Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, Volume 22, Issue 8, pp 1255–1264 | Cite as

Mapping hotspots of multiple landscape functions: a case study on farmland afforestation in Scotland

  • Alessandro GimonaEmail author
  • Dan van der Horst
Research Article

Abstract

Many conservation and restoration efforts in developed countries are increasingly based on the premise of recognising and stimulating more ‘multi-functionality’ in agricultural landscapes. Public policy making is often a pragmatic process that involves efforts to negotiate trade-offs between the potentially conflicting demands of various stakeholders. Conservationists’ efforts to influence policy making, can therefore benefit from any tool that will help them to identify other socio-economic functions or values that coincide with good ecological conservation options. Various types of socio-economic objectives have in recent years been mapped across landscapes and so there are now important opportunities to explore the spatial heterogeneity of these diverse functions across the wider landscape in search of potential spatial synergies, i.e. ‘multiple win locations’ or multifunctional ‘hotspots’.

This paper explores the potential occurrence of such synergies within the agricultural landscape of northeast Scotland and evaluates an existing woodland planting policy using and combining three different policy objectives. Our results show that there are indeed broad areas of the studied landscape where multiple objectives (biodiversity, visual amenity and on-site recreation potential) could be achieved simultaneously (hotspots), and that the case study which we evaluate (the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme) could be much better spatially targeted with regards to each individual objective as well as with regards to these hotspots of multifunctionality.

Keywords

Farm woodlands GIS Spatial targeting Biodiversity Recreation Visual amenity Landscape Multifunctionality 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr. Gary Hill for providing reports and advice regarding the forest role in tourism, John de Groot for preliminary GIS work used in the production of the recreation benefits map and the UK Forestry Commission for providing the FWPS polygons. We also thank Prof. Paul Opdam for constructive criticism on previous versions of this manuscript. We acknowledge the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD) for financial support.

References

  1. Apan AA, Raine SR, Le Brocque A, Cockfield G (2004) Spatial prioritization of revegetation sites for dryland salinity management: an analytical framework using GIS. J Environ Plan Manage 47(6):811–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bailey N, Lee JT, Thompson S (2006) Maximising the natural capital benefits of habitat creation: spatially targeting native woodland using GIS. Landsc Urban Plan 75:227–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends ecol evol 18:182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brainard J, Lovett A, Bateman I (1999) Integrating geographical information systems into travel cost analysis and benefit transfer. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 13(3):227–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brainard J, Bateman I, Lovett A (2001) Modelling demand for recreation in English woodlands. Forestry 74:423–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buttoud G (2000) How can policy take into consideration the ‘full value’ of forests? Land Use Policy 17:169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Church RL, Stroms DM, Davis FW (1996) Reserves selection as a maximal covering location problem. Biol Conserv 76:105–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neil R, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P, van den Belt M (1998) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Ecol Econ 25(1):3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Groot RS, Wilson MA, Bouman RMJ (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferrier S (2002) Mapping spatial pattern in biodiversity for regional conservation planning: where to go from here? Syst Biol 51:331–363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frede HG, Bach M (conference organisers) (2005) Multifunctionality of landscapes; analysis, evaluation and decision support. International conference held 18–19 May 2005 at Justus Liebig University, Giessen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  12. Gilliams S, van Orshoven J, Muys B, Kros H, Heil GW, van Deursen W (2005) AFFOREST sDSS: a metamodel based spatial decision support system for afforestation of agricultural land. New Forests 30:33–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gkaraveli A, Good JEG, Williams JH (2004) Determining priority areas for native woodland expansion and restoration in Snowdonia National Park, Wales. Biol Conserv 115:395–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gren I, Groth K, Sylven M (1995) Economic values of Danube floodplain. J Environ Manage 45:333–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guo Z, Xiao X, Gan Y, Zheng Y (2001) Ecosystem functions, services and their values—a case study in Xingshan County of China. Ecol Econ 38:141–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haines-Young R, Watkins C, Wale C, Murdock A (2006) Modelling natural capital: the case of landscape restoration on the South Downs, England. Landsc Urban Plan 75:244–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot RS, van Ierland EC (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholdera and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 57:209–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hill G, Courtney P, Burton R, Potts J (2003) Forests’ role in tourism. Final report for the Forestry Commission, Edinburgh, ScotlandGoogle Scholar
  19. Hill G, Courtney P (2006) Demand analysis projections for recreational visits to countryside woodlands in Great Britain. Forestry 79:185–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuttila M, Pukkala T (2003) Combining holding-level economic goals with spatial landscape-level goals in the planning of multiple ownership. Landsc Ecol 18:529–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kazmierski J, Kram M, Mills E, Phemister D, Reo N, Riggs E, Tefertiller R, Erickson D (2004) Conservation planning at the landscape scale: a landscape ecology method for regional land trusts. J Environ Plan Manage 47(5):709–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lathrop RG, Bognar JA (1998) Applying GIS and landscape ecological principles to evaluate land conservation alternatives. Landsc Urban Plan 41:27–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lee JT, Woddy SJ, Thompson S (2001) Targeting sites for conservation: using a patch-based ranking scheme to assess conservation potential. J Environ Manage 61(4):367–380PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lee JT, Bailey N, Thompson S (2002). Using geographical information systems to identify and target sites for the creation and restoration of native woodlands: a case study of the Chiltern Hills, UK. J Environ Manage 64(1):25–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. MLURI (1996) Evaluation of the farm woodland premium scheme. A report for Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment & Fisheries Department. Economics and Policy Series No 1, Macaulay Land Use Research Institute, AberdeenGoogle Scholar
  26. Moilanen A, Franco AMA, Eary RI, Eary RI, Fox R, Wintle B, Thomas CD (2005) Prioritizing multiple-use landscapes for conservation: methods for large multi-species planning problems. Proc Roy Soc B-Biol Sci 272:1885–1891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Moilanen A (2005) Methods for reserve selection: interior point search. Biol Conserv 124:485–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Opdam P, Steingröver E, van Rooij S (2006) Ecological networks: a spatial concept for multi-actor planning of sustainable landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 75:322–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Opdam P, Verboom J, Pouwels R (2003) Landscape cohesion: an index for the conservation potential of landscapes for biodiversity. Landscape Ecol 18:113–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Potschin M, Haines-Young R (2006) Rio+10”, sustainability science and landscape ecology. Landsc Urban Plan 75:162–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. SDD (1990) Circular No 13/90 Indicative forestry strategies. The Scottish Office Development Department, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  32. SDD (1999) Circular 9/1999 Indicative forestry strategies. The Scottish Office Development Department, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  33. Stuart-Murray J (1994) Indicative forestry strategies—a critique. Scott For 48(1):16–21Google Scholar
  34. Stuart-Murray J, Winterbottom SJ, Young JA (1999) Evidence for the effectiveness of forestry indicative strategies - a case study in the Scottish Borders. Scott For 53(3)Google Scholar
  35. Thompson S, Larcom A, Lee JT (1999). Restoring and enhancing rare and threatened habitats under agri-environmental agreements: a case study of the Chiltern Hills area of outstanding Natural Beauty, UK. Land Use Policy 16:93–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Turner RK, van den Bergh JCJM, Söderqvist T, Barendregt A, van der Straaten J, Maltby E, van Ierland EC (2000) Ecological-economic analysis of wetlands: scientific integration for management and policy. Ecol Econ 35:7–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van der Horst D, Gimona A (2005) Where new farm woodlands support Biodiversity Action Plans: a spatial multi-criteria analysis. Biol Conserv 123:421–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van der Horst D (2006a) Spatial cost-benefit thinking in multifunctional forestry: towards a framework for spatial targeting of policy interventions. Ecol Econ 59:71–80Google Scholar
  39. Van der Horst D (2006b) A prototype method to map the potential visual amenity benefits of new farm woodlands. Environ Plan B: Plan Design 33:221–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Verboom J, Foppen R, Chardon P, Opdam P, Luttikhuizen P (2001) Introducing the key patch approach for habitat networks with persistent populations: an example for marshland birds. Biol Conserv 100:89–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Vos CC, Verboom J, Opdam PFM, ter Braak CJF, (2001) Towards ecologically scaled landscape indices. Am Nat 157:24–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wilson KA, McBride M, Bode M, Possingham HP (2006) Prioritising global conservation efforts. Nature 40:337–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Macaulay InstituteAberdeenUK
  2. 2.School of Geography, Earth and Environmental SciencesUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK

Personalised recommendations