Advertisement

Landscape Ecology

, 24:1167 | Cite as

Combining top-down and bottom-up dynamics in land use modeling: exploring the future of abandoned farmlands in Europe with the Dyna-CLUE model

  • Peter H. Verburg
  • Koen P. Overmars
Research Article

Abstract

Land use change is the result of interactions between processes operating at different scales. Simulation models at regional to global scales are often incapable of including locally determined processes of land use change. This paper introduces a modeling approach that integrates demand-driven changes in land area with locally determined conversion processes. The model is illustrated with an application for European land use. Interactions between changing demands for agricultural land and vegetation processes leading to the re-growth of (semi-) natural vegetation on abandoned farmland are explicitly addressed. Succession of natural vegetation is simulated based on the spatial variation in biophysical and management related conditions, while the dynamics of the agricultural area are determined by a global multi-sector model. The results allow an exploration of the future dynamics of European land use and landscapes. The model approach is similarly suitable for other regions and processes where large scale processes interact with local dynamics.

Keywords

Land use Land cover Europe Land abandonment Land marginalization Succession Model 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research presented in this paper is partly funded by the EURURALIS project financed by the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality and the FP6 SENSOR integrated project financed by the European Commission. Igor Staritsky and Martha Bakker are acknowledged for their contributions to the discussions and calculations. Bob Bunce is thanked for providing an expert-table of succession periods across the different environmental zones of Europe.

References

  1. Agnoletti M (2007) The degradation of traditional landscape in a mountain area of Tuscany during the 19th and 20th centuries: implications for biodiversity and sustainable management. For Ecol Manag 249:5–17. doi: 10.1016/j.foreco.2007.05.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguiar APD, Câmara G, Escada MIS (2007) Spatial statistical analysis of land-use determinants in the Brazilian Amazonia: exploring intra-regional heterogeneity. Ecol Model 209:169–188. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.06.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angelsen A, Kaimowitz D (1999) Rethinking the causes of deforestation: lessons from economic models. World Bank Obs 14:73–98Google Scholar
  4. Balzter H (2000) Markov chain models for vegetation dynamics. Ecol Model 126:139–154. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3800(00)00262-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benjamin K, Domon G, Bouchard A (2005) Vegetation composition and succession of abandoned farmland: effects of ecological, historical and spatial factors. Landscape Ecol 20:627–647. doi: 10.1007/s10980-005-0068-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bielsa I, Pons X, Bunce RGH (2005) Agricultural abandonment in the North Eastern Iberian Peninsula: the use of basic landscape metrics to support planning. J Environ Plan Manag 48:85–102. doi: 10.1080/0964056042000308166 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolliger J, Lischke H, Green DG (2005) Simulating the spatial and temporal dynamics of landscapes using generic and complex models. Ecol Complex 2:107–116. doi: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2004.11.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bonet A (2004) Secondary succession of semi-arid Mediterranean old-fields in south-eastern Spain: insights for conservation and restoration of degraded lands. J Arid Environ 56:213–233. doi: 10.1016/S0140-1963(03)00048-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bowen ME, McAlpine CA, House APN, Smith GC (2007) Regrowth forests on abandoned agricultural land: a review of their habitat values for recovering forest fauna. Biol Conserv 140:273–296. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2007.08.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burel F, Baudry J (1995) Species biodiversity in changing agricultural landscapes: a case study in the Pays d’Auge, France. Agric Ecosyst Environ 55:193–200. doi: 10.1016/0167-8809(95)00614-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Castella J-C, Verburg PH (2007) Combination of process-oriented and pattern-oriented models of land-use change in a mountain area of Vietnam. Ecol Model 202:410–420. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2006.11.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Castella J-C, Pheng Kam S, Dinh Quang D, Verburg PH, Thai Hoanh C (2007) Combining top-down and bottom-up modelling approaches of land use/cover change to support public policies: application to sustainable management of natural resources in northern Vietnam. Land use policy 24:531–545. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.09.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crawford TW, Messina JP, Manson SM, O’Sullivan D (2005) Complexity science, complex systems, and land-use research: guest editorial. Environ Plan B 32:792–798. doi: 10.1068/b3206ed CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Debussche M, Escarre J, Lepart J, Houssard C, Lavorel S (1996) Changes in mediterranean plant succession: old-fields revisited. J Veg Sci 7:519–526. doi: 10.2307/3236300 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. del Barrio G, Alvera B, Puigdefabregas J, Diez C (1997) Response of high mountain landscape to topographic variables: central Pyrenees. Landscape Ecol 12:95–115. doi: 10.1007/BF02698210 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Didier L (2001) Invasion patterns of European larch and Swiss stone pine in subalpine pastures in the French Alps. For Ecol Manag 145:67–77. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00575-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dietzel C, Clarke KC (2007) Toward optimal calibration of the SLEUTH land use change model. Trans GIS 11:29–45. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9671.2007.01031.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. EEA (2005) European environmental agency. http://dataservice.eea.eu.int. Accessed 20 Aug 2005
  19. Eetvelde VV, Antrop M (2004) Analyzing structural and functional changes of traditional landscapes—two examples from Southern France. Landsc Urban Plan 67:79–95. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00030-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eickhout B, van Meijl H, Tabeau A, van Rheenen T (2007) Economic and ecological consequences of four European land use scenarios. Land use policy 24:562–575. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2006.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Etienne M, Le Page C, Cohen M (2003) A step-by-step approach to building land management scenarios based on multiple viewpoints on multi-agent system simulations ecology and society 6:<http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/6/2/2.html>
  22. Falcucci A, Maiorano L, Boitani L (2007) Changes in land-use/land-cover patterns in Italy and their implications for biodiversity conservation. Landscape Ecol 22:617–631. doi: 10.1007/s10980-006-9056-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Flinn KM, Vellend M (2005) Recovery of forest plant communities in post-agricultural landscapes. Front Ecol Environ 3:243–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gellrich M, Baur P, Robinson BH, Bebi P (2008) Combining classification tree analyses with interviews to study why sub-alpine grasslands sometimes revert to forest: a case study from the Swiss Alps. Agric Syst 96:124–138. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2007.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gillet F (2008) Modelling vegetation dynamics in heterogeneous pasture-woodland landscapes. Ecol Model 217:1–18. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2008.05.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. González-Martínez SC, Bravo F (2001) Density and population structure of the natural regeneration of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) in the high Ebro basin (Northern Spain). Ann For Sci 58:277–288. doi: 10.1051/forest:2001126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grimm V (1999) Ten years of individual-based modelling in ecology: what have we learned and what could we learn in the future? Ecol Model 115:129–148. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3800(98)00188-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Grove AT, Rackham O (1993) Threatened landscapes in the Mediterranean: examples from Crete. Landscape Urban Plan 24:279–292. doi: 10.1016/0169-2046(93)90107-O CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gullison JJ, Bourque CPA (2001) Spatial prediction of tree and shrub succession in a small watershed in Northern Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia, Canada. Ecol Model 137:181–199. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3800(00)00428-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Haines-Young R, Weber JL (2006) Land accounts for Europe 1990–2000. EEA report 11/2006. European Environmental Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  31. He C, Okada N, Zhang Q, Shi P, Li J (2008) Modelling dynamic urban expansion processes incorporating a potential model with cellular automata. Landsc Urban Plan 86:79–91. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.12.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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 114:141–158. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2005.11.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hijmans RJ, Cameron SE, Parra JL, Jones PG, Jarvis A (2005) Very high resolution interpolated climate surfaces for global land areas. Int J Climatol 25:1965–1978. doi: 10.1002/joc.1276 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hunziker M, Kienast F (1999) Potential impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty—a prototypical technique for automated rapid assessment. Landscape Ecol 14:161–176. doi: 10.1023/A:1008079715913 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ingram DR (1971) The concept of accessibility: a search for an operational form. Reg Stud 5:101–107. doi: 10.1080/09595237100185131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kline JD, Moses A, Lettman GJ, Azuma DL (2007) Modeling forest and range land development in rural locations, with examples from eastern Oregon. Landsc Urban Plan 80:320–332. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.10.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kok K, Winograd M (2002) Spatially explicit modelling of the Central American land-use system. Ecol Model 149:53–69. doi: 10.1016/S0304-3800(01)00514-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kräuchi N, Brang P, Schönenberger W (2000) Forests of mountainous regions: gaps in knowledge and research needs. For Ecol Manag 132:73–82. doi: 10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00382-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lesschen JP, Cammeraat LH, Kooijman AM, van Wesemael B (2008) Development of spatial heterogeneity in vegetation and soil properties after land abandonment in a semi-arid ecosystem. J Arid Environ 72:2082–2092. doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2008.06.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. MacDonald D, Crabtree JR, Wiesinger G, Dax T, Stamou N, Fleury P, Gutierrez Lazpita J, Gibon A (2000) Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: environmental consequences and policy response. J Environ Manag 59:47–69. doi: 10.1006/jema.1999.0335 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Manson SM (2005) Agent-based modeling and genetic programming for modeling land change in the Southern Yucatán Peninsular region of Mexico. Agric Ecosyst Environ 111:47–62. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2005.04.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Martineau Y, Saugier B (2007) A process-based model of old field succession linking ecosystem and community ecology. Ecol Model 204:399–419. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2007.01.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mas JF, Puig H, Palacio JL, Sosa-López A (2004) Modelling deforestation using GIS and artificial neural networks. Environ Model Softw 19:461–471. doi: 10.1016/S1364-8152(03)00161-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Matthews R, Gilbert N, Roach A, Polhill J, Gotts N (2007) Agent-based land-use models: a review of applications. Landscape Ecol 22:1447–1459. doi: 10.1007/s10980-007-9135-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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 114:21–38. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2005.11.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mitchell TD, Hulme M, New M (2002) Climate data for political areas. Area 34:109–112. doi: 10.1111/1475-4762.00062 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mottet A, Ladet S, Coque N, Gibon A (2006) Agricultural land-use change and its drivers in mountain landscapes: a case study in the Pyrenees. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114:296–310. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2005.11.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Myster RW, Pickett STA (1994) A comparison of rate of succession over 18 year in 10 contrasting old fields. Ecology 75:387–392. doi: 10.2307/1939542 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Neumann K, Elbersen BS, Verburg PH, Staritsky I, Pérez-Soba M, de Vries W, Rienks WA (2009) Modelling the spatial distribution of livestock in Europe. Landscape Ecol. doi: 10.1007/s10980-009-9357-5 Google Scholar
  50. Osbornova J, Kovarova M, Leps J, Krach K (eds) (1990) Succession in abandoned fields: studies in central Bohemia, Czechoslovakia. Kluwer Academic Publishing, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  51. Overmars KP, Verburg PH, Veldkamp T (2007) Comparison of a deductive and an inductive approach to specify land suitability in a spatially explicit land use model. Land use policy 24:584–599. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.09.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pan D, Domon G, de Blois S, Bouchard A (1999) Temporal (1985–1993) and spatial patterns of land use changes in Haut-Saint-Laurent (Quebec, Canada) and their relation to landscape physical attributes. Landscape Ecol 14:35–52. doi: 10.1023/A:1008022028804 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Parker DC, Manson SM, Janssen MA, Hoffman M, Deadman P (2003) Multi-agent systems for the simulation of land-use and land-cover change: a review. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 93:314–337. doi: 10.1111/1467-8306.9302004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pijanowski BC, Alexandridis KT, Mueller D (2006) Modelling urbanization patterns in two diverse regions of the world. J Land Use Sci 1:83–108. doi: 10.1080/17474230601058310 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pontius RG, Malanson J (2005) Comparison of the accuracy of land change models: cellular automata markov versus geomod. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 19:243–265. doi: 10.1080/13658810410001713434 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pontius R, Boersma W, Castella J-C, Clarke K, de Nijs T, Dietzel C, Duan Z, Fotsing E, Goldstein N, Kok K, Koomen E, Lippitt C, McConnell W, Mohd Sood A, Pijanowski B, Pithadia S, Sweeney S, Trung T, Veldkamp A, Verburg P (2008) Comparing the input, output, and validation maps for several models of land change. Ann Reg Sci 42:11–37. doi: 10.1007/s00168-007-0138-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Poyatos R, Latron J, Llorens P (2003) Land use and land cover change after agricultural abandonment. Mt Res Dev 23:362–368. doi: 10.1659/0276-4741(2003)023[0362:LUALCC]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Prach K (1993) On the rate of succession. Oikos 66:343. doi: 10.2307/3544823 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Prévosto B, Hill DRC, Coquillard P (2003) Individual-based modelling of Pinus sylvestris invasion after grazing abandonment in the French Massif Central. Plant Ecol 168:121–137. doi: 10.1023/A:1024404214782 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pueyo Y, Beguería S (2007) Modelling the rate of secondary succession after farmland abandonment in a Mediterranean mountain area. Landsc Urban Plan 83:245–254. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.04.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Pugnaire FI, Luque MT, Armas C, Gutiérrez L (2006) Colonization processes in semi-arid Mediterranean old-fields. J Arid Environ 65:591–603. doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2005.10.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Reger B, Otte A, Waldhardt R (2007) Identifying patterns of land-cover change and their physical attributes in a marginal European landscape. Landsc Urban Plan 81:104–113. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.10.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rindfuss RR, Entwisle B, Walsh SJ, An L, Badenoch N, Brown DG, Deadman P, Evans TP, Fox J, Geoghegan J, Gutmann M, Kelly M, Linderman M, Liu J, Malanson GP, Mena CF, Messina JP, Moran EF, Parker DC, Parton W, Prasartkul P, Robinson DT, Sawangdee Y, Vanwey LK, Verburg PH (2008) Land use change: complexity and comparisons. J Land Use Sci 3:1–10. doi: 10.1080/17474230802047955 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schulp CJE, Nabuurs G-J, Verburg PH (2008) Future carbon sequestration in Europe—effects of land use change. Agric Ecosyst Environ 127:251–264. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2008.04.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Soares-Filho BS, Nepstad DC, Curran LM, Cerqueira GC, Garcia RA, Ramos CA, Voll E, McDonald A, Lefebvre P, Schlesinger P (2006) Modelling conservation in the Amazon basin. Nature 440:520–523. doi: 10.1038/nature04389 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Sohl TL, Sayler KL, Drummond MA, Loveland TR (2007) The FORE-SCE model: a practical approach for projecting land cover change using scenario-based modeling. J Land Use Sci 2:103–126. doi: 10.1080/17474230701218202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tasser E, Tappeiner U (2002) Impact of land use changes on mountain vegetation. Appl Veg Sci 5:173–184. doi: 10.1658/1402-2001(2002)005[0173:IOLUCO]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tasser E, Walde J, Tappeiner U, Teutsch A, Noggler W (2007) Land-use changes and natural reforestation in the Eastern Central Alps. Agric Ecosyst Environ 118:115–129. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2006.05.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Turner BLII, Kasperson RE, Meyer WB, Dow KM, Golding D, Kasperson JX, Mitchel RC, Ratick SJ (1990) Two types of global environmental change; definitional and spatial-scale issues in their human dimensions. Glob Environ Chang 1:14–22. doi: 10.1016/0959-3780(90)90004-S CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tzanopoulos J, Mitchley J, Pantis JD (2007) Vegetation dynamics in abandoned crop fields on a Mediterranean island: development of succession model and estimation of disturbance thresholds. Agric Ecosyst Environ 120:370–376. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2006.10.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 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 Manag 30:391–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Verburg PH, de Nijs TCM, Ritsema van Eck J, Visser H, de Jong K (2004a) A method to analyse neighbourhood characteristics of land use patterns. Comput Environ Urban Syst 28:667–690. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2003.07.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Verburg PH, Ritsema van Eck J, de Nijs T, Dijst MJ, Schot P (2004b) Determinants of land use change patterns in the Netherlands. Environ Plan B 31:125–150. doi: 10.1068/b307 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Verburg PH, Overmars KP, Huigen MGA, de Groot WT, Veldkamp A (2006a) Analysis of the effects of land use change on protected areas in the Philippines. Appl Geogr 26:153–173. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2005.11.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Verburg PH, Schulp CJE, Witte N, Veldkamp A (2006b) Downscaling of land use change scenarios to assess the dynamics of European landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114:39–56. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2005.11.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Verburg P, Eickhout B, van Meijl H (2008) A multi-scale, multi-model approach for analyzing the future dynamics of European land use. Ann Reg Sci 42:57–77. doi: 10.1007/s00168-007-0136-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Verburg PH, van de Steeg J, Veldkamp A, Willemen L (2009) From land cover change to land function dynamics: a major challenge to improve land characterization. J Environ Manag 90:1327–1335. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.08.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Westhoek HJ, van den Berg M, Bakkes JA (2006) Scenario development to explore the future of Europe’s rural areas. Agric Ecosyst Environ 114:7–20. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2005.11.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. WUR/MNP (2008) EURURALIS2.0 CDrom. Wageningen University and the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, WageningenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Land Dynamics GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations