrients (predominately N and P), sediment and faecal mi­ 2013). Delivering effective control of these pollution sources poses sig­
crobes from leaching and runoff (McDowell et al. 2003; Monaghan et al. nificant challenges, and despite decades of research how to best address
2005). In addition, rural stream habitats are often heavily physically this ‘wicked problem’, decision-makers worldwide have not been able to
modified and commonly degraded causing wide diel changes in pH, halt these profound impacts on our environment (Water/WWAP, 2015).
temperature and dissolved oxygen, as well as poor water clarity due to Numerous on-land management actions are being practiced globally

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (K. Doehring).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110475
Received 14 November 2019; Received in revised form 7 February 2020; Accepted 22 March 2020
Available online 22 June 2020
0301-4797/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Doehring et al. Journal of Environmental Management 270 (2020) 110475

to reduce the loss of contaminants from rural land, or to lessen their modelled estimates as well as farmer surveys and show estimations of
impact on their environments (Bernhardt and Palmer, 2011; Bernhardt sediment, nutrients and pesticides that reach waterways after conser­
et al. 2005; Palmer et al. 2005). However, testing of the effectiveness of vation practices are implemented (Mausbach and Dedrick, 2004).
agricultural on-land management actions is most commonly done at a Despite this comprehensive database on conservation practices, the need
small spatial scale (i.e., farm or reach scale), and there have been limited for the recording of ‘real effectiveness of precision conservation approaches
examples of quantifying the effectiveness at larger scales (i.e., (sub-) for improving water quality’ remains (Tomer et al. 2014). We consider this
catchment scales). For land managers to be confident that their invest­ step critical and will discuss potential approaches for measuring land use
ment in mitigation actions will be returned, however, we need to find a actions below.
way to measure our actions and report these at catchment scale. Failure In this paper, we use the term land management action to refer to
to record and subsequently advise on the performance of mitigation actions that are being practiced on land to reduce the loss or transfer of
actions is likely to lead to misallocation of resources and false expecta­ contaminants to waterways (e.g., fencing, stock exclusion, changes to
tions with regards to treatment speeds and expected positive outcomes fertiliser use, altered stock management practices), and the term indi­
(Daigneault et al. 2017b; Parliamentary Commissioner for the Envi­ cator to describe the type, location and/or intensity of the action (e.g.,
ronment, 2019). For example, in 2018, the New Zealand Ministry for the area of riparian planting, kilometres of stream bank fenced, number of
Environment conducted a survey asking environmental experts to rate farms adopting sediment reduction practices). Overall, indicators need
the current state of availability of land management action data and to quantify actions that occur at varying intensity and scale (OECD,
what improvements are needed in New Zealand (Larned et al. 2018). 2003). For some actions, indicators may provide data that describes
They concluded that data on land management actions was generally intensity and scale such as the length and width of riparian planting,
unavailable at regional and national scales due to the lack of stand­ while for other actions, such as grazing management, indicators may
ardised procedures for data collection and classification. They high­ simply state whether something is happening (or not), but do not pro­
lighted the need for standard procedures for the collection and vide details on the scale or intensity (Heink and Kowarik, 2010).
classification of this information and to develop a set of specific in­ Taking learning from a literature review, we 1) have summarised the
dicators that can be measured. Briefly, environmental indicators can be complexities associated with recording sustainable land management
response-type indicators which describe the state of the environment actions, 2) have synthesised the most widely used sustainable land
and its impact on human beings, ecosystems and materials, as well as management actions, 3) propose potential concepts on how to best
indicators of pressures on the environment (New Zealand Ministry for quantify management actions, and 4) prioritised action indicators.
the Environment, 2007). Environmental indicators can also include
action-type indicators which describe (re)actions of organisations or 2. Methods
societies, such as sustainable land-use actions (Heink and Kowarik,
2010). Our review focusses on action-type indicators. We reviewed a total of 91 global publications and proceedings from
Without standardised recording methods, the effectiveness of land 1989 to 2019 which assessed the complexities related to recording and
management actions is impossible to measure. This limits the ability to reporting sustainable rural land use actions with a focus on freshwater
analyse project outcomes in terms of changes to water quality and ecosystems. We then summarised these complexities (i.e., temporal and
ecosystem health and provide guidance for future projects (Bernhardt spatial lag-effects, confidentiality issues, lack of data robustness) and
et al. 2007; Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, 2019; mined the literature to assess how actions can be measured, how to
Robert et al. 2005). Over the last two decades, research has given us address the challenges with doing this and recommended a suite of in­
relevant insight on the kinds of land use actions that need to be imple­ dicators of land management actions that could be standardised and
mented to address rural water quality degradation, especially in regions widely used to improve water quality.
in temperate climates where water is not scarce. For example, the ben­ Our literature search was primarily based on peer-reviewed journals,
efits of fencing and planting riparian margins to reduce the input of however, many project descriptions that summarised progress on sus­
contaminants into waterways are well recognised (Bragina et al. 2017; tainable land-use actions were recorded in governmental, unitary au­
Craig et al. 2008; Parkyn et al. 2003). thority and consultancy reports. Search engines used included Web of
But we lack standardised approaches and techniques to robustly Science, Scopus, Science Direct, ProQuest Central, ResearchGate and
assess our actions by using relevant indicators. For example, Gilvear and Google Scholar. Many of the non-scientific reports were available online
Casas-Mulet (2008) assessed strategies for river restoration at a catch­ from relevant websites. Key words that were used in the search included
ment scale for 127 projects throughout Scotland of which 48% antici­ “agricultural best management practice (BMP)” þ “good management
pated monitoring, but only 32% had set up response indicators that practice” þ “management actions” þ “sustainable land use” þ “mitiga­
measure the success or failure of a project. They concluded that despite tion” þ “intervention” þ “restoration” þ “water quality” þ “environ­
the huge range of indicators used in their review (e.g., biological, mental recording and reporting”.
physical, financial), Scotland lacks standardised approaches and tech­
niques for recording and reporting on the outcomes of actions. Similar 3. Results and discussion
conclusions were found for the World Overview of Conservation Ap­
proaches and Technologies (WOCAT; www.wocat.net; accessed 3.1. Complexities of recording land management actions – why is it so
09.09.2019) whose case studies offer an extensive collation of sustain­ difficult?
able land use actions practiced with insight on the level of stakeholder
and landowner participation, finances and impact analysis. However, Projects seeking to improve land management practices often have
their database does not provide any detailed recommendations on how multiple objectives and multiple land management actions are being
to measure land management practices. WOCAT themselves recognised used to reduce the loss of contaminants from land or lessen their impact
this gap and highlighted the need for development of mechanisms to in receiving environments (McDowell et al. 2009, 2018; Melland et al.
measure and evaluate the effects of changes in land management pro­ 2018). However, the location, scale and intensity of most of these ac­
jects (WOCAT, 2007). tions have not been robustly recorded and/or appropriately reported on,
One example which attempted to quantify environmental benefits of demonstrating just how complex the process of recording land man­
conservation practices at national, regional and catchment scales is the agement actions is. To fully comprehend the magnitude of this
Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP; accessed 09.01.2020), complexity, we will discuss some of the challenges that arise when it
initiated by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 2002 comes to recording and reporting these actions.
(Duriancik et al. 2008). Data for these analyses are provided from

2
K. Doehring et al. Journal of Environmental Management 270 (2020) 110475

3.1.1. Costs associated with collecting robust data 3.1.3. Lack of standardisation of recording methods
A key issue associated with the lack of available information on the At present, we lack consistent ways to measure and quantify land
types, location and intensity of land management actions is the cost management actions. This contrasts with the more common use of in­
associated with collecting and recording this information. This is espe­ dicators associated with marketed goods and services in the economy.
cially important at large scales. Often resources are devoted to the Goods and services are generally easy to define and monitor, so
implementation of actions, resulting in few resources being available for reporting of economic data is generally more comprehensive. For
monitoring. Although several countries and regions have land degra­ example, farm financial information describes how many different
dation maps, mapping of land management actions has been ‘badly’ products and their exact amount are produced on the farm in a given
neglected (WOCAT, 2007). Depending on property size and topography, year (e.g., number of livestock/kg of meat sold; how many ha of land
and the number of waterways present on the property, accurate mea­ planted in corn, etc.) and the amounts of inputs used (e.g., fuel used, kg
surement of riparian fencing and planting, for example, can be of fertiliser bought, labour provided, etc.). However, because land
labour-intensive and costly (New Zealand Ministry for Primary In­ management actions are typically not traded in markets, there has not
dustries, 2016). However, with the right degree of buy-in recording of been the same type of systematic effort spent to standardise the
useful information can be done at substantial scales. For example, New recording of these actions. Our review also showed that even if the
Zealand’s Taranaki Regional Council have been collaborating with effectiveness of land management actions were recorded, there are large
farmers to develop individual riparian management plans for their inconsistencies in how this is done (e.g., ranging from paper records to
properties since 1992, assessing the extent of riparian vegetation, type of digital recording and aerial coverage) and the level of quality assurance
fence, and farm numbers with riparian management plans. All infor­ employed by the people/agencies recording the data (e.g., data collec­
mation is recorded on-site at a paddock scale on a portable electronic tion by agencies with substantial data experience such as local govern­
device and then uploaded into the Council’s internal Geographic In­ ment agencies through to individual property owners) (Parliamentary
formation System. The programme has been widely adopted and 2587 Commissioner for the Environment, 2019). Data collected by property
(99.5%) Taranaki dairy farms now have riparian management plans in owners is an example of citizen science which has become increasingly
place, 12,200 km (85%) of waterways are mapped and fenced and 7700 popular worldwide since the mid-1990s (Gordienko, 2013). The
km (70%) of streambank is protected with riparian vegetation. Until the robustness and validity of such data, however, can be questionable due
completion of the project in 2026, the total anticipated cost (including to limitations such as lack of adequate training in research and use of
planting, fencing and collaborative engagement with over 2500 plan appropriate monitoring protocols. This uncertainty can lead to limita­
holders) to the farming sector is set at €52 million (Bedford, 2017). tions in the suitability of data for different purposes.
The high costs associated with assessing on-land management ac­
tions could be addressed with affordable and applicable remote sensing 3.1.4. Variability of data quality due to multiple spatial scales
tools and standardised restoration sampling methodologies. The In addition to the issue of multiple data providers, the scale at which
increasing need for robust remote sensing methods has led to the sustainable land use actions are being recorded is equally important
development of a variety of approaches that combine different methods when assessing the effectiveness of land management efforts. The Eu­
based on project needs, such as satellite or Unmanned Aerial Vehicle ropean Water Framework Directive (WFD) treats the river catchment as
(UAV) imagery, or Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) interpretation one interconnected system and describes it as an ‘optimal management
(e.g., Dufour et al. 2013; Jeong et al. 2016). The applications of LiDAR unit’ to implement management (European Commission, 2012). How­
and UAV systems include topographic mapping, surface movement ever, land management and restoration projects worldwide are
detection as well as environmental monitoring. Dufour et al. (2013), for commonly implemented at reach-scale in the form of small and isolated
example, looked at the applicability of 3D imagery to provide infor­ projects. Land degradation happens at all scales - from farm to catch­
mation for narrow riparian planting strips with high temporal resolution ment scale - and any restoration planning should be done at spatial
to allow detailed monitoring following restoration programmes. Their scales equivalent to the area where damage has occurred. But
high-resolution 3D LiDAR imagery (4-points per m2 density) and height catchment-scale projects on land management are often not an option,
accuracy (�0.1 m) allowed them to conduct accurate biophysical mea­ due to, for example, high costs, difficulties in obtaining legal mandates
surements of leaf area, above ground biomass and bank erosion. Having or the large amount of effort required to coordinate land managers.
adequate sampling tools available is an important step towards stand­ Project managers typically narrow down their implementation area to
ardised sampling methodologies and the recent advances in imagery targeted sections within a catchment instead of entire catchments or
technology and sampling application development should help the ecosystems (Doehring et al. 2019; Louhi et al. 2011; Parkyn et al. 2003).
development of robust and repeatable sampling protocols. These sections only represent a fraction of the catchment and are biased
towards the lower parts that are often densely populated and most
3.1.2. Privacy and confidentiality intensively farmed. Spatial scales also commonly differ for data collec­
One of the biggest issues related to the recording of any land man­ tion within a specific project, depending on who collects the data. For
agement work is the restricted sharing and accessibility of data. The data example, sustainable land use data recorded at a farm scale by indi­
that has been collected during changes in land management often ‘be­ vidual landowners may be very different to sustainable land use data
longs’ to the implementer or funder of the project who have the right to recorded on a regional or national scale conducted by sector groups or
decide whether the data will be made publicly available. Unfortunately, government agencies. These inconsistencies in scale for the recording of
data collated as part of specific projects is often not shared with third management actions are likely to lead to inconsistencies in the reporting
parties due to privacy agreements which leads to valuable information of the outcomes and highlight the need for standards on how to record
being inaccessible to the public. This, again, can lead to duplication of sustainable land management data.
effort as any lessons learnt during the process are not shared with others.
Privacy related issues can be addressed by only reporting information at 3.1.5. Lag effect of management actions
a larger spatial scale so information specific to individual properties is For sustainable land management practices to be effective, we not
not made public. However, spatial aggregation of data means that some only have to ask ourselves “At what scale do we need to apply man­
specific detail will be lost in the process. Spatial aggregation of infor­ agement actions?“, but also “How long will it take before we see any
mation until sufficient thresholds are reached is a common tool used to improvements in water quality?“. Many sustainable land management
address data confidentiality issues in other data reporting systems, such efforts have reported little or no improvements in water quality even
as census data (Buron and Fontaine, 2018; StatsNew Zealand - Tataur­ after extensive implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP)
anga Aotearoa, 2018). (Bond and Lake, 2003; Palmer et al. 2005; Roni et al. 2008), partly

3
K. Doehring et al. Journal of Environmental Management 270 (2020) 110475

Table 1
Most common land management strategies reported by management class/type. Modified from McDowell et al. (2018).
Land Management class/Type Management strategy

Riparian for streams/rivers/wetlands Fencing

Stock exclusion
Vegetated buffer strips/planting
Riparian management plan
Construction of artificial and natural seepage wetlands
Grazing & Crop management Restricted grazing (of winter forage crops)
Off-pasture animal confinement/controlled grazing
Change animal type
Supplementary feeding with low-N feeds/reduction of protein intake
Minimum tillage and direct drilling of seed
Cover crop after harvesting
Stubble mulching
Contour cultivation
Grazing & Crop management plan
Nutrients & Contaminants Restricted grazing (of winter forage crops)
Off-pasture animal confinement/controlled grazing
Bridging stock stream access
Sediment traps/retention ponds/bunds/wetlands
Change animal type
Precision application of fertiliser
Denitrification beds
Diuretic supplementation (increased salt intake)
Supplementary feeding with low-N feeds/reduction of protein intake
Tile drain amendments
Low water-soluble P fertiliser
Nitrification inhibitors
Nutrient & contaminant management plan
Soil conservation & Erosion control (incl. Critical source run-off) Sediment traps/retention ponds/bunds/wetlands
Restricted grazing (of winter forage crops)
Off-pasture animal confinement/controlled grazing
Afforestation/windbreaks
Bridging stock stream access
Tile drain amendments
Contour drains/benched headlands/slopes
Contour cultivation
Cover crop after harvesting
Minimum tillage/direct drilling of seed
Silt fence/trap
Stubble mulching
Wheel track dyking/ripping
Wind break crop
Preventing fence-line pacing (deer)
Alternative wallowing (deer)
Application aluminium sulphate to forage cropland/to pasture
Red mud (bauxite) to land
Soil conservation plan/Erosion management plan
Critical source run-off management plan
Water use Precision irrigation
Refurbishing and widening flood irrigation bays
Dams and water recycling
Water use management plan
Effluent management Greater effluent pond storage and deferred irrigation
Low rate application to land
Enhanced pond system
Effluent management plan
Generic to all farming practices Establishment of Farm Environment Plans (FEP)
Establishment of Good Management Practices (GMP)
Participation

because monitoring programmes are often designed to run over short to treatment which ranged from <1 year (for faecal bacteria waste man­
medium time frames (i.e., 5–10 years) which are too short to demon­ agement) to over 50 years (for sediment erosion control at a catchment
strate any water quality or ecosystem health improvements. One of the scale). Puckett (2002) studied transfer times of nutrients through ri­
key components adding to the complexity of measuring outcomes of parian buffer zones to streams and found lag times of 5 up to 200 years
sustainable land use practices is the lag in time before a response to due to the residence time in the groundwater within the catchment area.
actions can be seen (Meals et al. 2010; Viaud et al. 2004). Although Various other studies have investigated the effects of lag time on
water quality monitoring post-mitigation may be well designed and restoration outcomes (i.e., Boesch et al. 2001; Hamilton, 2012; Louhi
implemented, envisaged improvements may not occur as quickly as et al. 2011; Wilcock et al. 2013; Wohl et al. 2015), highlighting the
hoped and cannot be clearly linked to specific land management efforts. complexity of this issue and the subsequent difficulties for demon­
Lag times depend on many variables taking place at various dimensions strating the effectiveness of management efforts. To detect any shifts in
and are therefore difficult to predict. For example, Meals et al. (2010) water quality, we suggest that environmental monitoring programmes
listed examples of lag times in response to environmental impact or need to span over at least ten years to provide sufficient statistical power

4
K. Doehring et al. Journal of Environmental Management 270 (2020) 110475

to detect trends given high natural variability in some water quality Zealand and Australia (Federated Farmers, 2018; Manderson, 2018).
parameters (e.g., water temperature and nitrate concentrations). In FEPs provide a useful basis for reporting and are likely to provide an
addition, the time taken for actions to be implemented and long-term existing data source that can be used to report indicators. In New Zea­
shifts, such as climatic cycles, market forces or slow rate of adoption land, FEPs are emerging as a tool for land managers to record progress
need to be recognised (Bernhardt and Palmer, 2011; Kondolf and on actions to address water quality and have been proposed as part of
Micheli, 1995; Wilcock et al. 2013). latest freshwater management strategies by central government
(Federated Farmers, 2018; NZ Ministry for the Environment, 2019).
3.2. Common land management actions and how to report them FEP’s can be driven by regulation, such as resource management plans
or resource consent requirements, or by industry quality assurance
Our review found that very few land management initiatives schemes such as the Environment Management System (EMS) or Cleaner
focussed on a single land management action. Instead, most included a Production (CP) approaches (Cheremisinoff and Bendavid-Val, 2001;
combination of actions at both, small and larger scales tailored to suit El-Haggar, 2007; New Zealand Gap, 2019). These plans often use three
the physical conditions (soil, climate and slope), farming types, and the to four levels of action. For example, Irrigation New Zealand (2019)
community within a catchment. This large tapestry of land management grouped actions in their FEP based on ‘acceptability of practices’ from
actions makes it challenging to design, measure and report the combi­ ‘poor’ to ‘premium’, meaning that if a required outcome such as the
nations of actions at the catchment scale. Environmental status is usually design and installation of new irrigation infrastructure is ‘poor’, then
assessed at large, water body scale (e.g. lake ecosystems), rather than the there were no design or installation checks done by the landowner and
scale at which actions are typically implemented (e.g., reach-scale), the action is categorised as ‘generally inadequate’. If the outcome was
meaning that evidence is increasingly required on the scope for com­ ‘basic’, then the system has been designed with ‘site specific knowledge
bined or integrated diffuse agricultural pollution control actions to help of the soil, climate and crop needs’ and the action is categorised as
achieve policy targets (Bouraoui and Grizzetti, 2014). We found that the ‘potentially adequate for small blocks with low application depth’. A
dominant recorder and reporter of land management actions worldwide ‘good’ outcome means that ‘all new irrigation infrastructure has been
are central government agencies, regional or local government agencies, installed in accordance with Installation Code of Practice’ and the action
industry groups, indigenous groups (such as Ma �ori in New Zealand), is categorised as a ‘minimum for most spray irrigators’. Finally, the
community and farmer groups, and not-for-profit organisations, due to ‘premium’ outcome requires the landowner to use ‘comprehensive
their role in co-ordinating and funding land management actions on evaluation and decision-making processes’ which are ‘required to ensure
individual, or across multiple, properties. We identified the following [that the] design can achieve effective and efficient use of water’. This
key management classes to be universal: riparian (including wetlands), process is followed for a range of management objectives, including
grazing and crop management, nutrients and contaminants, soil con­ irrigation system design and installation, irrigation management,
servation/erosion control/critical source run-off, water use, effluent and nutrient and soil management, effluent management, etc. (Irrigation
management strategies generic to all farming practices (Table 1). New Zealand, 2019).
Based on the growing popularity of FEPs as tools for environmental
3.2.1. Recording and reporting land management actions by effectiveness recording and reporting worldwide, but also for the purposes of
The concept of grouping (also commonly called clustering/bundling) reporting at national scales, we consider the grouping of management
of land management actions enables comparisons of effort between actions by effectiveness the most applicable way of grouping. For the
situations without needing to describe detail of every individual action. purpose of this review, we will adopt the ranking system used by Irri­
Depending on the management outcomes desired, many kinds of gation New Zealand (i.e., poor, basic, good, premium) as indicators of
grouping are being applied. For example, a commonly applied grouping measuring management actions. We have used this strategy and applied
of management actions is based on cost, as managers generally know the it as an indicator in Table 2 to quantify the implications of management
funding received and costs associated with certain projects (Daigneault plans for a range of land management classes.
and Elliot, 2017a; Matheson et al. 2018; Vibart et al. 2015).
Grouping management actions by effectiveness, however, is one of 3.3. Reporting of land management indicators to measure common
the most prevalent strategies applied for land management because it actions
can be meaningfully linked to outcomes. By doing so, multiple sectors
can be covered by a single system, because each sector follows a The importance of long-term monitoring of land management ac­
consistent and rigorous assessment process, allowing their effectiveness tions has been recognised for some time. We argue, however, that one of
at reducing a given contaminant to be compared at the end. For the biggest impediments to demonstrating whether changes to land
example, management actions categorised as ‘good’ for the forestry management have been effective, is the lack of robust and repeatable
sector are likely to be different from management strategies categorised indicators of the types and intensity of these actions at appropriate
as ‘good’ for horticulture, however, by applying an overarching cate­ scales (i.e., catchment versus reach-scales). As such, we are unable to
gorical system each sector’s score can be assessed for relative effec­ answer ‘simple’ questions like ‘what percent of the riparian length in a
tiveness and used to report on an area of land which contributes to an catchment is planted?‘, or ‘on what percentage of grazed land are low N-
overall measurable score for a region or catchment. McDowell et al. feeds used for supplementary feeding?‘.
(2018), for example, systematically evaluated and scored management Without robust indicators, we cannot confidently say whether
actions based on their effectiveness (%), relative cost ($/ha/yr) and certain actions can be related to water quality or ecological responses
response rate (fast, moderate, slow) to reduce on-land agricultural (Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, 2019; Rubin et al.
contaminants such as nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment and E. coli. The 2017; Woolsey et al. 2007). Our review focussed on literature sources
actions that scored highest were the most suitable for reducing a given describing projects which aimed to improve water quality based on land
contaminant in any situation. For example, stream fencing is a highly management actions and the indicators used to measure their location
effective action for phosphorus mitigation associated with low costs and and extent. We found that land management indicators suitable for
a fast response rate, however, for mitigation of sediment contamination, reporting generally followed global Tier 1 statistics classifications. For
stream fencing is less effective, although still low in costs and with fast these, indicators need to be clear, relevant, authoritative and trust­
response rates. worthy, provide long-term continuity and enable international compa­
Another concept of grouping land management actions by effec­ rability (IAEG - SDG, 2019; OECD, 2017). Statistics NZ, for example,
tiveness is done through Farm Environment Plans (FEPs) which are have developed ten principles which guide the production of Tier 1
typically used by the agricultural and horticultural sectors in New statistics. These include criteria such as relevance, integrity, quality,

5
K. Doehring et al. Journal of Environmental Management 270 (2020) 110475

Fig. 1. Recommended criteria for indicators of management actions to improve water quality and their associated attributes (synthesised from commonly applied
criteria for indicator development).

coherence, confidentiality, efficiency or accessibility (Statistics NZ, management actions, as the reported outcome may be quite different
2018). Another classification was proposed by Pricewaterhouse PwC from the initially recorded action. Otherwise, there could be misrepre­
(2017) who recommended key criteria for fit for purpose indicators for sentation of the land use actions conducted at large scales.
the ‘Our Land and Water National Science Challenge’ in New Zealand. Table 2 summarises land management indicators based on the
Briefly, the Challenge aims to facilitate changes in land use practices to grouping of land management actions synthesised in Table 1 and the
improve both, the value derived from agriculture and the environmental adoption and reporting criteria listed in Fig. 1. Each indicator has been
effects of agriculture (Our Land and Water - Toitu‾ te Whenua, 2019). scored against the six criteria described in Fig. 1 (i.e., valid, widely used/
We combined and adjusted these global Tier 1 criteria classifications to accessible data, performance based, meaningful/communicable/
support the assessment of the sustainable land action indicators identi­ comprehensible, clearly defined/standardised, accepted by stake­
fied in this review (Fig. 1). We are also anticipating applying these in the holders) based on expert opinion. For this, each indicator was given a
development of a New Zealand wide register of management actions score from one to five for each criterion, enabling us to distinguish be­
with the aim of providing information to land managers to ultimately tween more appropriate (i.e., higher scores) or less appropriate in­
improve water quality (Table 2). dicators (i.e., lower scores; Table 2). We believe it is important to
It is important to consider that when developing indicators, we are highlight the subjectivity of the scoring process applied for indicators in
aware of the differences between indicators used for recording actions Table 2. Each indicator might be given a different score, depending on
and how we report on these. For example, while land managers might local circumstances. We, thus, recommend that each indicator should be
record an indicator measuring the length of stream fenced on their farm, re-tested and re-scored by land managers at scales and land uses relevant
the adequate reporting indicator could be the percentage of streams to their situation (e.g., local catchment scale for dairy land use).
fenced within a catchment. This difference, albeit subtle, needs to be in
the back of our minds when developing indicators for sustainable land

6
K. Doehring et al. Journal of Environmental Management 270 (2020) 110475

4. Conclusions and recommendations aim of improving the health of our global freshwater ecosystems.

The value of recording and reporting actions is well-recognised, and Acknowledgements

while information is being recorded, it is not done consistently. Hence,
standardised recording and reporting of land management actions is a The authors would like to thank Marie McCarthy and three anony­
critical gap in international efforts to improve freshwater ecosystem mous reviewers who provided useful comments on an earlier version of
health (WOCAT, 2007). Our review has shown that although monitoring this review. We also acknowledge the encouragement and support for
of land management actions has increased over the past decade, doc­ this work provided by Richard McDowell. The research was funded by
umenting them has not been given sufficient priority, despite the billions the New Zealand Ministry for Business, Innovation and Employment
of dollars spent annually on implementation (e.g., Australian Govern­ National Science Challenge ‘Our Land and Water’ - Toitu
� te whenua,
ment and Queensland Government, 2016). Toiora te wai, contract C10X1507.
The key challenges associated with recording and reporting of sus­
tainable land use actions are 1) costs associated with collecting robust Appendix A. Supplementary data
data, 2) privacy and confidentiality, 3) lack of standardised recording
methods, 3) variability of data quality due to multiple spatial scales, and Supplementary data related to this article can be found at https://
4) lag effects of management actions on water quality outcomes. doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.110475.
Given these challenges, there is value in a coordinated effort across
multiple catchments and collaboration among parties who collect and/ References
or report data. However, our review of international initiatives and
literature neither found a reporting system that incorporated data on Australian Government, Queensland Government, 2016. Management Practice Results.
Great Barrier Reef. Report Card 2016. Reef Water Quality Protection Plan, p. 42.
land management actions from multiple sources across catchment- Basher, L.R., 2013. Erosion processes and their control in New Zealand. In: Ecosystem
scales, nor clear recommendations on potential indicators and Services in New Zealand – Conditions and Trends. Chapter: 2.7. Publisher: Manaaki
measuring techniques for those actions. To fill these gaps, we Whenua Press. Dymond J Ed, pp. 363–374.
Bedford, G., 2017. Transforming the stream banks of Taranaki, New Zealand: voluntary
recommend: regional-scale stream enhancement. In: International Interdisciplinary Conference
on Land Use and Water Quality. Agriculture and the Environment, The Hague,
a) The grouping of land management actions by effectiveness and Netherlands.
Bernhardt, E.S., Palmer, M.A., 2011. River restoration: the fuzzy logic of repairing
reporting them as seven overarching ‘land management classes’: 1) reaches to reverse catchment scale degradation. Ecol. Appl. 21, 1926–1931.
riparian (streams, rivers, wetlands), 2) grazing and crop manage­ Bernhardt, E.S., Palmer, M.A., Allan, J.D., Alexander, G., Barnas, K., Brooks, S., Carr, J.,
ment, 3) nutrients and contaminants, 4) soil conservation and Clayton, S., Dahm, C.N., Follstad-Shah, J., Galat, D., Gloss, S., Goodwin, P., Hart, D.,
Hassett, B., Jenkinson, R., Katz, S., Kondolf, G.M., Lake, P.S., Lave, R., Meyer, J.L.,
erosion control, 5) water uses, 6) effluent management, and 7)
O’Donnell, T.K., Pagano, L., Powell, B., Sudduth, E., 2005. Synthesizing U.S. river
generic to all farm practices; restoration efforts. Science 308, 636–637.
b) The adoption of the following six indicator criteria: 1) validity, 2) Bernhardt, E.S., Sudduth, E.B., Palmer, M.A., Allan, J.D., Meyer, J.L., Alexander, G.,
widely used and accessible, 3) performance-based, 4) meaningful, Follastad-Shah, J., Hassett, B., Jenkinson, R., Lave, R., Rumps, J., Pagano, L., 2007.
Restoring rivers one reach at a time: results from a survey of U.S. river restoration
communicable and comprehensible, 5) clearly defined and stand­ practitioners. Restor. Ecol. 15, 482–493.
ardised, and 6) accepted by stakeholders; Boesch, D.F., Brinsfield, R.B., Magnien, R.E., 2001. Chesapeake Bay eutrophication:
c) Using Farm Environmental Plans as a recording platform of land scientific understanding, ecosystem restoration, and challenges for agriculture.
J. Environ. Qual. 30, 303–320.
management practices (recognising that some information on actions Bond, N., Lake, P., 2003. Local habitat restoration in streams: constraints on the
is also available from communities, government or specific funding effectiveness of restoration for stream biota. Ecol. Manag. Restor. 4, 193–198.
agencies); Bouraoui, F., Grizzetti, B., 2014. Modelling mitigation options to reduce diffuse nitrogen
water pollution from agriculture. Sci. Total Environ. 468–469, 1267–1277.
d) The recording of land management actions based on the highest Bragina, L., Sherlock, O., van Rossum, A., Jennings, E., 2017. Cattle exclusion using
scoring indicators (see Table 2 for detailed information). fencing reduces Escherichia coli (E. coli) level in stream sediment reservoirs in
northeast Ireland. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 239, 349–358.
Buron, M.-L., Fontaine, M., 2018. Chapter 14: Confidentiality of Spatial Data. Handbook
Land managers have recognised the need to develop practical tools of Spatial Analysis. INSEE Eurostat, 2018. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/docu
and guidelines for the design of cost-effective land management actions ments/3859598/9462709/INSEE-ESTAT-SPATIAL-ANA-18-EN.pdf.
and acknowledge the importance of detailed pre- and post-recording of Cheremisinoff, N.P., Bendavid-Val, A., 2001. Chapter 1 - EMS: principles and concepts.
In: Cheremisinoff, N.P., Bendavid-Val, A. (Eds.), Green Profits. Butterworth-
these actions and feedback techniques, such as the ‘Plan – Do – Check –
Heinemann, Burlington, pp. 4–17.
Act’ cycle, setting SMART project objectives and BACI monitoring. Clark, M., Tilman, D., 2017. Comparative analysis of environmental impacts of
While these systems are useful tools, most do not provide guidance on agricultural production systems, agricultural input efficiency, and food choice.
how to systematically record sustainable land use actions. However, Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 064016.
Craig, L.S., Palmer, M.A., Richardson, D.C., Filoso, S., Bernhardt, E.S., Bledsoe, B.P.,
without data on the extent and intensity of implementation of actions Doyle, M.W., Groffman, P.M., Hassett, B.A., Kaushal, S.S., Mayer, P.M., Smith, S.M.,
and changes in land management, managers and implementors are un­ Wilcock, P.R., 2008. Stream restoration strategies for reducing river nitrogen loads.
able to confidently link improvements in catchment water quality to a Front. Ecol. Environ. 6, 529–538.
Daigneault, A.J., Elliot, S., 2017. Land-use Contaminant Loads and Mitigation Costs. A
specific management action which makes them unable to determine the Technical Paper. Motu Economic and Public Policy Research, p. 37.
effectiveness of their investment at catchment-scales. In addition, Daigneault, A.J., Eppink, F.V., Lee, W.G., 2017. A national riparian restoration
adoption strategies of proposed practices need to be developed early in programme in New Zealand: is it value for money? J. Environ. Manag. 187, 166–177.
Davies-Colley, R.J., 2013. River water quality in New Zealand: an introduction and
the planning process to ensure that land management actions are suc­ overview. In: Dymond, J.R. (Ed.), Ecosystem Services in New Zealand - Conditions
cessfully used. If land management recommendations are to influence and Trends. Manaaki Whenua Press, Lincoln, New Zealand.
practice, then the success of these will depend on gaining landowner Defries, R., Nagendra, H., 2017. Ecosystem management as a wicked problem. Science
356, 265–270.
confidence and addressing concerns about confidentiality. Doehring, K., Clapcott, J.E., Young, R.G., 2019. Assessing the functional response to
Investment in sustainable land practice is extensive but without streamside fencing of pastoral Waikato streams, New Zealand. Water 11, 1347.
consistent recording and reporting there is a lost opportunity to better Dufour, S., Bernez, I., Betbeder, J., Corgne, S., Hubert-Moy, L., Nabucet, J., Rapinel, S.,
Sawtschuk, J., Troll� e, C., 2013. Monitoring restored riparian vegetation: how can
understand the links between actions and freshwater outcomes. We
recent developments in remote sensing sciences help? Knowl. Manag. Aquat.
therefore believe that a register recording sustainable land use actions Ecosyst. 10.
using the indicators identified in this review as a starting point will be a Duriancik, L.F., Bucks, D., Dobrowolski, J.P., Drewes, T., Eckles, S.D., Jolley, L.,
useful first step to help demonstrate the scale and type of actions needed Kellogg, R.L., Lund, D., Makuch, J.R., O’Neill, M.P., Rewa, C.A., Walbridge, M.R.,

to improve water quality. This will prove a necessary contribution to the

7
K. Doehring et al. Journal of Environmental Management 270 (2020) 110475

Parry, R., Weltz, M.A., 2008. The first five years of the conservation effects New Zealand Ministry for the Environment, 2007. Environment New Zealand 2007.
assessment project. J. Soil Water Conserv. 63, 185A–197A. Retrieved 11.11.2019 2019, from. https://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/en
El-Haggar, S., 2007. Sustainable Development and Environmental Reform. Academic vironmental-reporting/environment-new-zealand-2007-chapter-1-environment
Press, p. 424 (Chapter 4). al-reportin-5.
European Commission, 2012. Report from the Commission to the European Parliament NZ Ministry for the Environment, 2019. Action for Healthy Waterways – A Discussion
and the Council on the Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (2000/ Document on National Direction for Our Essential Freshwater. Ministry for the
60/EC) River Basin Management Plans. COM, 2012) 710 Final. Environment, Wellington, p. 105.
Federated Farmers, Beef & Lamb NZ, 2018. Greater Wellington Regional Council, OECD, 2003. OECD Environmental Indicators - Development, Measurement and Use.
DairyNZ, Waikato Regional Council. Water Directorate - Ministry for the Reference Paper. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. http:
Environment, Irrigation NZ, Environment Canterbury, Horticulture New Zealand. //www.oecd.org/environment/indicators-modelling-outlooks/24993546.pdf.
Good Farming Practice Action Plan for Water Quality 2018. http://www.hortnz.co. OECD, 2017. Strengthening Providers’ Results Frameworks through Targets & Indicators
nz/assets/Our-Work-files/Good-farming-practice-for-water-action-plan-2018.pdf. of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), vol. 48p. https://www.oecd.org/dac/
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2016. The State of Food and results-development/docs/strengthening-providers-results-frameworks.pdf.
Agriculture - Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Society, p. 194. Rome, 2016. Our Land and Water, 2019. Toitu‾ Te Whenua TtW. Retrieved 11.11.2019. https://our
Gilvear, D., Casas-Mulet, R., 2008. River Restoration at the Catchment Scale in Scotland: landandwater.nz/incentives-for-change/national-register-of-actions/.
Current Status and Opportunities. Scottish Environment Protection Agency, p. 72. Palmer, M.A., Bernhardt, E.S., Allan, J.D., Lake, P.S., Alexander, G., Brooks, S., Carr, J.,
Gordienko, Y., 2013. Green Paper on Citizen Science. Citizen Science for Europe. Clayton, S., Dahm, C.N., Follstad Shah, J., Galat, D.L., Loss, S.G., Goodwin, P.,
Towards a Better Society of Empowered Citizens and Enhanced Research. Socientize, Hart, D.D., Hassett, B., Jenkinson, R., Kondolf, G.M., Lave, R., Meyer, J.L.,
European Commission, p. 48p. O’Donnell, T.K., Pagano, L., Sudduth, E., 2005. Standards for ecological successful
Gunningham, N., Sinclair, D., 2005. Policy instrument choice and diffuse source river restoration. J. Appl. Ecol. 42, 208–217.
pollution. J. Environ. Law 17, 51–81. Parkyn, S.M., Davies-Colley, R.J., Halliday, N.J., Costley, K.J., Croker, G.F., 2003.
Hamilton, S.K., 2012. Biogeochemical time lags may delay responses of streams to Planted riparian buffer zones in New Zealand: do they live up to expectations?
ecological restoration: time lags in stream restoration. Freshw. Biol. 57, 43–57. Restor. Ecol. 11, 436–447.
Heink, U., Kowarik, I., 2010. What are indicators? On the definition of indicators in Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, 2019. Focusing Aotearoa New
ecology and environmental planning. Ecol. Indicat. 10, 584–593. Zealand’s Environmental Reporting System, p. 100p. https://www.pce.parliament.
IAEG - SDG, 2019. Tier Classification for Global SDG Indicators accessed 09/09/2019. nz/media/196940/focusing-aotearoa-new-zealand-s-environmental-reporting-sys
https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/Tier%20Classification%20of%20SDG%20Indi tem.pdf.
cators_13%20February%202019_web.pdf. Patterson, J.J., Smith, C., Bellamy, J., 2013. Understanding enabling capacities for
Irrigation New Zealand, 2019. Retrieved 27.05.2019. https://www.irrigationnz.co.nz managing the ’wicked problem’ of nonpoint source water pollution in catchments: a
/KnowledgeResources/IrrigationFEP. conceptual framework. J. Environ. Manag. 128, 441–452.
Jeong, S.G., Mo, Y., Kim, H.G., Park, C.H., Lee, D.K., 2016. Mapping riparian habitat Puckett, L.J., 2002. Hydrogeologic Controls on the Transport and Fate of Nitrate in
using a combination of remote-sensing techniques. Int. J. Rem. Sens. 37, 1069–1088. Groundwater beneath Riparian Buffer Zones: Results from Studies across the United
Kondolf, G., Micheli, E., 1995. Evaluating stream restoration projects. Environ. Manag. States. 6th International Conference on Diffuse Pollution, pp. 275–281.
19, 1–15. PwC, 2017. Signs to Look for: Criteria for Developing and Selecting Fit for Purpose
Kumar, V., Parihar, R.D., Sharma, A., Bakshi, P., Singh Sidhu, G.P., Bali, A.S., Indicators. PwC, p. 24. https://ourlandandwater.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/
Karaouzas, I., Bhardwaj, R., Thukral, A.K., Gyasi-Agyei, Y., Rodrigo-Comino, J., IWG_Indicators-thinkpiece-1.pdf.
2019. Global evaluation of heavy metal content in surface water bodies: a meta- Robert, H.H., Adam, C.W., April, M.R., 2005. The myths of restoration ecology. Ecol. Soc.
analysis using heavy metal pollution indices and multivariate statistical analyses. 10, 19.
Chemosphere 236. Roni, P., Hanson, K., Beechie, T., 2008. Global review of the physical and biological
Larned, S., Booker, D., Dudley, B., Moores, J., Monaghan, R., Baillie, B., Schallenberg, M., effectiveness of stream habitat rehabilitation techniques. N. Am. J. Fish. Manag. 28,
Moriarty, E., Zeldis, J., Short, K., 2018. Land-use Impacts on Freshwater and Marine 856–890.
Environments in New Zealand. Prepared for Ministry for the Environment. Rubin, Z., Kondolf, G.M., Rios-Touma, B., 2017. Evaluating stream restoration projects:
MFE18503, p. 291. what do we learn from monitoring? Water 9, 174.
Louhi, P., Mykr€ a, H., Paavola, R., Huusko, A., Vehanen, T., M€
aki - Pet€
ays, A., Muotka, T., Statistics, N.Z., 2018. Summary of Principles and Protocols for Producers of Tier 1
2011. Twenty years of stream restoration in Finland: little response by benthic Statistics. Retrieved 24.06.2019. https://www.stats.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/Principl
macroinvertebrate communities. Ecol. Appl. 21, 1950–1961. es-and-protocols-for-producers-of-tier-1-stats/summary-principles-protocols-for-
Manderson, A., 2018. Potential Reporting Commonality of Regional Council Data producers-of-tier-1-stats.pdf.
Collected for Soil Conservation, Riparian Protection, and Farm Environmental Plans. StatsNew Zealand - Tatauranga Aotearoa, 2018. Processing and Evaluating the Quality of
Contract Report: LC3372. Manaaki Whenua - Landcare Research, p. 69. 2018 Census Data. Retrieved 24/01/2019. https://www.stats.govt.nz/method
Matheson, L., Djanibekov, U., Greenhalgh, S., 2018. Recommended Mitigation Bundles s/processing-and-evaluating-the-quality-of-2018-census-data.
for Cost Analysis of Mitigation of Sediment and Other Freshwater Contaminants in Steinfeld, H.P., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., de Haan, C., 2006.
the Rangit�aiki and Kaituna - Pongakawa - Waitahanui Water Management Areas. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Food and Agriculture
Final Report, Forming Partial Delivery for Milestone 1,3. In: A. Version 1Perrin Ag Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, p. 390. http://www.europarl.europ
Consultants Ltd and Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research. a.eu/climatechange/doc/FAO%20report%20executive%20summary.pdf.
Mausbach, M., Dedrick, A., 2004. The length we go: measuring environmental benefits of Tomer, M.D., Sadler, E.J., Lizotte, R.E., Bryant, R.B., Potter, T.L., Moore, M.T., Veith, T.
conservation practices. J. Soil Water Conserv. 59. L., Baffaut, C., Locke, M.A., Walbridge, M.R., 2014. A decade of conservation effects
McDowell, R.W., Monaghan, R.M., Morton, J., 2003. Soil phosphorus concentrations to assessment research by the USDA Agricultural Research Service: progress overview
minimise potential P loss to surface waters in Southland. New Zealand J. Agricult. and future outlook. J. Soil Water Conserv. 69, 365–373.
Res. 46, 239–253. Viaud, V., Merot, P., Baudry, J., 2004. Hydrochemical buffer assessment in agricultural
McDowell, R.W., Nash, D., George, A., Wang, Q.J., Duncan, R., 2009. Approaches for landscapes: from local to catchment scale. Environ. Manag. 34, 559–573.
quantifying and managing diffuse phosphorus exports at the farm/small catchment Vibart, R., Vogeler, I., Dennis, S., Kaye-Blake, W., Monaghan, R., Burggraaf, V.,
scale. J. Environ. Qual. 38, 1968–1980. Beautrais, J., Mackay, A., 2015. A regional assessment of the cost and effectiveness
McDowell, R.W., Schallenberg, M., Larned, S., 2018. A strategy for optimizing catchment of mitigation measures for reducing nutrient losses to water and greenhouse gas
management actions to stressor–response relationships in freshwaters. Ecosphere 9 emissions to air from pastoral farms. J. Environ. Manag. 156, 276–289.
(10). https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ecs2.2482. Water/WWAP, U., 2015. The United Nations World Water Development Report 2015:
Meals, D.W., Dressing, S.A., Davenport, T.E., 2010. Lag time in water quality response to Water for a Sustainable World. Programme UNWWA, Paris, UNESCO. http://un
best management practices: a review. J. Environ. Qual. 39, 85–96. esdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002318/231823E.pdf.
Melland, A.R., Fenton, O., Jordan, P., 2018. Effects of agricultural land management Wilcock, R.J., Nagels, J.W., Rodda, H.J.E., O’Connor, M.B., Thorrold, B.S., Barnett, J.W.,
changes on surface water quality: a review of meso-scale catchment research. 1999. Water quality of a lowland stream in a New Zealand dairy farming catchment.
Environ. Sci. Pol. 84, 19–25. N. Z. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 33, 683–696.
Molden, D., 2007. Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Wilcock, R.J., Monaghan, R.M., Quinn, J.M., Srinivasan, M.S., Houlbrooke, D.J.,
Management in Agriculture. London: Earthscan, and Colombo. International Water Duncan, M.J., Wright-Stow, A.E., Scarsbrook, M.R., 2013. Trends in water quality of
Management Institute, 193. five dairy farming streams in response to adoption of best practice and benefits of
Monaghan, R.M., Paton, R.J., Smith, L.C., Drewry, J.J., Littlejohn, R.P., 2005. The long-term monitoring at the catchment scale. Mar. Freshw. Res. 64, 401–412.
impacts of nitrogen fertilisation and increased stocking rate on pasture yield, soil WOCAT, 2007. In: Liniger, Hanspeter, Critchley, W. (Eds.), WOCAT 2007: where the
physical condition and nutrient losses in drainage from a cattle-grazed pasture. New Land Is Greener - Case Studies and Analysis of Soil and Water Conservation
Zealand J. Agricult. Res. 48, 227–240. Initiatives Worldwide. https://www.wocat.net/library/media/27/.
New Zealand Gap, 2019. Retrieved 27.05.2019. https://newzealandgap.co.nz/NZ Wohl, E., Lane, S.N., Wilcox, A.C., 2015. The science and practice of river restoration: the
GAP_Public/Environment/Environment.aspx. science and practice of river restoration. Water Resour. Res. 51, 5974–5997.
New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries, 2016. Ministry for Primary Industries Stock Woolsey, S., Capelli, F., Gonser, T., Hoehn, E., Hostmann, M., Junker, B., Paetzold, A.,
Exclusion Costs Report. MPI Technical Paper No: 2017/11. Prepared for Ministry for Roulier, C., Schweizer, S., Tiegs, S.D., Tockner, K., Weber, C., Peter, A., 2007.
Primary Industries. p.33 (Wellington). https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/delivery A strategy to assess river restoration success. Freshw. Biol. 52, 752–769.
/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid¼IE27786499.