Identifying pathways to visions of future land use in Europe

  • Pieter J. Verkerk
  • Marcus Lindner
  • Marta Pérez-Soba
  • James S. Paterson
  • John Helming
  • Peter H. Verburg
  • Tobias Kuemmerle
  • Hermann Lotze-Campen
  • Alexander Moiseyev
  • Daniel Müller
  • Alexander Popp
  • Catharina J. E. Schulp
  • Julia Stürck
  • Andrzej Tabeau
  • Bernhard Wolfslehner
  • Emma H. van der Zanden
Original Article

Abstract

Plausible scenarios of future land use derived from model projections may differ substantially from what is actually desired by society, and identifying such mismatches is important for identifying policies to resolve them. This paper presents an approach to link explorative projections of future land use for the European Union to normative visions of desired land-use futures. We used the results of 24 scenario projections obtained from seven linked simulation models to explore uncertainty in future land-use developments. Land-use projections were linked to statements made by stakeholders for three normative visions of desired, future land use. The visions differed in the scale of multifunctionality of land use: at European (Best Land in Europe), regional (Regional Connected) or local (Local Multifunctional) level. To identify pathways to these visions, we analysed in which cases projected land-use changes matched with the land-use changes desired in the visions. We identified five pathways to the vision Regional Connected, two pathways to the vision Best Land in Europe, but no pathway to the vision Local Multifunctional. Our results suggest that policies have the ability to change the development of land use such that it is more in line with land-use futures desired by society. We believe our approach represents an interesting avenue for foresight studies on land use, as it combines the credibility from explorative scenarios with legitimacy and saliency of normative visions.

Keywords

Explorative scenarios Land use Normative visions Pathways 

Supplementary material

10113_2016_1055_MOESM1_ESM.docx (357 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 356 kb)

References

  1. Börjeson L, Höjer M, Dreborg K-H, Ekvall T, Finnveden G (2006) Scenario types and techniques: towards a user’s guide. Futures 38(7):723–739. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2005.12.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brunner SH, Huber R, Grêt-Regamey A (2016) A backcasting approach for matching regional ecosystem services supply and demand. Environ Model Softw 75:439–458. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.10.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jäger J, Mitchell RB (2003) Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 100(14):8086–8091. doi:10.1073/pnas.1231332100 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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(3):531–545. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.09.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dreborg KH (1996) Essence of backcasting. Futures 28(9):813–828. doi:10.1016/S0016-3287(96)00044-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. EUROSTAT (2014) Population on 1 January by broad age group, sex and NUTS 3 region. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do. Accessed 2 June 2015
  7. Fares S, Scarascia Mugnozza G, Corona P, Palahí M (2015) Sustainability: five steps for managing Europe’s forests. Nature 519(7544):407–409. doi:10.1038/519407a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischer J, Hartel T, Kuemmerle T (2012) Conservation policy in traditional farming landscapes. Conserv Lett 5(3):167–175. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00227.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G et al (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science 309(5734):570–574. doi:10.1126/science.1111772 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Godfray HCJ, Garnett T (2014) Food security and sustainable intensification. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B: Biol Sci 369(1639):20120273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Haasnoot M, Kwakkel JH, Walker WE, ter Maat J (2013) Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: a method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Glob Environ Change 23(2):485–498. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haatanen A, den Herder M, Leskinen P, Lindner M, Kurttila M, Salminen O (2014) Stakeholder engagement in scenario development process: bioenergy production and biodiversity conservation in eastern Finland. J Environ Manage 135:45–53. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.01.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haslauer E (2015) Application of a spatially explicit backcasting model: a case study of sustainable development in Salzburg, Austria. Appl Geogr 58:128–140. doi:10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.01.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hewitt R, van Delden H, Escobar F (2014) Participatory land use modelling, pathways to an integrated approach. Environ Model Softw 52:149–165. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.10.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jepsen MR, Kuemmerle T, Müller D, Erb K, Verburg PH et al (2015) Transitions in European land-management regimes between 1800 and 2010. Land Use Policy 49:53–64. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.07.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kok K, van Vliet M, Bärlund I, Dubel A, Sendzimir J (2011) Combining participative backcasting and exploratory scenario development: experiences from the SCENES project. Technol Forecast Soc Change 78(5):835–851. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2011.01.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kraxner F, Nordström E-M, Havlík P, Gusti M, Mosnier A et al (2013) Global bioenergy scenarios: future forest development, land-use implications, and trade-offs. Biomass Bioenergy 57:86–96. doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2013.02.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P (2011) Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proc Natl Acad Sci 108(9):3465–3472. doi:10.1073/pnas.1100480108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lindenmayer DB, Likens GE (2009) Adaptive monitoring: a new paradigm for long-term research and monitoring. Trends Ecol Evol 24(9):482–486. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.03.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lotze-Campen K, Popp A, Verburg P, Lindner M, Verkerk H et al (2013) Description of the translation of sector specific land cover and land management information. VOLANTE deliverable report 7.3Google Scholar
  21. 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 Manage 59(1):47–69. doi:10.1006/jema.1999.0335 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: current state and trends assessment, vol 1. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  23. Newbold T, Hudson LN, Hill SLL, Contu S, Lysenko I et al (2015) Global effects of land use on local terrestrial biodiversity. Nature 520(7545):45–50. doi:10.1038/nature14324 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Palacios-Agundez I, Onaindia M, Potschin M, Tratalos JA, Madariaga I, Haines-Young R (2015) Relevance for decision making of spatially explicit, participatory scenarios for ecosystem services in an area of a high current demand. Environ Sci Policy 54:199–209. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2015.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pérez-Soba M, Maas R (2015) Scenarios: tools for coping with complexity and future uncertainty? In: Jordan AJ, Turnpenny JR (eds) The tools of policy formulation actors, capacities, venues and effects. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. doi:10.4337/9781783477043.00014 Google Scholar
  26. Pérez-Soba M, Paterson J, Metzger M (2015) Visions of future land use in Europe. Stakeholder visions for 2040. Alterra Wageningen UR, Wageningen. http://www.volante-project.eu/docs/visions.pdf
  27. Plutzar C, Kroisleitner C, Haberl H, Fetzel T, Bulgheroni C et al (2015) Changes in the spatial patterns of human appropriation of net primary production (HANPP) in Europe 1990–2006. Reg Environ Change. doi:10.1007/s10113-015-0820-3 Google Scholar
  28. Robinson JB (1982) Energy backcasting: a proposed method of policy analysis. Energy Policy 10(4):337–344. doi:10.1016/0301-4215(82)90048-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Robinson J, Burch S, Talwar S, O’Shea M, Walsh M (2011) Envisioning sustainability: recent progress in the use of participatory backcasting approaches for sustainability research. Technol Forecast Soc Change 78(5):756–768. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2010.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rounsevell MDA, Metzger MJ (2010) Developing qualitative scenario storylines for environmental change assessment. WIREs Clim Change 1(4):606–619. doi:10.1002/wcc.63 Google Scholar
  31. Rounsevell MDA, Pedroli B, Erb K-H, Gramberger M, Busck AG et al (2012) Challenges for land system science. Land Use Policy 29(4):899–910. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.01.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Seppelt R, Lautenbach S, Volk M (2013) Identifying trade-offs between ecosystem services, land use, and biodiversity: a plea for combining scenario analysis and optimization on different spatial scales. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5(5):458–463. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.05.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith P, Bustamante M, Ahammad H, Clark H, Dong H et al (2014) Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU). In: Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Edenhofer O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona Y, Farahani E, Kadner S et al. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
  34. Stoate C, Báldi A, Beja P, Boatman ND, Herzon I, van Doorn A, de Snoo GR, Rakosy L, Ramwell C (2009) Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe: a review. J Environ Manage 91(1):22–46. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.07.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stürck J, Levers C, van der Zanden E, Schulp CJE, Verkerk PJ et al (2015) Simulating and delineating future land change trajectories across Europe. Reg Environ Change. doi:10.1007/s10113-015-0876-0 Google Scholar
  36. United Nations (2015). World population prospects: the 2015 revision, key findings and advance tables. Working paper No. ESA/P/WP.241Google Scholar
  37. van Berkel D, Verburg P (2012) Combining exploratory scenarios and participatory backcasting: using an agent-based model in participatory policy design for a multi-functional landscape. Landsc Ecol 27(5):641–658. doi:10.1007/s10980-012-9730-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. van der Heijden K (2005) Scenarios: the art of strategic conversation, 2nd edn. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  39. van der Pluijm F, Miller K, Cuginotti A (2010) Backcasting using principles for implementing cradle-to-cradle. In: Sarkis J, Cordeiro JJ, Vazquez Brust D (eds) Facilitating sustainable innovation through collaboration. Springer, Berlin, pp 203–216. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-3159-4_11 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. van Vliet M, Kok K (2015) Combining backcasting and exploratory scenarios to develop robust water strategies in face of uncertain futures. Mitig Adapt Strat Glob Change 20(1):43–74. doi:10.1007/s11027-013-9479-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. van Vliet J, de Groot HLF, Rietveld P, Verburg PH (2015) Manifestations and underlying drivers of agricultural land use change in Europe. Landsc Urban Plan 133:24–36. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.09.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Verburg P, Lotze-Campen K, Popp A, Lindner M, Verkerk H et al (2013) Report documenting the assessment results for the scenarios stored in the database. VOLANTE deliverable report 11.1Google Scholar
  43. Vergragt PJ, Quist J (2011) Backcasting for sustainability: introduction to the special issue. Technol Forecast Soc Change 78(5):747–755. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2011.03.010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pieter J. Verkerk
    • 1
  • Marcus Lindner
    • 1
  • Marta Pérez-Soba
    • 2
  • James S. Paterson
    • 3
  • John Helming
    • 4
  • Peter H. Verburg
    • 5
  • Tobias Kuemmerle
    • 6
    • 10
  • Hermann Lotze-Campen
    • 7
    • 11
  • Alexander Moiseyev
    • 1
  • Daniel Müller
    • 8
  • Alexander Popp
    • 7
  • Catharina J. E. Schulp
    • 5
  • Julia Stürck
    • 5
  • Andrzej Tabeau
    • 4
  • Bernhard Wolfslehner
    • 9
  • Emma H. van der Zanden
    • 5
  1. 1.European Forest Institute, Sustainability and Climate Change ProgrammeJoensuuFinland
  2. 2.Wageningen Environmental Research (Alterra)Wageningen University & ResearchWageningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Land Use Research Group, School of GeosciencesUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  4. 4.Wageningen Economic ResearchWageningen University and ResearchThe HagueThe Netherlands
  5. 5.Department of Earth SciencesVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  6. 6.Geography DepartmentHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany
  7. 7.Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact ResearchPotsdamGermany
  8. 8.Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO)Halle (Saale)Germany
  9. 9.European Forest Institute, Central-East and South-East European Regional Officec/o University of Natural Resources and Life SciencesViennaAustria
  10. 10.Integrative Research Institute on Transformations of Human-Environment Systems (IRI THESys)Humboldt-University BerlinBerlinGermany
  11. 11.Humboldt-University BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations