Advertisement

Journal of Mountain Science

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 276–286 | Cite as

Integrated futures for Europe’s mountain regions: Reconciling biodiversity conservation and human livelihoods

  • Jonathan MitchleyEmail author
  • Martin F. Price
  • Joseph Tzanopoulos
Article

Abstract

Europe’s mountains cover nearly half of the continent’s area and are home to one fifth of the European population. Mountain areas are hotspots of biodiversity and agriculture has played a multifunctional role in defining and sustaining mountain biodiversity. Ongoing trends of agricultural decline are having negative impacts on mountain biodiversity. This paper presents results from an interdisciplinary European research project, BioScene, which investigated the relationship between agriculture and biodiversity in six mountain study areas across Europe to provide recommendations for reconciling biodiversity conservation with social and economic activities through an integrated rural development strategy. BioScene used scenario analysis and stakeholder participation as tools for structuring the analysis of alternative mountain futures. Three main BioScene scenarios were evaluated: Business as Usual (BaU), Agricultural Liberalisation (Lib), Managed Change for Biodiversity (MCB). BioScene brought together ecologists, economists, sociologists and rural geographers, to carry out interdisciplinary analysis of the scenarios: identifying key drivers of change, assessing the biodiversity consequences and evaluating cost-effectiveness. BioScene used a sustainability assessment to integrate the research outputs across natural and social science disciplines to assess the broader sustainability of the scenarios in terms of biodiversity, natural resources, rural development, social development, economic development and institutional capacity. The sustainability assessment showed that the MCB scenario was potentially the most sustainable of the three BioScene scenarios. Through the reconciliation of potentially conflicting objectives, such as conservation, economic development and human livelihoods, and with a strong participatory planning approach, the MCB scenario could represent an alternative approach to BaU for sustainable rural development in Europe’s mountains. BioScene confirms the necessity for natural and social scientists to work together to seek solutions to environmental problems. Interdisciplinary research can assist with the definition of integrated strategies with the potential to reconcile the ecological, social and economic parameters that determine a sustainable future for European mountain areas.

Keywords

Agriculture interdisciplinary research scenarios stakeholder participation sustainability assessment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Audsley E., Pearn K.R., Simota C., Cojacaru G., Kousidou E., Rounsevell M.D.A., Trnka M. and Alexandrov V. 2006. What can scenario modelling tell us about future European scale land use, and what not? Environmental Science and Policy 9: 148–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldock D., Dwyer J. and Lowe P. 2001. The Nature of Rural Development: Towards a Sustainable Integrated Rural Policy for Europe. London: Institute for European Environmental Policy.Google Scholar
  3. Baldock D., Beaufoy G., Brouwer F. and Godeschalk F. (eds.) 1997. Farming at the Margins: Abandonment or Redeployment of Agricultural Land in Europe. The Hague: IEEP London/Agricultural Economics Research Institute.Google Scholar
  4. Beaufoy G. 2005. The LFA scheme: how important is it for the future of High Nature Value farming and how should it be reformed? La Canada 19: 12–14.Google Scholar
  5. Breitenmoser U. 1998. Large predators in the Alps: the fall and rise of man’s competitors. Biological Conservation 83: 279–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bryden J.M., Bell C., Gilliat J., Hawkins E. and MacKinnon N. 1994. Farm Household Adjustment in Western Europe, 1987–91. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  7. Caraveli H. 2000. A comparative analysis on intensification and extensification in Mediterranean agriculture: dilemmas for LFAs policy. Journal of Rural Studies 16: 231–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De’ath G. and Fabricious K.E. 2000. Classification and regression trees: a powerful yet simple technique for ecological data analysis. Ecology 81: 3178–3192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Daily G.C. and Ehrlich P.R. 1999. Managing Earth’s ecosystems: an interdisciplinary challenge. Ecosystems 2: 277–280. Available from http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/pdf/2001/acto162en02/3.pdf CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DLG 2005. Land Abandonment, Biodiversity and the CAP. Outcome of an International Seminar in Sigulda, Latvia, 7–8 October, 2004. DLG, Government Service for Land and Water Management, Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission 2001. Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, Biodiversity Action Plan for Agriculture. Brussels, 27.3.2001, COM(2001)162 final.Google Scholar
  12. European Commission 2004. Mountain areas in Europe: Analysis of mountain areas in EU Member States, acceding and other European countries. Report 2004: 1. Stockholm: Nordregio.Google Scholar
  13. Gibson R.B., Hassan S., Holtz S., Tansey J. and Whitelaw G. 2005. Sustainability Assessment: Criteria and Processes. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  14. Haddock J., Tzanopoulos J., Mitchley J. and Fraser R. in press. A method for evaluating alternative landscape management scenarios in relation to the biodiversity conservation of habitats. Ecological Economics.Google Scholar
  15. Harvey D.R. 2006. RELU Special Issue: Editorial reflections. Journal of Agricultural Economics 57: 329–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hawkins V. and Selman P. 2002. Landscape scale planning: exploring alternative land use scenarios. Landscape and Urban Planning 60: 211–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huber U.M., Bugmann H.K.M. and Reasoner M.A. (eds.) 2005. Global Change and Mountain Regions. In: An Overview of Current Knowledge. Advances in Global Change Research 23: 650.Google Scholar
  18. Hunziker M. and Kienast F. 1999. Potential impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty — a prototypical technique for automated rapid assessment. Landscape Ecology 14: 161–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jongman R.H.G., ter Braak C.J.F. and van Tongeren O.F.R. 1995. Data Analysis in Landscape and Community Ecology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lowe P., Buller H. and Ward N. 2002. Setting the next agenda? British and French approaches to the second pillar of the Common Agricultural Policy. Journal of Rural Studies 18: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. MacDonald D., Crabtree J.R., Wiesinger G., Dax T., Stamou N., Fleury P., Gutierrez Lazpita J. and Gibon A. 2000. Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: Environmental consequences and policy response. Journal of Environmental Management 59: 47–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Marzano M., Carss D.N. and Bell S. 2006. Working to make interdisciplinarity work: investing in communication and interpersonal relationships. Journal of Agricultural Economics 57: 185–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nassauer J.I. and Corry R.C. 2004. Using normative scenarios in landscape ecology. Landscape Ecology 19: 343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Neef A. 2005. Participatory approaches for sustainable land use in Southeast Asia: an overview. In: Neef A. (ed.) Participatory approaches for sustainable land use in Southeast Asia. Bangkok, Thailand: White Lotus Press, pp. 3–32.Google Scholar
  25. Penker M. and Wytrzens H.K. 2005. Scenarios for the Austrian food chain in 2020 and its landscape impacts. Landscape and Urban Planning 71: 175–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Peterson G.D., Cumming G.S. and Carpenter S.R. 2003. Scenario planning: a tool for conservation in an uncertain world. Conservation Biology 17: 358–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Price M.F., Lysenko I. and Gloersen E. 2004. La délimitation des montagnes européennes (Delineating Europe’s mountains). Revue de Geographie Alpine/Journal of Alpine Research 92: 61–86.Google Scholar
  28. Readsma P., Tekelenburg T., van den Burgh M. and Alkemade R. 2006. Impacts of land-use change on biodiversity: an assessment of agricultural biodiversity in the European Union. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 114: 86–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ricotta C.T.I. 2005. Through the jungle of biodiversity. Acta Biotheoretica 53: 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Seoane J., Justribo J.H., Garcia F., Retamar J., Rabadan C. and Atienza J.C. 2006. Habitat suitability modelling to assess the effects of land-use changes on Dupont’s lark Chersophilus duponti: a case study in the Layna Important Bird Area. Biological Conservation 128: 241–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sheate W.R., Partidario M.R., Byron H., Bina O. and Dagg S. in press. Sustainability assessment of future scenarios: methodology and application to mountain areas of Europe. Environmental Management.Google Scholar
  32. Suarez-Seoane S., Osborne P.E. and Baudry J. 2002. Responses of birds of different biogeographic origins and habitat requirements to agricultural land abandonment in northern Spain. Biological Conservation 105: 333–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Verburg P., Schulp C.J.E., Witter N. and Veldkamp A. 2006. Downscaling of land use change scenarios to assess the dynamics of European landscapes. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 114: 39–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Westhoek H.J., van den Berg M. and Bakkes J.A. 2006. Scenario development to explore the future of Europe’s rural areas. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 114: 7–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wijkman A. 1999. Sustainable development requires integrated approaches. Policy Sciences 32: 345–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Young J., Bolger T., Kull T., Tinch R., Scally L. and Watt A.D. 2004. Sustaining livelihoods and biodiversity — attaining the 2010 target in the European Biodiversity Strategy. Report of an Electronic Conference.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jonathan Mitchley
    • 1
    Email author
  • Martin F. Price
    • 2
  • Joseph Tzanopoulos
    • 3
  1. 1.Imperial College LondonKentUK
  2. 2.The Centre for Mountain Studies, Perth CollegeUHI Millennium InstitutePerthUK
  3. 3.CAERThe University of ReadingReadingUK

Personalised recommendations