The Annals of Regional Science

, Volume 42, Issue 1, pp 57–77 | Cite as

A multi-scale, multi-model approach for analyzing the future dynamics of European land use

Open Access
Special Issue Paper

Abstract

Europe’s rural areas are expected to witness massive and rapid changes in land use due to changes in demography, global trade, technology and enlargement of the European Union. Changes in demand for agricultural products and agrarian production structure are likely to have a large impact on landscape quality and the value of natural areas. Most studies address these changes either from a macro-economic perspective focusing on changes in the agricultural sector or from a local perspective by analyzing recent changes in landscapes for small case studies. This paper describes a methodology in which a series of models has been used to link global level developments influencing land use to local level impacts. It is argued that such an approach is needed to properly address the processes at different scales that give rise to the land use dynamics in Europe. An extended version of the global economic model (GTAP) and an integrated assessment model (IMAGE) are used to calculate changes in demand for agricultural areas at the country level while a spatially explicit land use change model (CLUE-s) was used to translate these demands to land use patterns at 1 km2 resolution. The global economic model ensures an appropriate treatment of macro-economic, demographic and technology developments and changes in agricultural and trade policies influencing the demand and supply for land use related products while the integrated assessment model accounts for changes in productivity as result of climate change and global land allocation. The land use change simulations at a high spatial resolution make use of country specific driving factors that influence the spatial patterns of land use, accounting for the spatial variation in the biophysical and socio-economic environment. Results indicate the large impact abandonment of agricultural land and urbanization may have on future European landscapes. Such results have the potential to support discussions on the future of the rural area and identify hot-spots of landscape change that need specific consideration. The high spatial and thematic resolution of the results allows the assessment of impacts of these changes on different environmental indicators, such as carbon sequestration and biodiversity. The global assessment allows, at the same time, to account for the tradeoffs between impacts in Europe and effects outside Europe.

JEL Classification

C68 R14 R15 R52 

References

  1. Alcamo J, Leemans R, Kreileman E (1998) Global change scenarios of the 21st century. Results from the IMAGE 2.1 Model. Elsevier, LondonGoogle Scholar
  2. Arnell NW, Livermore MJL, Kovats S, Levy PE, Nicholls R, Parry ML, Gaffin SR (2004) Climate and socio-economic scenarios for global-scale climate change impacts assessments: characterising the SRES storylines. Glob Environ Change 14:3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bennett EM, Carpenter SR, Zurek M, Pingali P, Peterson GD, Cumming GC (2003) Why global scenarios need ecology. Front Ecol 1:322–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bollen JC, Manders T, Mulder M (2004) Four futures for energy markets and climate change. CPB Special Publication 52, ISBN 90-5833-171-7, Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, The Hague, and National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, the Netherlands. See: http://www.mnp.nl/enGoogle Scholar
  5. Britz W, Wieck C, Perez I, Jansson T (2002) Impact analysis of the European Commission’s propsal under the Mid-Term Review of the Common Agricultural Policy (using the CAPRI model), Final report (22.08.02 AGR 019924). University of Bonn, EuroCARE, Department for Economics and Agricultural Policy, BonnGoogle Scholar
  6. Bürgi M, Hersperger AM, Schneeberger N (2004) Driving forces of landscape change—current and new directions. Landsc Ecol 19:857–868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CEC (1994) CORINE land cover. Technical guide. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  8. Dockerty T, Lovett A, Appleton K, Bone A, Sünnenberg G (2006) Developing scenarios and visualisations to illustrate potential policy and climatic influences on future agricultural landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114:103–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. EEA (2005) http://dataservice.eea.eu.int; European Environmental Agency. In. cited on 20/08/2005Google Scholar
  10. Eickhout B, van Meijl H, Tabeau A, van Rheenen T (2007) Economic and ecological consequences of four European land-use scenarios. Land Use Policy 24:562–575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Francois J, van Meijl H, van Tongeren F (2005) Trade liberalisation in the DOHA Development Round. Econ Policy 20:351–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. GLP (2005) Science Plan and Implementation Strategy Global Land Project. IGBP Report No. 53/IHDP Report No. 19. IGBP Secretariat, StockholmGoogle Scholar
  13. Heisterman M, Müller C, Ronneberger K (2006) Land in sight? Achievements, deficits and potentials of continental to global scale land-use modeling. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114:141–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hertel TW (1997) Global trade analysis: modelling and applications. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Huang H, van Tongeren F, Dewbre F, van Meijl H (2004) A new representation of agricultural production technology in GTAP. Paper presented at the seventh annual conference on global economic analysis, June, Washington, USAGoogle Scholar
  16. IPCC (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios—a special report of working group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. Klijn JA (2004) Driving forces behind landscape transformation in Europe, from a conceptual approach to policy options. In: Jongman RGH (eds) Proceedings of the Frontis workshop on the future of the European cultural landscape. Wageningen, The Netherlands 9–12 June 2002. Alterra, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  18. Klijn JA, Vullings LAE, van de Berg M, van Meijl H, van Lammeren R, van Rheenen T, Veldkamp A, Verburg PH, Westhoek H, Eickhout B (2005) The EURURALIS study: technical document. Alterra-rapport 1196. Alterra, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  19. Kok K, Farrow A, Veldkamp A, Verburg PH (2001) A method and application of multi-scale validation in spatial land use models. Agric Ecosyst Environ 85:223–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kosmas C, Gerontidis S, Marathianou M (2000) The effect of land use change on soils and vegetation over various lithological formations on Lesvos (Greece). CATENA 40:68Google Scholar
  21. Leemans R, Eickhout B (2004) Another reason for concern: regional and global impacts on ecosystems for different levels of climate change. Glob Environ Change Part A 14:219–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lindh T (2003) Demography as a forecasting tool. Futures 35:37–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loonen W, Heuberger PSC, Bakema AH, Schot P (2006) Application of a genetic algorithm to minimize agricultural nitrogen deposition in nature reserves. Agric Syst 88:360–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. MEA (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Millenium Ecosystem Assesment. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  25. Meijl Hv, Tongeren FWv (2002) The Agenda 2000 CAP reform, world prices and GATT—WTO export constraints. Eur Rev Agric Econ 29:445–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meijl Hv, van Rheenen T, Tabeau A, Eickhout B (2006) The impact of different policy environments on agricultural land use in Europe. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114:21–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nassauer JI (1995) Culture and changing landscape structure. Landsc Ecol 10(4):229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Naveh Z (2001) Ten major premises for a holistic conception of multifunctional landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 57(3–4):269–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. OECD (2003) Agricultural Policies in OECD Countries 2000. Monitoring and evaluation. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  30. Pardini G, Gispert M, Dunjo G (2004) Relative influence of wildfire on soil properties and erosion processes in different Mediterranean environments in NE Spain. Sci Total Environ 237–328, 246Google Scholar
  31. Parry ML, Rosenzweig C, Iglesias A, Livermore M, Fischer G (2004) Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios. Glob Environ Change 14:53–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Peterson GD, Beard TD, Beisner BE, Bennett EM, Carpenter SR, Cumming GC, Dent CL, Havlicek TD (2003) Assessing future ecosystem services: a case study of the Northern Highland Lake District, Wisconsin. Conserv Ecol http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol7/iss3/art1/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
  33. Pontius RG, Boersma W, Castella J-C, Clarke K, Nijs Td., Dietzel C, Duan Z, Fotsing E, Goldstein N, Kok K, Koomen E, Lippitt CD, McConnell W, Pijanowski B, Pithadia S, Sood AM, Sweeney S, Trung TN, Veldkamp A, Verburg PH (2006) Comparing the input, output, and validation maps for several models of land change. Ann Region Sci (this issue)Google Scholar
  34. Rabbinge R, van Diepen CA, Dijsselbloem L, Koning GHJ, van Latesteijn HC, Woltjer E, van Zijl J (1994) Ground for choices: a scenario study on perspectives for rural areas in the European Community. In: Fresco LO, Stroosnijder L, Bouma J, van Keulen H (eds) The future of the land: mobilising and integrating knowledge for land use options. Wiley, New York, pp 95–121Google Scholar
  35. Reidsma P, Tekelenburg T, van den Berg M, Alkemade R (2006) Impacts of land use change on biodiversity: an assessment of agricultural biodiversity in the European Union. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114:86–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rosegrant MW, Meijer S, Cline SA (2002) International model for policy analysis of agricultural commodities and trade (IMPACT): model description. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, p 28Google Scholar
  37. Rotmans J, Asselt MA, Anastasi C, Greeuw S, Mellors J, Peters S, Rothman D, Rijkens N (2000) Visions for a sustainable Europe. Futures 32:809–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rounsevell MDA, Ewert F, Reginster I, Leemans R, Carter TR (2005) Future scenarios of European agricultural land use: II. Projecting changes in cropland and grassland. Agric Ecosyst Environ 107:101–116Google Scholar
  39. Schröter D, Cramer W, Leemans R, Prentice CI, Araujo MB, Arnell NW, Bondeau A, Bugmann H, Carter TR, Gracia CA, de la Vega-Leinert AC, Erhard M, Ewert F, Glendining M, House JI, Kankaanpaa S, Klein RJT, Lavorel S, Lindner M, Metzger MJ, Meyer J, Mitchell TD, Reginster I, Rounsevell M, Sabate S, Sitch S, Smith B, Smith J, Smith P, Sykes MT, Thonicke K, Thuiller W, Tuck G, Zaehle S, Zierl B (2005) Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science 310:1333–1337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Strengers B, Leemans R, Eickhout B, De Vries B, Bouwman AF (2004) The land-use projections and resulting emissions in the IPCC SRES scenarios as simulated by the IMAGE 2.2 model. GeoJ 61:381–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. UNEP (2002) Global Environment Outlook 3. UNEP, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  42. van Ittersum MK, Roetter RP, van Keulen H, de Ridder N, Hoanh CT, Laborte AG, Aggarwal PK, Ismail AB, Tawang A (2004) A systems network (SysNet) approach for interactively evaluating strategic land use options at sub-national scale in South and South-east Asia. Land Use Policy 21:101–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Verboom J, Alkemade R, Klijn JA, Metzger MJ, Reijnen R (2007) Combining biodiversity modeling with political and economic development scenarios for 25 EU countries. Ecolo Econ 62:267–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Verburg PH, Veldkamp A (2004) Projecting land use transitions at forest fringes in the Philippines at two spatial scales. Landsc Ecol 19:77–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Verburg PH, Soepboer W, Limpiada R, Espaldon MVO, Sharifa M, Veldkamp A (2002) Land use change modelling at the regional scale: the CLUE-S model. Environ Manage 30:391–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Verburg PH, Ritsema van Eck J, de Nijs T, Dijst MJ, Schot P (2004) Determinants of land use change patterns in the Netherlands. Environ Plann B 31:125–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Verburg PH, Schulp CJE, Witte N, Veldkamp A (2006) Downscaling of land use change scenarios to assess the dynamics of European landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114:39–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wester-Herber M (2004) Underlying concerns in land-use conflicts—the role of place-identity in risk perception. Environ Sci Policy 7:109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Westhoek HJ, van den Berg M, Bakkes JA (2006) Scenario development to explore the future of Europe’s rural areas. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114:7–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wimberly MC, Ohmann JL (2004) A multi-scale assessment of human and environmental constraints on forest land cover change on the Oregon (USA) coast range. Landsc Ecol 19:631–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. WRR (1992) Ground for choices: four perspectives for the rural areas in the European Community. SDU Uitgevers, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  52. Xiang W-N, Clarke KC (2003) The use of scenarios in land-use planning. Environ Plann B 30:885–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter H. Verburg
    • 1
  • Bas Eickhout
    • 2
  • Hans van Meijl
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Environmental SciencesWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Global Sustainability and ClimateNetherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP/RIVM)BilthovenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Agricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI)Wageningen University and Research CentreThe HagueThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations