- Email: [email protected]
A conceptual model for site-specific agricultural land-use
Ecological Modelling 295 (2015) 42–46
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ecological Modelling journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolmodel
A conceptual model for site-specific agricultural land-use Hubert Wiggering a,b,∗ , Uta Steinhardt c a
Institute of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Straße 24/25, D-14476 Potsdam, Germany Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) e.V., Eberswalder Straße 84, D-15374 Müncheberg, Germany c Faculty of Landscape Management and Nature Conservation, Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development, Schicklerstraße 5, D-16225 Eberswalde, Germany b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 7 January 2014 Received in revised form 12 August 2014 Accepted 13 August 2014 Available online 29 August 2014 Keywords: Site-specific agricultural land-use Concept of differentiated land use Sustainable land use Multifunctionality Modeling tools for decision-making
a b s t r a c t Land-use concepts provide decision support for the most efficient usage options according to sustainable development and multifunctionality requirements. However, developments in landscape-related, agricultural production schemes are primarily driven by economic benefits. Therefore, most agricultural land-use concepts tackle particular problems or interests and lack a systemic perspective. As a result, we discuss a conceptual model for future site-specific agricultural land-use with an inbuilt requirement for adequate experimental sites to enable monitoring systems for a new generation of ecosystem models and for new approaches to address science–stakeholder interactions. © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Background: the current agricultural land-use situation Because agricultural land use is subject to the will and interests of the landowners within the boundaries of social obligations, an owner’s benefit understandably follows current or expected future market conditions. Goods and services that are expected to provide a short-term maximum benefit for the owner are subsequently produced or provided (e.g., FAO, 2011), which typically causes a decoupling of uses from site-specific conditions and is necessarily associated with ecologically distorting effects that ultimately lead to non-sustainable management practices (Zhang et al., 2007). Even if there has to be distinguished between conventional and organic agriculture, it has to be considered that in the meantime also organic agriculture has to meet the challenge of bulk production and the competition about agricultural land. In general, the following question arises: why should land be made available for a certain use at all costs even though natural conditions make this practice unadvisable? Instead of decoupling land uses from the site-specific conditions, a resource-saving (or -preserving) use of land due to the specific site situation should be the general rule. Therefore, “site-specific land-usages” should be discussed to offer
∗ Corresponding author at: Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) e.V., Eberswalder Straße 84, D-15374 Müncheberg, Germany. Tel.: +49 3343282441; fax: +49 3343282223. E-mail address: [email protected] (H. Wiggering). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.08.011 0304-3800/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
decision makers, land managers as well as politicians, potential options for both environmentally sound and economically viable land-use approaches (see also Sandhu et al., 2008). Furthermore, future-oriented land use concepts should be more systemic in the sense of considering site-related factors like soil, landscape water balance, regional climate, etc. as well as the interdependencies between conventional agricultural as well as environmental sound agricultural production and market restrictions. This again applies first of all the decision-making of the land managers. Having said that, also the overall political framework requirements to provide an adequate scope of action have to be discussed. It requires a formalized process of the design of science/policy interaction that allows for an integrated and thorough analysis of the possible implications of the intended policy. Therefore research altogether and models particularly concerning future agriculture land-use concepts (e.g., Lambin et al., 2000; Verburg et al., 2002) should tightly focussed support policy consulting. Examining ontologies (Maedche and Staab, 2001; Ichise, 2009) in the context of such land-use concepts might be partially encompassed by discussing multifunctionality (OECD, 2001; Van Huylenbroeck et al., 2007) and implementing procedures for sustainable development (according to UN, 2003). Nevertheless, discussions regarding agricultural land-use concepts should extend beyond the multifunctional agriculture political discussions. By definition and from a political perspective (OECD, 2001), land-use concepts provide several social and environmental benefits to a society (TEEB, 2009) by maintaining the economic and ecological
H. Wiggering, U. Steinhardt / Ecological Modelling 295 (2015) 42–46
structure of cultural landscapes. Ultimately, this approach can legitimize the continued financial support for agricultural production using the multifunctionality argument. Thus, the discussion should be directed back to those disciplines providing knowledgeable support for land sites and their particular “sensibilities”. A useful approach in this context is to develop systemic modeling tools (e.g., Ewert et al., 2005; Asseng et al., 2013; Bassu et al., 2014) that allow decision makers to explore particular land-use scenarios with approaches that cascade down to the specific site situation. Anxiously, continual exogenic changes (e.g., due to the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU) require proactive land-use concepts for the sustainable development and sustainable use of agricultural land (Karlstetter, 2011). However, some key questions arise: • How can a more systemic approach be established as an alternative to addressing particular land-use problems? • How can modeling tools be used to support decision-making for future land-use schemes?
Box 1: Some definitions used within this paper. Agricultural land use Supposed is a use of land suitable for agricultural production. Due to standard classifications (e.g., used by FAO/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) agricultural land and its use is divided into arable land and permanent crops and pastures. Within this paper the focus is on the use of arable land. Land-use concept This refers to the “how” of land use. Thereby it should become apparent how land is committed. This implies the production of goods and services and management practices how to tweak this. Site-specific Relating to a site, in this case due to an overall agricultural landscape with its natural, (geobio)physical environment. Systemic Relating to an entire natural system
2. Methodological approach Within the discussion about agricultural land-use concepts the approach becomes a systemic feature that can be satisfactorily observed only if the following basic requirements are fulfilled: • Systemic models must be applied as conceptual bases. • Systemic measurement concepts are prerequisites for this indication, in which the borders of environmental sectors or media must be transgressed. • Data interpretation tools must be integrative such that model applications can be profitably used to attain a strategy of “predictive monitoring”. Therefore, within the discussion of future land-use concepts, there is an imminent duty to install new monitoring systems and to offer a new generation of data. Otherwise, it is impossible to address complex landscapes and the interdependencies between the ecosystems within these landscapes. We suggest the following optional components for developing a conceptual model and installing future-oriented land-use concepts:
43
Box 2: Optional components for a conceptual model as prerequisite for future-oriented agricultural land use. i) Establish landscape laboratories to ensure that the particular landscape exhibits a comprehensive function. ii) Establish new monitoring approaches and guarantee a proper data basis to provide adequate indicators. iii) Develop site-specific land-use scenarios together with stakeholders using an integrated approach. iv) Develop systemic modeling tools to allow decision makers (land managers) to explore particular land-use scenarios with approaches that cascade down to site-specific situations.
2.1. Landscape laboratories Landscape laboratories attempt to establish regions as a type of “innovation laboratory” that is equipped to identify foreseeable trends, e.g., in agricultural production, and to be a model for future progress. From both, a scientific and political perspective, it is important to test concepts based on the latest knowledge, innovations and technologies and to use the previous experiences. From a political perspective, there is an inherent need for information that addresses the following questions: • What are the ramifications of possible land-use? • Which potential conflicts relate various adaptation options to global changes? • What influential opportunities exist? • What control instruments are appropriate? • What will be the economic and ecological effects of interventions by planners and public bodies? From a scientific perspective, it is important to analyze the processes that are related to these changes to understand the interactions between adaptation options in different sectors and to identify the relevant drivers of change and their effects. To ensure a new approach, it is essential that relevant stakeholders are initially involved at all levels in the development process. While research projects regarding the relationship between regional-individual land-use concepts and externally produced changes (see e.g., Helming, 2014; Werner et al., 2014; Burkhard et al., 2014; Baral et al., 2013; Brandt et al., 2013; Verburg et al., 2002; Lambin et al., 2000), there is still a gap between research and implementation. Nevertheless, publications about land cover types to ecosystem service supply capacities (see e.g., Burkhard et al., 2009; Crossman et al., 2013), the discussion about the ecosystem service “matrix” (e.g., Kandziora et al., 2013a,b; Kaiser et al., 2013) and ecosystem services mapping studies (e.g., Clerici et al., 2014; Baral et al., 2013) are about the integration of societal needs for goods and services and enhance currently applied landscape planning approaches and environmental management strategies. A final solution for assessments procedures within this context has not been found yet. This is one of the upcoming scientific and political challenges. Effects on climate-related gas emissions, on self-sufficiency and the export/import quotas of a region in terms of energy or food and on biodiversity and other aspects of resource conservation can only be evaluated if the reactions to adaptation in other areas are considered. The information required for this purpose necessitates both observational and proactive research in which the experimental conditions, control quantities and contexts are intentionally changed. Therefore, the relevant people at the local level must be involved in the design of the research project from the start rather than solely when implementing the project.
44
H. Wiggering, U. Steinhardt / Ecological Modelling 295 (2015) 42–46
Past experience has identified conflicts that often arise during the implementation of land-use concepts. Therefore, sustainable and site-specific land-use concepts not only require technological opportunities but also “stakeholder involvement”. A “landscape laboratory” in a specific region could be used to determine which innovations due to future-oriented agricultural land-use concepts are required in specific regions, which concepts are socially viable and how establishing a consensus can be improved. Exceptional local and economic conditions and infrastructure that are coupled with extensive research capabilities confirm that this is the basis for the successful implementation of land-use concepts. 2.2. New monitoring approaches An important precondition for developing and implementing land-use concepts is the availability of criteria to measure and to assess ecosystem functions and ecosystem goods and services in an ex-ante approach. This condition leads to the discussion of a new generation of monitoring systems and most likely a new quality of indicators. Monitoring systems are required for producing data to aggregate indicators and to characterize complex systems and their interdependencies. These systems must fulfill the following criteria: • describe the states of the environment and its development in a systemic way that focuses on the ecosystem functions; • diagnose existing and predicted future environmental damages; • describe ongoing environmental protection measures; • assess environmental damages and the state of the environment; • help define and refine environmental quality targets and environmental program goals; • aid in informing and educating the public about the environmental situation; • facilitate political decision-making and the setting of priorities; • test environmental protection strategies and individual environmental protection plans; and • assess the success of environmental protection measures. The term “function” is used with a variety of connotations, ranging from mathematical attitudes through the meaning of assigned purposes, tasks or services to analytical system concepts. Here, functions are defined as specific interactions, i.e., integral levels of all processes that take place in a system, or as the order within process-related units. From a sustainability perspective, natural functions represent the potential performances of natural systems that are utilized by a society. Consequently, the preservation of process-related networks of interactions within (and between) ecosystems, which support their internal order, is a prerequisite for the sound development of economic and social systems. 2.3. Site-specific land-use scenarios To demonstrate the applicability, the practicability, and most importantly, the sustainability of selected land-use concepts for entire regions, the consistent integration of research projects and development projects with coordinated implementation strategies is necessary. An integrated research, development and implementation approach must comprise entire regions, including the enterprises, landowners and decision makers, have a long-term orientation, directly involve diverse local individuals in the planning and practical implementation and be scientifically monitored throughout its duration. Due to the immense complexity of the systems to be studied simultaneously in this process, such an approach must include a large variety of scientific and technological disciplines, several sectors and industries and different sets of politics.
The objective of such a concept is to avail the scientific knowledge and practical experiences of local individuals and use the latest models (see iv) such that the fallow potential of rural landscapes is harnessed for future development without generating unmanageable risks or irremediable effects. In this process, the methodology leading to a holistic distribution of land-use systems that is optimized for each individual user or enterprise and is transferable to other regions takes center stage. The future of rural regions and their competitiveness within a globalizing world has been a constant political concern over the last decade. Nevertheless, regions should develop, e.g., land-use concepts by themselves, using the best possible support from science and research. Only from this experimental set-up (see i) is it for policy-relevant knowledge to be gained. The entire chain of effects should be analyzed, encompassing everything from political interventions to the implementation of concrete measures and the analysis of ecological, economic and socio-cultural effects. To initiate such land-use concepts in selected rural regions and to implement these concepts in a sustainable manner, future research programs could serve as a promotional approach. As different regions compete for available funds, a precondition should be that the land-use concept is configured in cooperation with a research institution and is closely monitored for the duration of the promotional period. In addition to monitoring the development of rural landscapes, the task of the research institutions is to contribute to the decision-making process by providing scientific knowledge and to support anticipatory assessments using simulation models (other assessment techniques can also be used; see iv; Alkemade et al., 2014). In the development of land-use concepts, research has also become a site-specific factor (e.g., Wiggering et al., 2010). Regions that pursue close cooperation with research institutions will have competitive advantages with respect to limited promotional funds. Therefore, regions will increasingly seek out interactions with research institutions in the future to ensure the improved dissemination of new research approaches out of self-interest. Research will also receive special benefits because large-scale, future-oriented developments and the effects of innovations will not only be analyzed and assessed but will also actively affect the landscape. Central to this idea is the hypothesis that in regions shaped by agricultural and forestry production, the durable reconciliation of the diverse requirements of productivity, quality, resource conservation and income will facilitate innovative and knowledge- and technology-based cultivation, land-use and natural resource processing systems. This should be the core of the land-use concept. In this context, innovations, which represent an important increased value added for rural regions, are to be sought predominantly in the developing knowledge-based bio-economy. The potential for sustainable development to safeguard regional income is discernable in the creativity and in the specific knowledge and experience of all individuals who are involved in the development process. 2.4. Systemic modeling tools Since the initial design of highly complex simulation models, these tools have been used to describe the behaviors of entire ecosystems and to predict their future states (e.g., Jörgensen and Bendoricchio, 2001). Notably, climate change discussions have encouraged the development of such models. Concerns regarding global food security have also largely enhanced the use of simulation models for predicting agricultural yields under changing environmental conditions. The development of agro-ecosystem models has relied on the simulation of specific agricultural problems. One example problem is the excessive use of nitrogen fertilizers in agriculture and the associated eutrophication
H. Wiggering, U. Steinhardt / Ecological Modelling 295 (2015) 42–46
45
Fig. 1. Optional components for a conceptual model as prerequisite for site-specific agricultural land use.
of adjacent water bodies, which fostered the development of the first soil-plant-atmosphere models (e.g., the model HERMES; Kersebaum, 1989) to simulate the growth of field crops and the dynamics of water and nitrogen in soil under the influence of weather, site-specific situations and management practices. By comparing and scrutinizing the performance of such models (De Willigen, 1991; Diekkrüger et al., 1995), different models and algorithms are capable of yielding similar results. According to Kersebaum et al. (2007), these results are not always based on a realistic representation of individual sub-processes. Recent discussion has revealed that the average of an ensemble of different simulation models may be a reliable estimator for different grain yields at various sites in Europe than any single model (Palosuo et al., 2011; Rötter et al., 2012). Due to this development, modelers have refrained from calibrating their models according to site-specific conditions to test the ability of the models to be transferred “blindly” from one site to another while remaining valid (e.g., Asseng et al., 2013; Bassu et al., 2014). Meanwhile, model developers have become more “altruistic” than they have been previously. Step by step, model algorithms have been revised, assessed on the basis of globally unique field experiments and derived again. This process has recently led to a reduced emphasis on experimental work, which is now rarely available in the quantity, quality or recent timeframe required for modeling approaches in the context of site-specific land-use concepts. Therefore, a renaissance of experimental fieldwork is required (see i) for the future development of land-use models. Nevertheless, this approach has resulted in a global database (see ii) for suitable field experiments and translators for the simultaneous entry of data into the best land-use models, which allows the data to be easily added to ensembles of other models. 3. Conclusions The process of decoupling land use from site-specific conditions is ultimately leading to (long-term) non-sustainable management practices. It is not sustainable to make land available for a certain use at any cost when natural conditions make this unadvisable.
Instead of decoupling land use from site-specific conditions, a process that reflects both site adequacy and resource conservation or protection should be practiced. This supports the necessity for integrating existing databases and knowledge from various disciplines, such as soil sciences, climatology, biodiversity research, landscape ecology, landscape planning, and socio-economics. The processing of these data could provide insights into complex issues concerning climate change or questions about biodiversity loss or could even lead to a new generation of land-use concepts that address site-specific land use and result in the development of a new generation and standard of indicators and assessment procedures for future land use. However, from a scientific perspective alone, the various specialist disciplines must increase their interactions to develop systemic approaches (see also Wiggering, 2013). The gap between the available knowledge in singular disciplines and land-use concepts appears to be particularly large. A land-use concept that pursues a systemic approach and adequately refers to multidisciplinary knowledge would provide options for future site-sensitive land use as the basis for respective decision makers or decisionmaking processes. When a scientific consensus that spans various disciplines warns that natural resources are being destroyed by current methods of production, questions should be raised regarding the current concepts. Furthermore, there is a need to continually develop better methods to measure, monitor, map, model and evaluate ecosystem interdependencies in the sense of land-use concepts at multiple scales. Moreover, this information must be provided to decision makers in an appropriate, transparent and viable manner to clearly identify differences in the outcomes of available choices. Therefore, particular modeling tools must be made available. Moreover, we cannot wait for high levels of certainty and precision to take action. Instead, we must address uncertainties and take intermediate steps. We must synergistically continue the process of improving measurement systems with evolving institutions and approaches that can effectively utilize these measurements.
46
H. Wiggering, U. Steinhardt / Ecological Modelling 295 (2015) 42–46
Therefore, the following optional components of the suggested conceptual model as basis for site-specific land usages are suggested (see Fig. 1) Given that uncertainty (e.g., Domptail and Nuppenau, 2010) always exists in ecosystems and ecosystem interdependency measurements, monitoring, modeling, valuation and management, we should continuously gather and integrate relevant information with the goal of learning and adaptive improvement. To do this, it is necessary to constantly evaluate the effects of existing systems and design new systems with stakeholder participation as experiments. This approach will assist in learning and providing more effective quantifiable performance ratings. Acknowledgement This contribution is dedicated to Felix Müller, ChristianAlbrechts-University Kiel, Germany. We have to thank him for many fruitful discussions within the field of ecosystem theory, ecosystem modeling, and ecological indicators. References Alkemade, R., Burkhard, B., Crossman, N., Nedkov, S., Petz, K. (Eds.), 2014. Quantifying Ecosystem Services and Indicators for Science, Policy and Practice. Special Issue. Ecological Indicators, vol. 37, pp. 161–266. Asseng, S., Ewert, F., Rosenzweig, C., Jones, J.W., Hatfield, J.L., Ruane, A., Boote, A., Thorburn, K.J., Rötter, P., Cammarano, R.P., Brisson, D., Basso, N., Martre, B., Aggarwal, P., Angulo, P.K., Bertuzzi, C., Biernath, P., Challinor, C., Doltra, A., Gayler, J., Goldberg, S., Grant, R., Heng, R., Hooker, L., Hunt, J., Ingwersen, T., Izaurralde, J., Kersebaum, C., Müller, K.C., Naresh Kumar, C., Nendel, S., O’LearyG, C., Olesen, J.E., Osborne, T.M., Palosuo, T., Priesack, E., Ripoche, D., Semenov, M., Shcherbak, I., Steduto, P., Stöckle, C., Stratonovitch, P., Streck, T., Supit, I., Tao, F., Travasso, M., Waha, K., Wallach, D., White, J., Williams, J.R., Wolf, J., 2013. Quantifying uncertainties in simulating wheat yields under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 827–832. Baral, H., Keenan, R.J., Fox, J.C., Stork, N.E., Kasel, S., 2013. Spatial assessment of ecosystem goods and services in complex production landscapes: a case study from south-eastern Australia. Ecol. Complex. 13, 35–45. Bassu, S., Brisson, N., Durand, J.L., Boote, K.J., Lizaso, J., Jones, J.W., Rosenzweig, C., Ruane, A.C., Adam, M., Baron, C., Basso, B., Biernath, C., Boogard, H., Conijn, S., Corbeels, M., Deryng, D., De Sanctis, G., Gayler, S., Grassini, P., Hatfield, J.L., Hoek, S.B., Izaurralde, C., Jongschaap, R., Kemanian, A., Kersebaum, K.C., Naresh Kumar, S., Makowski, D., Müller, C., Nendel, C., Priesack, E., Pravia, M.V., Soo Hyung, K., Sau, F., Shcherbak, I., Tao, F.L., Teixeira, E., Timlin, D., Waha, K., 2014. How do various maize crop models vary in their responses to climate change factors? Glob. Change Biol., http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12520. Brandt, J., Aagaard Christensen, A., Roar Svenningsen, S., Holmes, E., 2013. Landscape practise and key concepts for landscape sustainability. Landsc. Ecol. 28 (6), 1125–1137. Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Müller, F., Windhorst, W., 2009. Landscapes’ capacities to provide ecosystem services – a concept for land-cover based assessments. Landsc. Online 15, 1–22. Burkhard, B., Kandziora, M., Hou, Y., Müller, F., 2014. Ecosystem services potentials, flows and demands – concepts for spatial localization, indication and quantification. Landsc. Online 34, 1–32, http://dx.doi.org/10.3097/LO. 201434. Clerici, N., Paracchini, M.L., Maes, J., 2014. Landcover change dynamics and insights into ecosystem services in European stream riparian zones. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecohyd.2014.01.002. Crossman, N.D., Burkhard, B., Nedkov, S., Willemen, L., Petz, K., Palomo, I., Drakou, E.G., Martín-Lopez, B., McPhearson, T., Boyanova, K., Alkemade, R., Egoh, B., Dunbar, M., Maes, J., 2013. A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 4, 4–14. De Willigen, P., 1991. Nitrogen turnover in the soil–crop system – comparison of 14 simulation models. Fertil. Res. 27, 141–149. Diekkrüger, B., Söndgerath, D., Kersebaum, K.C., McVoy, C.W., 1995. Validity of agroecosystem models – a comparison of results of different models applied to the same data set. Ecol. Modell. 81, 3–29. Domptail, S., Nuppenau, E.A., 2010. The role of uncertainty and expectations in modeling (range) land use strategies: an application of dynamic optimization modeling with recursion. Ecol. Econ. 69, 2475–2485, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.07.024.
Ewert, F., Rounsevell, M.D.A., Reginster, I., Metzger, M.J., Leeman, R., 2005. Future scenarios of European agricultural land use: I. Estimating changes in crop productivity. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 107, 101–116. FAO, 2011. Save and Grow: a Policymaker’s Guide to the Sustainable Intensification of Smallholder Crop Production. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Helming, K., 2014. Impact assessment for multifunctional land use. In: Müller, L., Saparov, A., Lischeid, G. (Eds.), Novel Measurement and Assessment Tools for Monitoring and Management of Land and Water Resources in Agricultural Landscapes of Central Asia. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 223–234. Ichise, R., 2009. Evaluation of similarity measures for ontology mapping. New frontiers in artificial intelligence. Lect. Notes Comp. Sci. 5447, 15–25. Jörgensen, S.E., Bendoricchio, G., 2001. Fundamentals of Ecological Modelling. Developments in Environmental Modelling, vol. 21. Elsevier Science, pp. 532. Kaiser, G., Burkhard, B., Römer, H., Sangkaew, S., Graterol, R., Haitook, T., Sterr, H., Sakuna-Schwartz, D., 2013. Mapping tsunami impacts on land cover and related ecosystem service supply in Phang Nga, Thailand. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 13, 3095–3111. Kandziora, M., Burkhard, B., Müller, F., 2013a. Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators: a theoretical matrix exercise. Ecol. Indic. 28, 54–78. Kandziora, M., Burkhard, B., Müller, F., 2013b. Mapping provisioning ecosystem services at the local scale using data of varying spatial and temporal resolution. Ecosyst. Serv. 4, 47–59. Karlstetter, N., 2011. Co-evolution and co-management of economic and ecological sustainability – a semantic approach to modeling climate adapted land use strategies in northwestern Germany. In: Golinska, P., Fertsch, M., Marx-Gomez, J. (Eds.), Information Technologies in Environmental Engineering: New Trends and Challenges. Environmental Science and Engineering, vol. 3. Springer, Berlin, pp. 213–228. Kersebaum, K.C., (Dissertation) 1989. Die Simulation der Stickstoffdynamik von Ackerböden. Universität Hannover. Kersebaum, K.C., Hecker, J.M., Mirschel, W., Wegehenkel, M., 2007. Modelling water and nutrient dynamics in soil–crop systems: a comparison of simulation models applied on common data sets. In: Kersebaum, K.C., Hecker, J.M., Mirschel, W., Wegehenkel, M. (Eds.), Modelling Water and Nutrient Dynamics in Soil Crop Systems. Springer, Stuttgart, pp. 1–17. Lambin, E.F., Rounsevell, M.D.A., Geist, H.J., 2000. Are agricultural land-use models able to predict changes in land-use intensity? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 82, 321–331. Maedche, A., Staab, S., 2001. Ontology learning for the semantic web. IEEE Intell. Syst. 16 (2), 72–79. OECD, 2001. Multifunctionality – Towards an Analytical Framework. OECD, Paris. Palosuo, T., Kersebaum, K.C., Angulo, C., Hlavinka, P., Moriondo, M., Olesen, J., Patil, R., Ruget, F., Rumbaur, C., Takac, J., Trnka, M., Bindi, M., Caldag, B., Ewert, F., Ferrise, R., Mirschel, W., Saylan, L., Siska, B., Rötter, R., 2011. Simulation of winter wheat yield and its variability in different climates of Europe: a comparison of eight crop growth models. Eur. J. Agron. 35, 103–114. Rötter, R.P., Palosuo, T., Kersebaum, K.C., Angulo, C., Bindi, M., Ewert, F., Ferrise, R., Hlavinka, P., Moriondo, M., Nendel, C., Olesen, J.E., Patil, R., Ruget, F., Takáˇc, J., Trnka, M., 2012. Simulation of spring barley yield in different climatic zones of Northern and Central Europe – a comparison of nine crop models. Field Crop. Res. 133, 23–36. Sandhu, H.S., Wratten, S.D., Cullen, R., Case, B., 2008. The future of farming: the value of ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable land. An experimental approach. Ecol. Econ. 64, 835–848. TEEB, 2009. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy Makers – Summary: Responding to the Value of Nature. UNEP, pp. 40. UN, 2003. Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting, Series F ed. United Nations, European Commission, International Monetary Fund, OECD, World Bank, New York. Van Huylenbroeck, G., Vandermeulen, V., Mettepenningen, E., Verspecht, A., 2007. Multifunctionality of agriculture: a review of definitions, evidence and instruments. Living Rev. Landsc. Res. 1 (3) http://www.livingreviews.org/lrlr-2007-3 Verburg, P., Soepboer, W., Veldkamp, A., Limpiada, R., Espaldon, V., Mastura, S.S.A., 2002. Modeling the spatial dynamics of regional land use: the CLUE-S model. Environ. Manag. 30 (3), 391–406. Werner, A., Werner, A., Wieland, R., Kersebaum, K.-C., Mirschel, W., Ende, H.-P., Wiggering, H., 2014. Ex ante assessment of crop rotations focusing on energy crops using a multi-attribute decision-making method. Ecol. Indic. 45, 110–122. Wiggering, H., 2013. The geology – land use – nexus. Environ. Earth Sci. 71 (12), 5037–5044. Wiggering, H., Ende, H.P., Knierim, A., Pintar, M. (Eds.), 2010. Innovations in European Landscapes. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, p. 161. Zhang, W., Ricketts, T.H., Kremen, C., Carney, K., Swinton, S.M., 2007. Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol. Econ. 64, 253–260.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Ecological Modelling journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolmodel
A conceptual model for site-specific agricultural land-use Hubert Wiggering a,b,∗ , Uta Steinhardt c a
Institute of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Potsdam, Karl-Liebknecht-Straße 24/25, D-14476 Potsdam, Germany Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) e.V., Eberswalder Straße 84, D-15374 Müncheberg, Germany c Faculty of Landscape Management and Nature Conservation, Eberswalde University for Sustainable Development, Schicklerstraße 5, D-16225 Eberswalde, Germany b
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 7 January 2014 Received in revised form 12 August 2014 Accepted 13 August 2014 Available online 29 August 2014 Keywords: Site-specific agricultural land-use Concept of differentiated land use Sustainable land use Multifunctionality Modeling tools for decision-making
a b s t r a c t Land-use concepts provide decision support for the most efficient usage options according to sustainable development and multifunctionality requirements. However, developments in landscape-related, agricultural production schemes are primarily driven by economic benefits. Therefore, most agricultural land-use concepts tackle particular problems or interests and lack a systemic perspective. As a result, we discuss a conceptual model for future site-specific agricultural land-use with an inbuilt requirement for adequate experimental sites to enable monitoring systems for a new generation of ecosystem models and for new approaches to address science–stakeholder interactions. © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Background: the current agricultural land-use situation Because agricultural land use is subject to the will and interests of the landowners within the boundaries of social obligations, an owner’s benefit understandably follows current or expected future market conditions. Goods and services that are expected to provide a short-term maximum benefit for the owner are subsequently produced or provided (e.g., FAO, 2011), which typically causes a decoupling of uses from site-specific conditions and is necessarily associated with ecologically distorting effects that ultimately lead to non-sustainable management practices (Zhang et al., 2007). Even if there has to be distinguished between conventional and organic agriculture, it has to be considered that in the meantime also organic agriculture has to meet the challenge of bulk production and the competition about agricultural land. In general, the following question arises: why should land be made available for a certain use at all costs even though natural conditions make this practice unadvisable? Instead of decoupling land uses from the site-specific conditions, a resource-saving (or -preserving) use of land due to the specific site situation should be the general rule. Therefore, “site-specific land-usages” should be discussed to offer
∗ Corresponding author at: Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) e.V., Eberswalder Straße 84, D-15374 Müncheberg, Germany. Tel.: +49 3343282441; fax: +49 3343282223. E-mail address: [email protected] (H. Wiggering). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2014.08.011 0304-3800/© 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
decision makers, land managers as well as politicians, potential options for both environmentally sound and economically viable land-use approaches (see also Sandhu et al., 2008). Furthermore, future-oriented land use concepts should be more systemic in the sense of considering site-related factors like soil, landscape water balance, regional climate, etc. as well as the interdependencies between conventional agricultural as well as environmental sound agricultural production and market restrictions. This again applies first of all the decision-making of the land managers. Having said that, also the overall political framework requirements to provide an adequate scope of action have to be discussed. It requires a formalized process of the design of science/policy interaction that allows for an integrated and thorough analysis of the possible implications of the intended policy. Therefore research altogether and models particularly concerning future agriculture land-use concepts (e.g., Lambin et al., 2000; Verburg et al., 2002) should tightly focussed support policy consulting. Examining ontologies (Maedche and Staab, 2001; Ichise, 2009) in the context of such land-use concepts might be partially encompassed by discussing multifunctionality (OECD, 2001; Van Huylenbroeck et al., 2007) and implementing procedures for sustainable development (according to UN, 2003). Nevertheless, discussions regarding agricultural land-use concepts should extend beyond the multifunctional agriculture political discussions. By definition and from a political perspective (OECD, 2001), land-use concepts provide several social and environmental benefits to a society (TEEB, 2009) by maintaining the economic and ecological
H. Wiggering, U. Steinhardt / Ecological Modelling 295 (2015) 42–46
structure of cultural landscapes. Ultimately, this approach can legitimize the continued financial support for agricultural production using the multifunctionality argument. Thus, the discussion should be directed back to those disciplines providing knowledgeable support for land sites and their particular “sensibilities”. A useful approach in this context is to develop systemic modeling tools (e.g., Ewert et al., 2005; Asseng et al., 2013; Bassu et al., 2014) that allow decision makers to explore particular land-use scenarios with approaches that cascade down to the specific site situation. Anxiously, continual exogenic changes (e.g., due to the Common Agricultural Policy of the EU) require proactive land-use concepts for the sustainable development and sustainable use of agricultural land (Karlstetter, 2011). However, some key questions arise: • How can a more systemic approach be established as an alternative to addressing particular land-use problems? • How can modeling tools be used to support decision-making for future land-use schemes?
Box 1: Some definitions used within this paper. Agricultural land use Supposed is a use of land suitable for agricultural production. Due to standard classifications (e.g., used by FAO/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) agricultural land and its use is divided into arable land and permanent crops and pastures. Within this paper the focus is on the use of arable land. Land-use concept This refers to the “how” of land use. Thereby it should become apparent how land is committed. This implies the production of goods and services and management practices how to tweak this. Site-specific Relating to a site, in this case due to an overall agricultural landscape with its natural, (geobio)physical environment. Systemic Relating to an entire natural system
2. Methodological approach Within the discussion about agricultural land-use concepts the approach becomes a systemic feature that can be satisfactorily observed only if the following basic requirements are fulfilled: • Systemic models must be applied as conceptual bases. • Systemic measurement concepts are prerequisites for this indication, in which the borders of environmental sectors or media must be transgressed. • Data interpretation tools must be integrative such that model applications can be profitably used to attain a strategy of “predictive monitoring”. Therefore, within the discussion of future land-use concepts, there is an imminent duty to install new monitoring systems and to offer a new generation of data. Otherwise, it is impossible to address complex landscapes and the interdependencies between the ecosystems within these landscapes. We suggest the following optional components for developing a conceptual model and installing future-oriented land-use concepts:
43
Box 2: Optional components for a conceptual model as prerequisite for future-oriented agricultural land use. i) Establish landscape laboratories to ensure that the particular landscape exhibits a comprehensive function. ii) Establish new monitoring approaches and guarantee a proper data basis to provide adequate indicators. iii) Develop site-specific land-use scenarios together with stakeholders using an integrated approach. iv) Develop systemic modeling tools to allow decision makers (land managers) to explore particular land-use scenarios with approaches that cascade down to site-specific situations.
2.1. Landscape laboratories Landscape laboratories attempt to establish regions as a type of “innovation laboratory” that is equipped to identify foreseeable trends, e.g., in agricultural production, and to be a model for future progress. From both, a scientific and political perspective, it is important to test concepts based on the latest knowledge, innovations and technologies and to use the previous experiences. From a political perspective, there is an inherent need for information that addresses the following questions: • What are the ramifications of possible land-use? • Which potential conflicts relate various adaptation options to global changes? • What influential opportunities exist? • What control instruments are appropriate? • What will be the economic and ecological effects of interventions by planners and public bodies? From a scientific perspective, it is important to analyze the processes that are related to these changes to understand the interactions between adaptation options in different sectors and to identify the relevant drivers of change and their effects. To ensure a new approach, it is essential that relevant stakeholders are initially involved at all levels in the development process. While research projects regarding the relationship between regional-individual land-use concepts and externally produced changes (see e.g., Helming, 2014; Werner et al., 2014; Burkhard et al., 2014; Baral et al., 2013; Brandt et al., 2013; Verburg et al., 2002; Lambin et al., 2000), there is still a gap between research and implementation. Nevertheless, publications about land cover types to ecosystem service supply capacities (see e.g., Burkhard et al., 2009; Crossman et al., 2013), the discussion about the ecosystem service “matrix” (e.g., Kandziora et al., 2013a,b; Kaiser et al., 2013) and ecosystem services mapping studies (e.g., Clerici et al., 2014; Baral et al., 2013) are about the integration of societal needs for goods and services and enhance currently applied landscape planning approaches and environmental management strategies. A final solution for assessments procedures within this context has not been found yet. This is one of the upcoming scientific and political challenges. Effects on climate-related gas emissions, on self-sufficiency and the export/import quotas of a region in terms of energy or food and on biodiversity and other aspects of resource conservation can only be evaluated if the reactions to adaptation in other areas are considered. The information required for this purpose necessitates both observational and proactive research in which the experimental conditions, control quantities and contexts are intentionally changed. Therefore, the relevant people at the local level must be involved in the design of the research project from the start rather than solely when implementing the project.
44
H. Wiggering, U. Steinhardt / Ecological Modelling 295 (2015) 42–46
Past experience has identified conflicts that often arise during the implementation of land-use concepts. Therefore, sustainable and site-specific land-use concepts not only require technological opportunities but also “stakeholder involvement”. A “landscape laboratory” in a specific region could be used to determine which innovations due to future-oriented agricultural land-use concepts are required in specific regions, which concepts are socially viable and how establishing a consensus can be improved. Exceptional local and economic conditions and infrastructure that are coupled with extensive research capabilities confirm that this is the basis for the successful implementation of land-use concepts. 2.2. New monitoring approaches An important precondition for developing and implementing land-use concepts is the availability of criteria to measure and to assess ecosystem functions and ecosystem goods and services in an ex-ante approach. This condition leads to the discussion of a new generation of monitoring systems and most likely a new quality of indicators. Monitoring systems are required for producing data to aggregate indicators and to characterize complex systems and their interdependencies. These systems must fulfill the following criteria: • describe the states of the environment and its development in a systemic way that focuses on the ecosystem functions; • diagnose existing and predicted future environmental damages; • describe ongoing environmental protection measures; • assess environmental damages and the state of the environment; • help define and refine environmental quality targets and environmental program goals; • aid in informing and educating the public about the environmental situation; • facilitate political decision-making and the setting of priorities; • test environmental protection strategies and individual environmental protection plans; and • assess the success of environmental protection measures. The term “function” is used with a variety of connotations, ranging from mathematical attitudes through the meaning of assigned purposes, tasks or services to analytical system concepts. Here, functions are defined as specific interactions, i.e., integral levels of all processes that take place in a system, or as the order within process-related units. From a sustainability perspective, natural functions represent the potential performances of natural systems that are utilized by a society. Consequently, the preservation of process-related networks of interactions within (and between) ecosystems, which support their internal order, is a prerequisite for the sound development of economic and social systems. 2.3. Site-specific land-use scenarios To demonstrate the applicability, the practicability, and most importantly, the sustainability of selected land-use concepts for entire regions, the consistent integration of research projects and development projects with coordinated implementation strategies is necessary. An integrated research, development and implementation approach must comprise entire regions, including the enterprises, landowners and decision makers, have a long-term orientation, directly involve diverse local individuals in the planning and practical implementation and be scientifically monitored throughout its duration. Due to the immense complexity of the systems to be studied simultaneously in this process, such an approach must include a large variety of scientific and technological disciplines, several sectors and industries and different sets of politics.
The objective of such a concept is to avail the scientific knowledge and practical experiences of local individuals and use the latest models (see iv) such that the fallow potential of rural landscapes is harnessed for future development without generating unmanageable risks or irremediable effects. In this process, the methodology leading to a holistic distribution of land-use systems that is optimized for each individual user or enterprise and is transferable to other regions takes center stage. The future of rural regions and their competitiveness within a globalizing world has been a constant political concern over the last decade. Nevertheless, regions should develop, e.g., land-use concepts by themselves, using the best possible support from science and research. Only from this experimental set-up (see i) is it for policy-relevant knowledge to be gained. The entire chain of effects should be analyzed, encompassing everything from political interventions to the implementation of concrete measures and the analysis of ecological, economic and socio-cultural effects. To initiate such land-use concepts in selected rural regions and to implement these concepts in a sustainable manner, future research programs could serve as a promotional approach. As different regions compete for available funds, a precondition should be that the land-use concept is configured in cooperation with a research institution and is closely monitored for the duration of the promotional period. In addition to monitoring the development of rural landscapes, the task of the research institutions is to contribute to the decision-making process by providing scientific knowledge and to support anticipatory assessments using simulation models (other assessment techniques can also be used; see iv; Alkemade et al., 2014). In the development of land-use concepts, research has also become a site-specific factor (e.g., Wiggering et al., 2010). Regions that pursue close cooperation with research institutions will have competitive advantages with respect to limited promotional funds. Therefore, regions will increasingly seek out interactions with research institutions in the future to ensure the improved dissemination of new research approaches out of self-interest. Research will also receive special benefits because large-scale, future-oriented developments and the effects of innovations will not only be analyzed and assessed but will also actively affect the landscape. Central to this idea is the hypothesis that in regions shaped by agricultural and forestry production, the durable reconciliation of the diverse requirements of productivity, quality, resource conservation and income will facilitate innovative and knowledge- and technology-based cultivation, land-use and natural resource processing systems. This should be the core of the land-use concept. In this context, innovations, which represent an important increased value added for rural regions, are to be sought predominantly in the developing knowledge-based bio-economy. The potential for sustainable development to safeguard regional income is discernable in the creativity and in the specific knowledge and experience of all individuals who are involved in the development process. 2.4. Systemic modeling tools Since the initial design of highly complex simulation models, these tools have been used to describe the behaviors of entire ecosystems and to predict their future states (e.g., Jörgensen and Bendoricchio, 2001). Notably, climate change discussions have encouraged the development of such models. Concerns regarding global food security have also largely enhanced the use of simulation models for predicting agricultural yields under changing environmental conditions. The development of agro-ecosystem models has relied on the simulation of specific agricultural problems. One example problem is the excessive use of nitrogen fertilizers in agriculture and the associated eutrophication
H. Wiggering, U. Steinhardt / Ecological Modelling 295 (2015) 42–46
45
Fig. 1. Optional components for a conceptual model as prerequisite for site-specific agricultural land use.
of adjacent water bodies, which fostered the development of the first soil-plant-atmosphere models (e.g., the model HERMES; Kersebaum, 1989) to simulate the growth of field crops and the dynamics of water and nitrogen in soil under the influence of weather, site-specific situations and management practices. By comparing and scrutinizing the performance of such models (De Willigen, 1991; Diekkrüger et al., 1995), different models and algorithms are capable of yielding similar results. According to Kersebaum et al. (2007), these results are not always based on a realistic representation of individual sub-processes. Recent discussion has revealed that the average of an ensemble of different simulation models may be a reliable estimator for different grain yields at various sites in Europe than any single model (Palosuo et al., 2011; Rötter et al., 2012). Due to this development, modelers have refrained from calibrating their models according to site-specific conditions to test the ability of the models to be transferred “blindly” from one site to another while remaining valid (e.g., Asseng et al., 2013; Bassu et al., 2014). Meanwhile, model developers have become more “altruistic” than they have been previously. Step by step, model algorithms have been revised, assessed on the basis of globally unique field experiments and derived again. This process has recently led to a reduced emphasis on experimental work, which is now rarely available in the quantity, quality or recent timeframe required for modeling approaches in the context of site-specific land-use concepts. Therefore, a renaissance of experimental fieldwork is required (see i) for the future development of land-use models. Nevertheless, this approach has resulted in a global database (see ii) for suitable field experiments and translators for the simultaneous entry of data into the best land-use models, which allows the data to be easily added to ensembles of other models. 3. Conclusions The process of decoupling land use from site-specific conditions is ultimately leading to (long-term) non-sustainable management practices. It is not sustainable to make land available for a certain use at any cost when natural conditions make this unadvisable.
Instead of decoupling land use from site-specific conditions, a process that reflects both site adequacy and resource conservation or protection should be practiced. This supports the necessity for integrating existing databases and knowledge from various disciplines, such as soil sciences, climatology, biodiversity research, landscape ecology, landscape planning, and socio-economics. The processing of these data could provide insights into complex issues concerning climate change or questions about biodiversity loss or could even lead to a new generation of land-use concepts that address site-specific land use and result in the development of a new generation and standard of indicators and assessment procedures for future land use. However, from a scientific perspective alone, the various specialist disciplines must increase their interactions to develop systemic approaches (see also Wiggering, 2013). The gap between the available knowledge in singular disciplines and land-use concepts appears to be particularly large. A land-use concept that pursues a systemic approach and adequately refers to multidisciplinary knowledge would provide options for future site-sensitive land use as the basis for respective decision makers or decisionmaking processes. When a scientific consensus that spans various disciplines warns that natural resources are being destroyed by current methods of production, questions should be raised regarding the current concepts. Furthermore, there is a need to continually develop better methods to measure, monitor, map, model and evaluate ecosystem interdependencies in the sense of land-use concepts at multiple scales. Moreover, this information must be provided to decision makers in an appropriate, transparent and viable manner to clearly identify differences in the outcomes of available choices. Therefore, particular modeling tools must be made available. Moreover, we cannot wait for high levels of certainty and precision to take action. Instead, we must address uncertainties and take intermediate steps. We must synergistically continue the process of improving measurement systems with evolving institutions and approaches that can effectively utilize these measurements.
46
H. Wiggering, U. Steinhardt / Ecological Modelling 295 (2015) 42–46
Therefore, the following optional components of the suggested conceptual model as basis for site-specific land usages are suggested (see Fig. 1) Given that uncertainty (e.g., Domptail and Nuppenau, 2010) always exists in ecosystems and ecosystem interdependency measurements, monitoring, modeling, valuation and management, we should continuously gather and integrate relevant information with the goal of learning and adaptive improvement. To do this, it is necessary to constantly evaluate the effects of existing systems and design new systems with stakeholder participation as experiments. This approach will assist in learning and providing more effective quantifiable performance ratings. Acknowledgement This contribution is dedicated to Felix Müller, ChristianAlbrechts-University Kiel, Germany. We have to thank him for many fruitful discussions within the field of ecosystem theory, ecosystem modeling, and ecological indicators. References Alkemade, R., Burkhard, B., Crossman, N., Nedkov, S., Petz, K. (Eds.), 2014. Quantifying Ecosystem Services and Indicators for Science, Policy and Practice. Special Issue. Ecological Indicators, vol. 37, pp. 161–266. Asseng, S., Ewert, F., Rosenzweig, C., Jones, J.W., Hatfield, J.L., Ruane, A., Boote, A., Thorburn, K.J., Rötter, P., Cammarano, R.P., Brisson, D., Basso, N., Martre, B., Aggarwal, P., Angulo, P.K., Bertuzzi, C., Biernath, P., Challinor, C., Doltra, A., Gayler, J., Goldberg, S., Grant, R., Heng, R., Hooker, L., Hunt, J., Ingwersen, T., Izaurralde, J., Kersebaum, C., Müller, K.C., Naresh Kumar, C., Nendel, S., O’LearyG, C., Olesen, J.E., Osborne, T.M., Palosuo, T., Priesack, E., Ripoche, D., Semenov, M., Shcherbak, I., Steduto, P., Stöckle, C., Stratonovitch, P., Streck, T., Supit, I., Tao, F., Travasso, M., Waha, K., Wallach, D., White, J., Williams, J.R., Wolf, J., 2013. Quantifying uncertainties in simulating wheat yields under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 827–832. Baral, H., Keenan, R.J., Fox, J.C., Stork, N.E., Kasel, S., 2013. Spatial assessment of ecosystem goods and services in complex production landscapes: a case study from south-eastern Australia. Ecol. Complex. 13, 35–45. Bassu, S., Brisson, N., Durand, J.L., Boote, K.J., Lizaso, J., Jones, J.W., Rosenzweig, C., Ruane, A.C., Adam, M., Baron, C., Basso, B., Biernath, C., Boogard, H., Conijn, S., Corbeels, M., Deryng, D., De Sanctis, G., Gayler, S., Grassini, P., Hatfield, J.L., Hoek, S.B., Izaurralde, C., Jongschaap, R., Kemanian, A., Kersebaum, K.C., Naresh Kumar, S., Makowski, D., Müller, C., Nendel, C., Priesack, E., Pravia, M.V., Soo Hyung, K., Sau, F., Shcherbak, I., Tao, F.L., Teixeira, E., Timlin, D., Waha, K., 2014. How do various maize crop models vary in their responses to climate change factors? Glob. Change Biol., http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12520. Brandt, J., Aagaard Christensen, A., Roar Svenningsen, S., Holmes, E., 2013. Landscape practise and key concepts for landscape sustainability. Landsc. Ecol. 28 (6), 1125–1137. Burkhard, B., Kroll, F., Müller, F., Windhorst, W., 2009. Landscapes’ capacities to provide ecosystem services – a concept for land-cover based assessments. Landsc. Online 15, 1–22. Burkhard, B., Kandziora, M., Hou, Y., Müller, F., 2014. Ecosystem services potentials, flows and demands – concepts for spatial localization, indication and quantification. Landsc. Online 34, 1–32, http://dx.doi.org/10.3097/LO. 201434. Clerici, N., Paracchini, M.L., Maes, J., 2014. Landcover change dynamics and insights into ecosystem services in European stream riparian zones. Ecohydrol. Hydrobiol., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecohyd.2014.01.002. Crossman, N.D., Burkhard, B., Nedkov, S., Willemen, L., Petz, K., Palomo, I., Drakou, E.G., Martín-Lopez, B., McPhearson, T., Boyanova, K., Alkemade, R., Egoh, B., Dunbar, M., Maes, J., 2013. A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 4, 4–14. De Willigen, P., 1991. Nitrogen turnover in the soil–crop system – comparison of 14 simulation models. Fertil. Res. 27, 141–149. Diekkrüger, B., Söndgerath, D., Kersebaum, K.C., McVoy, C.W., 1995. Validity of agroecosystem models – a comparison of results of different models applied to the same data set. Ecol. Modell. 81, 3–29. Domptail, S., Nuppenau, E.A., 2010. The role of uncertainty and expectations in modeling (range) land use strategies: an application of dynamic optimization modeling with recursion. Ecol. Econ. 69, 2475–2485, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.07.024.
Ewert, F., Rounsevell, M.D.A., Reginster, I., Metzger, M.J., Leeman, R., 2005. Future scenarios of European agricultural land use: I. Estimating changes in crop productivity. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 107, 101–116. FAO, 2011. Save and Grow: a Policymaker’s Guide to the Sustainable Intensification of Smallholder Crop Production. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Helming, K., 2014. Impact assessment for multifunctional land use. In: Müller, L., Saparov, A., Lischeid, G. (Eds.), Novel Measurement and Assessment Tools for Monitoring and Management of Land and Water Resources in Agricultural Landscapes of Central Asia. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 223–234. Ichise, R., 2009. Evaluation of similarity measures for ontology mapping. New frontiers in artificial intelligence. Lect. Notes Comp. Sci. 5447, 15–25. Jörgensen, S.E., Bendoricchio, G., 2001. Fundamentals of Ecological Modelling. Developments in Environmental Modelling, vol. 21. Elsevier Science, pp. 532. Kaiser, G., Burkhard, B., Römer, H., Sangkaew, S., Graterol, R., Haitook, T., Sterr, H., Sakuna-Schwartz, D., 2013. Mapping tsunami impacts on land cover and related ecosystem service supply in Phang Nga, Thailand. Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 13, 3095–3111. Kandziora, M., Burkhard, B., Müller, F., 2013a. Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators: a theoretical matrix exercise. Ecol. Indic. 28, 54–78. Kandziora, M., Burkhard, B., Müller, F., 2013b. Mapping provisioning ecosystem services at the local scale using data of varying spatial and temporal resolution. Ecosyst. Serv. 4, 47–59. Karlstetter, N., 2011. Co-evolution and co-management of economic and ecological sustainability – a semantic approach to modeling climate adapted land use strategies in northwestern Germany. In: Golinska, P., Fertsch, M., Marx-Gomez, J. (Eds.), Information Technologies in Environmental Engineering: New Trends and Challenges. Environmental Science and Engineering, vol. 3. Springer, Berlin, pp. 213–228. Kersebaum, K.C., (Dissertation) 1989. Die Simulation der Stickstoffdynamik von Ackerböden. Universität Hannover. Kersebaum, K.C., Hecker, J.M., Mirschel, W., Wegehenkel, M., 2007. Modelling water and nutrient dynamics in soil–crop systems: a comparison of simulation models applied on common data sets. In: Kersebaum, K.C., Hecker, J.M., Mirschel, W., Wegehenkel, M. (Eds.), Modelling Water and Nutrient Dynamics in Soil Crop Systems. Springer, Stuttgart, pp. 1–17. Lambin, E.F., Rounsevell, M.D.A., Geist, H.J., 2000. Are agricultural land-use models able to predict changes in land-use intensity? Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 82, 321–331. Maedche, A., Staab, S., 2001. Ontology learning for the semantic web. IEEE Intell. Syst. 16 (2), 72–79. OECD, 2001. Multifunctionality – Towards an Analytical Framework. OECD, Paris. Palosuo, T., Kersebaum, K.C., Angulo, C., Hlavinka, P., Moriondo, M., Olesen, J., Patil, R., Ruget, F., Rumbaur, C., Takac, J., Trnka, M., Bindi, M., Caldag, B., Ewert, F., Ferrise, R., Mirschel, W., Saylan, L., Siska, B., Rötter, R., 2011. Simulation of winter wheat yield and its variability in different climates of Europe: a comparison of eight crop growth models. Eur. J. Agron. 35, 103–114. Rötter, R.P., Palosuo, T., Kersebaum, K.C., Angulo, C., Bindi, M., Ewert, F., Ferrise, R., Hlavinka, P., Moriondo, M., Nendel, C., Olesen, J.E., Patil, R., Ruget, F., Takáˇc, J., Trnka, M., 2012. Simulation of spring barley yield in different climatic zones of Northern and Central Europe – a comparison of nine crop models. Field Crop. Res. 133, 23–36. Sandhu, H.S., Wratten, S.D., Cullen, R., Case, B., 2008. The future of farming: the value of ecosystem services in conventional and organic arable land. An experimental approach. Ecol. Econ. 64, 835–848. TEEB, 2009. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy Makers – Summary: Responding to the Value of Nature. UNEP, pp. 40. UN, 2003. Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting, Series F ed. United Nations, European Commission, International Monetary Fund, OECD, World Bank, New York. Van Huylenbroeck, G., Vandermeulen, V., Mettepenningen, E., Verspecht, A., 2007. Multifunctionality of agriculture: a review of definitions, evidence and instruments. Living Rev. Landsc. Res. 1 (3) http://www.livingreviews.org/lrlr-2007-3 Verburg, P., Soepboer, W., Veldkamp, A., Limpiada, R., Espaldon, V., Mastura, S.S.A., 2002. Modeling the spatial dynamics of regional land use: the CLUE-S model. Environ. Manag. 30 (3), 391–406. Werner, A., Werner, A., Wieland, R., Kersebaum, K.-C., Mirschel, W., Ende, H.-P., Wiggering, H., 2014. Ex ante assessment of crop rotations focusing on energy crops using a multi-attribute decision-making method. Ecol. Indic. 45, 110–122. Wiggering, H., 2013. The geology – land use – nexus. Environ. Earth Sci. 71 (12), 5037–5044. Wiggering, H., Ende, H.P., Knierim, A., Pintar, M. (Eds.), 2010. Innovations in European Landscapes. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, p. 161. Zhang, W., Ricketts, T.H., Kremen, C., Carney, K., Swinton, S.M., 2007. Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol. Econ. 64, 253–260.