Landscape Ecology

, Volume 27, Issue 9, pp 1363–1381 | Cite as

An agent-based approach to modeling impacts of agricultural policy on land use, biodiversity and ecosystem services

  • Mark Brady
  • Christoph Sahrbacher
  • Konrad Kellermann
  • Kathrin Happe
Research Article

Abstract

We present extensions to the agent-based agricultural policy simulator (AgriPoliS) model that make it possible to simulate the consequences of agricultural policy reform on farmers’ land use decisions and concomitant impacts on landscape mosaic, biodiversity and ecosystem services in a real agricultural region. An observed population of farms is modelled as a multi-agent system where individual farm-agent behaviour and their interactions—principally competition for land—are defined through an optimization framework with land use and landscape impacts resulting as emergent properties of the system. The model is calibrated to real data on the farms and the landscape to be studied. We illustrate the utility of the model by evaluating the potential impacts of three alternative frameworks for the European Union Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) on landscape values in two marginal agricultural regions. Mosaic value was found to be sensitive to the choice of policy scheme in one of the landscapes, whereas significant trade-offs were shown to occur in terms of species richness by habitat and species composition at the landscape scale in both regions. The relationship between food production and other ecosystem services was found to be multifaceted. Thus illustrating the difficulty of achieving landscape goals in a particular region with simple or general land management rules (such as the current rules attached to CAPs direct payments). Given the scarcity of funding for conservation, the level and conditions for allocating direct payments are, potentially, of great importance for preserving landscape values in marginal agricultural regions (subject to levels of other support).

Keywords

Agent-based modeling (ABM) Landscape Policy CAP Agriculture Farming Biodiversity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Henrik Smith and colleagues at the AgriFood Economics Centre for comments on the manuscript, Martin Stjernman for help with the Swedish Board of Agriculture’s Block-Database, and Honor C. Prentice for literature and discussion in regard to the role of agricultural habitat in conservation of biodiversity. The initial model development was funded by the IDEMA project (www.agrifood.se\IDEMA) which was supported by the European Community’s Sixth Framework Programme (SSPE-CT-2003-502171). The writing of the paper has benefited from Mark Brady’s participation in the FORMAS financed Excellent Research Environment SAPES (www.cec.lu.se/research/sapes).

Supplementary material

10980_2012_9787_MOESM1_ESM.docx (387 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 387 kb)

References

  1. Abildtrup J, Audsley E, Fekete-Farkas M, Giupponi C, Gylling M, Rosato P, Rounsevell M (2006) Socio-economic scenario development for the assessment of climate change impacts on agricultural land use: a pairwise comparison approach. Environ Sci Policy 9(2):101–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antle JM, Valdivia RO (2006) Modelling the supply of ecosystem services from agriculture: a minimum-data approach. Aust J Agric Resour Econ 50(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Antle J, Capalbo S, Paustian K, Ali M (2007) Estimating the economic potential for agricultural soil carbon sequestration in the Central United States using an aggregate econometric-process simulation model. Clim Change 80(1):145–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ArtDataBanken (2005) The 2005 Red List of Swedish Species. ArtDataBanken Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU), UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  5. Axtell RL, Epstein JM, Dean JS, Gumerman GJ, Swedlund AC, Harburger J, Chakravarty S, Hammond R, Parker J, Parker M (2002) Population growth and collapse in a multiagent model of the Kayenta Anasazi in Long House Valley. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99(Suppl 3):7275–7279CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Balkhausen O, Banse M, Grethe H (2008) Modelling CAP Decoupling in the EU: a comparison of selected simulation models and results. J Agric Econ 59(1):57–71Google Scholar
  7. Balmann A (1997) Farm-based modelling of regional structural change: a cellular automata approach. Eur Rev Agric Econ 24:85–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD (2003) Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 18(4):182–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berg A, Ehnstrom B, Gustafsson L, Hallingback T, Jonsell M, Weslien J (1994) Threatened plant, animal, and fungus species in Swedish forests: distribution and habitat associations. Conserv Biol 8(3):718–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Berger T (2001) Agent-based spatial models applied to agriculture: a simulation tool for technology diffusion, resource use changes and policy analysis. Agric Econ 25(2–3):245–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bernes C (ed) (1994) Biological diversity in Sweden: a country study. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, SolnaGoogle Scholar
  12. Billeter R, Liira J, Bailey D, Bugter R, Arens P, Augenstein I, Aviron S, Baudry J, Bukacek R, Burel F, Cerny M, De Blust G, De Cock R, Diekötter T, Dietz H, Dirksen J, Dormann C, Durka W, Frenzel M, Hamersky R, Hendrickx F, Herzog F, Klotz S, Koolstra B, Lausch A, Le Coeur D, Maelfait JP, Opdam P, Roubalova M, Schermann A, Schermann N, Schmidt T, Schweiger O, Smulders MJM, Speelmans M, Simova P, Verboom J, Van Wingerden WKRE, Zobel M, Edwards PJ (2008) Indicators for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: a pan-European study. J Appl Ecol 45(1):141–150Google Scholar
  13. Brady M, Ekman S, Rabinowicz E (2011) The impact of decoupling and modulation in the European Union: a sectoral and farm level assessment. OECD PublishingGoogle Scholar
  14. Cumming G (2011) Spatial resilience: integrating landscape ecology, resilience, and sustainability. Landscape Ecol 26(7):899–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Donald PF, Green RE, Heath MF (2001) Agricultural intensification and the collapse of Europe’s farmland bird populations. Proc R Soc B 268(1462):25–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Drake L (1992) The non-market value of the Swedish agricultural landscape. Eur Rev Agric Econ 19:351–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. EC (2011) Legal proposals for the CAP after 2013. European Commission, Brussels. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/legal-proposals/index_en.htm. Accessed May 2012
  18. Edwards PJ, Kollmann J, Wood D (1999) The agroecosystem in the landscape: implications for biodiversity and ecosystem function. In: Wood D, Lenné JM (eds) Agrobiodiversity: characterization, utilization and management. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 183–210Google Scholar
  19. EU (2009) 2009 General budget: agriculture and rural development. Europeiska kommissionen. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/budget/data/D2009_VOL4/EN/nmc-titleN123A5/index.html. Accessed 13 Aug 2012
  20. Fontaine CM, Rounsevell MDA (2009) An agent-based approach to model future residential pressure on a regional landscape. Landscape Ecol 24:1237–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Green RE, Cornell SJ, Scharlemann JPW, Balmford A (2005) Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 307(5709):550–555CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Grimm V, Berger U, Bastiansen F, Eliassen S, Ginot V, Giske J, Goss-Custard J, Grand T, Heinz SK, Huse G, Huth A, Jepsen JU, Jørgensen C, Mooij WM, Müller B, Pe’er G, Piou C, Railsback SF, Robbins AM, Robbins MM, Rossmanith E, Rüger N, Strand E, Souissi S, Stillman RA, Vabø R, Visser U, DeAngelis DL (2006) A standard protocol for describing individual-based and agent-based models. Ecol Model 198(1–2):115–126Google Scholar
  23. Grimm V, Berger U, DeAngelis DL, Polhill JG, Giske J, Railsback SF (2010) The ODD protocol: a review and first update. Ecol Model 221(23):2760–2768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haase P (1995) Spatial pattern analysis in ecology based on Ripley’s K-function: introduction and methods of edge correction. J Veg Sci 6(4):575–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Happe K, Kellermann K, Balmann A (2006) Agent-based analysis of agricultural policies: an illustration of the agricultural policy simulator AgriPoliS, its adaptation and behavior. Ecol Soc 11(1):49. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art49/. Accessed 13 Aug 2012
  26. Happe K, Balmann A, Kellermann K, Sahrbacher C (2008) Does structure matter? The impact of switching the agricultural policy regime on farm structures. J Econ Behav Organ 67(2):431–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hazell PBR, Norton RD (1986) Mathematical programming for economic analysis in agriculture. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Janssen MA, Ostrom E (2006) Empirically based, agent-based models. Ecol Soc 11(2):37. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss2/art37/. Accessed 13 Aug 2012 Google Scholar
  29. Just RE, Antle JM (1990) Interactions between agricultural and environmental policies: conceptual framework. Am Econ Rev 80:197–202Google Scholar
  30. Kellermann K, Happe K, Sahrbacher C, Balmann A, Brady M, Schnicke H, Osuch A (2008) AgriPoliS 2.1—model documentation. IAMO, Halle http://www.agripolis.de/documentation/agripolis_v2-1.pdf. Accessed 13 Aug 2012
  31. Kleijn AD, Baquero RA, Clough Y, Díaz M, Esteban J, Fernández F, Gabriel D, Herzog F, Holzschuh A, Jöhl R, Knop E, Kruess A, Marshall EJP, Steffan-Dewenter I, Tscharntke T, Verhulst J, West TM, Yela JL (2006) Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri-environment schemes in five European countries. Ecol Lett 9(3):243–254Google Scholar
  32. Kleijn D, Kohler F, Báldi A, Batáry P, Concepción ED, Clough Y, Díaz M, Gabriel D, Holzschuh A, Knop E, Kovács A, Marshall EJP, Tscharntke T, Verhulst J (2009) On the relationship between farmland biodiversity and land-use intensity in Europe. Proc R Soc B 276(1658):903–909Google Scholar
  33. Kleijn D, Rundlöf M, Scheper J, Smith HG, Tscharntke T (2011) Does conservation on farmland contribute to halting the biodiversity decline? Trends Ecol Evol 26(9):474–481Google Scholar
  34. Knop E, Kleijn D, Herzog F, Bernhard S (2006) Effectiveness of the Swiss agri-environment scheme in promoting biodiversity. J Appl Ecol 43(1):127Google Scholar
  35. Lansing JS, Kremer JN (1993) Emergent properties of Balinese water temple networks: coadaptation on a rugged fitness landscape. Am Anthropol 95(1):97–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Li X, He HS, Wang X, Bu R, Hu Y, Chang Y (2004) Evaluating the effectiveness of neutral landscape models to represent a real landscape. Landsc Urban Plan 69:137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lindborg R, Bengtsson J, Berg A, Cousins SAO, Eriksson O, Gustafsson T, Hasund KP, Lenoir L, Pihlgren A, Sjodin E, Stenseke M (2008) A landscape perspective on conservation of semi-natural grasslands. Agric Ecosyst Environ 125(1–4):213–222Google Scholar
  38. Matthews R, Gilbert N, Roach A, Polhill J, Gotts N (2007) Agent-based land-use models: a review of applications. Landscape Ecol 22(10):1447–1459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Tallis H, Cameron D, Chan KMA, Daily GC, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Lonsdorf E, Naidoo R, Ricketts TH, Shaw MR (2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ 7(1):4–11Google Scholar
  40. Nelson E, Wood S, Koo J, Polasky S (2011) Provisioning and regulatory service values in agriculture. In: Kareiva P, Tallis H, Ricketts T, Daily G, Polasky S (eds) Natural capital. Theory and practice of mapping ecosystem services. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Nunes PALD, van den Bergh JCJM, Nijkamp P (2003) The ecological economics of biodiversity: methods and applications. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  42. O’Neill RV, Gardener R, Turner MG (1992) A hierarchical neutral model for landscape analysis’. Landscape Ecol 7(1–2):55–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. OECD (2001) Decoupling: a conceptual overview. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  44. Parker DC, Manson SM, Janssen MA, Hoffmann MJ, Deadman P (2003) Multi-agent systems for the simulation of land-use and land-cover change: a review. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 93(2):314–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pereira HM, Daily GC (2006) Modeling biodiversity dynamics in countryside landscapes. Ecology 87:1877–1885CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Phelps J (2007) Much ado about decoupling: evaluating the environmental impact of recent European Union agricultural reform. Harv Environ Law Rev 31(1):279–320Google Scholar
  47. Renwick A, Jansson T, Verburg PH, Revoredo-Giha C, Britz W, Gochte A, McCracken D (2012) Policy reform and agricultural land abandonment in the EU. Land Use Policy Forthcom. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.04.005
  48. Rosenzweig ML (1995) Species diversity in space and time. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sahrbacher C (2011) Regional structural change in European agriculture: effects of decoupling and EU accession. Doctoral Dissertation, Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Central and Eastern Europe, vol 60. Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe (IAMO), Halle (Saale)Google Scholar
  50. Saura S, Martinez-Millan J (2000) Landscape patterns simulation with a modified random clusters method. Landscape Ecol 15(7):661–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sayadi S, Gonzalez-Roa MC, Calatrava-Requena J (2009) Public preferences for landscape features: the case of agricultural landscape in mountainous Mediterranean areas. Land Use Policy 26(2):334–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Scherr SJ, McNeely JA (2008) Biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability: towards a new paradigm of ‘ecoagriculture’ landscapes. Philos Trans R Soc B 363:477–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Swinton SM, Lupi F, Robertson GP, Hamilton SK (2007) Ecosystem services and agriculture: cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecol Econ 64(2):245–252Google Scholar
  54. Turner M (1987) Spatial simulation of landscape changes in Georgia: a comparison of 3 transition models. Landscape Ecol 1(1):29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Vatn A, Bakken L, Botterweg P, Romstad E (1999) ECECMOD: an interdisciplinary modelling system for analyzing nutrient and soil losses from agriculture. Ecol Econ 30(2):189–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Verburg P, Overmars K (2009) Combining top-down and bottom-up dynamics in land use modeling: exploring the future of abandoned farmlands in Europe with the Dyna-CLUE model. Landscape Ecol 24(9):1167–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weitzman ML (1992) On diversity. Q J Econ 107(2):363–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. With KA (1997) The application of neutral landscape models in conservation biology. Conserv Biol 11(52):1069–1080CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wossink A, Swinton SM (2007) Jointness in production and farmers’ willingness to supply non-marketed ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 64(2):297–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wu J (2006) Landscape ecology, cross-disciplinarity, and sustainability science. Landscape Ecol 21(1):1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wu J, Adams RM, Kling CL, Tanaka K (2004) From microlevel decisions to landscape changes: an assessment of agricultural conservation policies. Am J Agric Econ 86(1):26–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark Brady
    • 1
  • Christoph Sahrbacher
    • 2
  • Konrad Kellermann
    • 2
  • Kathrin Happe
    • 2
  1. 1.AgriFood Economics Centre, Department of EconomicsSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU)LundSweden
  2. 2.Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe (IAMO)Halle (Saale)Germany

Personalised recommendations