Agronomy for Sustainable Development

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 309–325 | Cite as

European agricultural landscapes, common agricultural policy and ecosystem services: a review

  • Boris T. van ZantenEmail author
  • Peter H. Verburg
  • Maria Espinosa
  • Sergio Gomez-y-Paloma
  • Giuliano Galimberti
  • Jochen Kantelhardt
  • Martin Kapfer
  • Marianne Lefebvre
  • Rosa Manrique
  • Annette Piorr
  • Meri Raggi
  • Lena Schaller
  • Stefano Targetti
  • Ingo Zasada
  • Davide Viaggi
Review Article


Since the 1950s, intensification and scale enlargement of agriculture have changed agricultural landscapes across Europe. The intensification and scale enlargement of farming was initially driven by the large-scale application of synthetic fertilizers, mechanization and subsidies of the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Then, after the 1990s, a further intensification and scale enlargement, and land abandonment in less favored areas was caused by globalization of commodity markets and CAP reforms. The landscape changes during the past six decades have changed the flows and values of ecosystem services. Here, we have reviewed the literature on agricultural policies and management, landscape structure and composition, and the contribution of ecosystem services to regional competitiveness. The objective was to define an analytical framework to determine and assess ecosystem services at the landscape scale. In contrast to natural ecosystems, ecosystem service flows and values in agricultural landscapes are often a result of interactions between agricultural management and ecological structures. We describe how land management by farmers and other land managers relates to landscape structure and composition. We also examine the influence of commodity markets and policies on the behavior of land managers. Additionally, we studied the influence of consumer demand on flows and values of the ecosystem services that originate from the agricultural landscape.


Ecosystem services Landscape services Agricultural landscapes Landscape management tradeoffs Landscape planning Assessment Valuation 



We acknowledge funding from the European Commission, 7th Framework Programme through the project CLAIM (Supporting the role of the Common agricultural policy in Landscape valorisation: Improving the knowledge base of the contribution of landscape Management to the rural economy, This work does not necessarily reflect the view of the European Union and in no way anticipates the Commission’s future policy in this area. Furthermore, the authors like to thank the case study leaders in the CLAIM-project, Manuel Arriaza, Edward Majewski, Handan Giray, Dimitre Nikolov, and Jean Christophe Paoli, for their contributions to the paper during project meetings.


  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 Google Scholar
  2. Arnberger A, Eder R (2011) Exploring the heterogeneity of rural landscape preferences: an image-based latent class approach. Landsc Res 36:19–40. doi: 10.1080/01426397.2010.536204 Google Scholar
  3. Bauer N, Wallner A, Hunziker M (2009) The change of European landscapes: human-nature relationships, public attitudes towards rewilding, and the implications for landscape management in Switzerland. J Environ Manag 90:2910–2920. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.01.021 Google Scholar
  4. Barroso FL, Pinto-Correia T, Ramos IL et al. (2012) Dealing with landscape fuzziness in user preference studies: photo-based questionnaires in the Mediterranean context. Landsc Urban Plan 104:329–342. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.11.005
  5. Benoît M, Rizzo D, Marraccini E et al (2012) Landscape agronomy: a new field for addressing agricultural landscape dynamics. Landsc Ecol 27:1385–1394. doi: 10.1007/s10980-012-9802-8 Google Scholar
  6. Brander LM (2011) Economic valuation of landscape fragmentation. 183Google Scholar
  7. Bryan B, Raymond CM, Crossman ND, Macdonald DH (2010) Targeting the management of ecosystem services based on social values: where, what, and how? Landsc Urban Plan 97:111–122. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.05.002 Google Scholar
  8. Burel F (1995) Social, aesthetic and ecological aspects of hedgerows in rural landscapes as a framework for greenways. Landsc Urban Plan 33:327–340Google Scholar
  9. Burkhard B, Kroll F, Müller F (2010) Landscapes’ capacities to provide ecosystem services – a concept for land-cover based assessments. Landscape Online 1–22. doi: 10.3097/LO.200915
  10. Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Müller F (2012) Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol Indic 21:17–29. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019 Google Scholar
  11. Burton RJF, Kuczera C, Schwarz G (2008) Exploring farmers’ cultural resistance to voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Sociol Rural 48:16–37. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9523.2008.00452.x Google Scholar
  12. Campbell D (2007) Willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements: combining mixed logit and random-effects models. J Agric Econ 58:467–483. doi: 10.1111/j.1477-9552.2007.00117.x Google Scholar
  13. CBS (2011) Number of employees per sector in Winterswijk. Accessed 4 Mar 2013
  14. CBS (2012) Hobby-farmers in the Netherlands per municipality.,5-16&D5=l&HDR=T,G3,G4&STB=G2,G1&VW=T. Accessed 3 Apr 2013
  15. Chan KMA, Guerry AD, Balvanera P et al (2012) Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience 62:744–756. doi: 10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7 Google Scholar
  16. Clark J (2006) The institutional limits to multifunctional agriculture: subnational governance and regional systems of innovation. Environ Plan C: Gov Policy 24:331–349. doi: 10.1068/c053 Google Scholar
  17. Cooper T, Hart K, Baldock D (2009) Provision of public goods through agriculture in the European Union. 351Google Scholar
  18. Costanza R, d’Arge R, De Groot R et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260. doi: 10.1038/387253a0 Google Scholar
  19. Dachary-Bernard J, Rambonilaza T (2012) Choice experiment, multiple programmes contingent valuation and landscape preferences: how can we support the land use decision making process? Land Use Policy 29:846–854. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.01.002 Google Scholar
  20. Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J et al (2009) Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ 7:21–28. doi: 10.1890/080025 Google Scholar
  21. Daniel TC, Muhar A, Arnberger A et al (2012) Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:8812–8819. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1114773109 PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. De Groot R (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408Google Scholar
  23. De Groot R (2006) Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 75:175–186. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.016 Google Scholar
  24. De Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L et al (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7:260–272. doi: 10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006 Google Scholar
  25. Dendoncker N, van Wesemael B, Rounsevell MD et al (2004) Belgium’s CO2 mitigation potential under improved cropland management. Agric Ecosyst Environ 103:101–116. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2003.10.010 Google Scholar
  26. Drake L (1999) The Swedish agricultural landscape—economic characteristics, valuations and policy options. Int J Soc Econ 26:1042–1062. doi: 10.1108/03068299910245813 Google Scholar
  27. Dramstad WE, Tveit MS, Fjellstad WJ, Fry GL a. (2006) Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landsc Urban Plan 78:465–474. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.12.006 Google Scholar
  28. European Commission (1999) Sixth periodic report on the social and economic situation and development of the regions of the European Union commission of the European communities. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  29. Eurostat (2006) Eurostat regional statistics—value added per sector in NUTS 3 area NL225. Accessed 3 Apr 2013
  30. Freibauer A, Rounsevell MD, Smith P, Verhagen J (2004) Carbon sequestration in the agricultural soils of Europe. Geoderma 122:1–23. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.01.021 Google Scholar
  31. Fry G, Sarlöv-Herlin I (1997) The ecological and amenity functions of woodland edges in the agricultural landscape; a basis for design and management. Landsc Urban Plan 31:45–55Google Scholar
  32. García-Llorente M, Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I et al (2012) The role of multi-functionality in social preferences toward semi-arid rural landscapes: an ecosystem service approach. Environ Sci Pol 19–20:136–146. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2012.01.006 Google Scholar
  33. Garrod G, Ruto E, Willis K, Powe N (2012) Heterogeneity of preferences for the benefits of environmental stewardship: a latent-class approach. Ecol Econ 76:104–111. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.011 Google Scholar
  34. Gobster PH, Nassauer JI, Daniel TC, Fry G (2007) The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landsc Ecol 22:959–972. doi: 10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x Google Scholar
  35. Grammatikopoulou I, Pouta E, Salmiovirta M, Soini K (2012) Heterogeneous preferences for agricultural landscape improvements in southern Finland. Landsc Urban Plan 107:181–191. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.06.001
  36. Haines-Young RH, Potschin MB (2010) The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli DG, Frid CLJ (eds) Ecosystem ecology: a new synthesis. Cambridge University Press, pp 110–139Google Scholar
  37. Haines-Young R, Potschin M, Kienast F (2012) Indicators of ecosystem service potential at European scales: mapping marginal changes and trade-offs. Ecol Indic 21:39–53. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.09.004 Google Scholar
  38. Hanley N, Macmillan D, Wright RE et al (1998) Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. J Agric Econ 49:1–15Google Scholar
  39. Hasund KP, Kataria M, Lagerkvist CJ (2011) Valuing public goods of the agricultural landscape: a choice experiment using reference points to capture observable heterogeneity. J Environ Plan Manag 54:31–53. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2010.502753 Google Scholar
  40. Hein L (2010) Economics and ecosystems; efficiency, sustainability and equity in ecosystem management. 203Google Scholar
  41. Hein L, Vankoppen K, de Groot RS, van Ierland E (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 57:209–228. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.005 Google Scholar
  42. Huber R, Hunziker M, Lehmann B (2011) Valuation of agricultural land-use scenarios with choice experiments: a political market share approach. J Environ Plan Manag 54:93–113. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2010.502761 Google Scholar
  43. Hunziker M, Buchecker M, Hartig T (2007) Space and place—two aspects of the human–landscape relationship. Landscape. pp 47–62Google Scholar
  44. Hunziker M, Kienast F (1999) Potential impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty – a prototypical technique for automated rapid assessment. Landsc Ecol 161–176Google Scholar
  45. Hynes S, Campbell D (2011) Estimating the welfare impacts of agricultural landscape change in Ireland: a choice experiment approach. J Environ Plan Manag 54:1019–1039. doi: 10.1080/09640568.2010.547691 Google Scholar
  46. Jenkins M (2004) Markets for biodiversity services. Environment 46:32–42Google Scholar
  47. Johns H (2008) Economic valuation of environmental impacts in the severely disadvantaged areas final reportGoogle Scholar
  48. Jongeneel RA, Polman NBP, Slangen LHG (2008) Why are Dutch farmers going multifunctional? Land Use Policy 25:81–94. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.03.001 Google Scholar
  49. Jongman RHG (2002) Homogenisation and fragmentation of the European landscape: ecological consequences and solutions. Landsc Urban Plan 58:211–221. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00222-5 Google Scholar
  50. Jose S (2009) Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. Agrofor Syst 76:1–10. doi: 10.1007/s10457-009-9229-7 Google Scholar
  51. Junge X, Jacot K a., Bosshard A, Lindemann-Matthies P (2009) Swiss people’s attitudes towards field margins for biodiversity conservation. J Nat Conserv 17:150–159. doi: 10.1016/j.jnc.2008.12.004 Google Scholar
  52. Junge X, Lindemann-Matthies P, Hunziker M, Schüpbach B (2011) Aesthetic preferences of non-farmers and farmers for different land-use types and proportions of ecological compensation areas in the Swiss lowlands. Biol Conserv 144:1430–1440. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.01.012 Google Scholar
  53. Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989) The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. 340Google Scholar
  54. Kienast F, Bolliger J, Potschin M et al (2009) Assessing landscape functions with broad-scale environmental data: insights gained from a prototype development for Europe. Environ Manag 44:1099–120. doi: 10.1007/s00267-009-9384-7 Google Scholar
  55. Klijn JA (2004) Driving forces behind landscape transformation in Europe, from a conceptual approach to policy options. The new dimensions of the European landscape. pp 201–218Google Scholar
  56. Kremen C, Williams NM, Aizen MA et al (2007) Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile organisms: a conceptual framework for the effects of land-use change. Ecol Lett 10:299–314. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01018.x Google Scholar
  57. Krugman P (1994) Competitiveness: a dangerous obsession. Foreign Aff 73:28–44Google Scholar
  58. Kuemmerle T, Hostert P, Radeloff VC et al (2008) Cross-border comparison of post-socialist farmland abandonment in the Carpathians. Ecosystems 11:614–628. doi: 10.1007/s10021-008-9146-z Google Scholar
  59. Laterra P, Orúe ME, Booman GC (2011) Spatial complexity and ecosystem services in rural landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2011.05.013
  60. Le Cœur D, Baudry J, Burel F, Thenail C (2002) Why and how we should study field boundary biodiversity in an agrarian landscape context. Agric Ecosyst Environ 89:23–40. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00316-4
  61. Lefebvre M, Espinosa M, Paloma Sy (2012) The influence of the common agricultural policy on agricultural landscapes. doi: 10.2791/94269
  62. Leip A, Marchi G, Koeble R (2008) Linking an economic model for European agriculture with a mechanistic model to estimate nitrogen and carbon losses from arable soils in Europe. Biogeosciences 5:73–94. doi: 10.5194/bg-5-73-2008 Google Scholar
  63. Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter SR et al (2007) Coupled human and natural systems. Ambio 36:639–649PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Lothian A (1999) Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landsc Urban Plan 44:177–198. doi: 10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00019-5 Google Scholar
  65. Louhichi K, Kanellopoulos A, Janssen S et al (2010) FSSIM, a bio-economic farm model for simulating the response of EU farming systems to agricultural and environmental policies. Agric Syst 103:585–597. doi: 10.1016/j.agsy.2010.06.006 Google Scholar
  66. Lowe P, Buller H, Ward N (2002) Setting the next agenda? British and French approaches to the second pillar of the common agricultural policy. J Rural Stud 18:1–17. doi: 10.1016/S0743-0167(01)00025-0 Google Scholar
  67. Mace GM, Norris K, Fitter AH (2012) Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol Evol 27:19–26. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Maes J, Paracchini ML, Zulian G et al (2012) Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem service supply, biodiversity, and habitat conservation status in Europe. Biol Conserv 155:1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.biocon.2012.06.016 Google Scholar
  69. Maestre Andrés S, Calvet Mir L, van den Bergh JCJM et al (2012) Ineffective biodiversity policy due to five rebound effects. Ecosyst Serv 1:101–110. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.003 Google Scholar
  70. Marshall EJ, Moonen A (2002) Field margins in northern Europe: their functions and interactions with agriculture. Agric Ecosyst Environ 89:5–21. doi: 10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00315-2
  71. Martín-López B, Gómez-Baggethun E, Lomas PL, Montes C (2009) Effects of spatial and temporal scales on cultural services valuation. J Environ Manag 90:1050–1059. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.03.013 Google Scholar
  72. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  73. Moonen A, Barberi P (2008) Functional biodiversity: an agroecosystem approach. Agric Ecosyst Environ 127:7–21. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2008.02.013 Google Scholar
  74. Moran D, McVittie A, Allcroft DJ, Elston D (2007) Quantifying public preferences for agri-environmental policy in Scotland: a comparison of methods. Ecol Econ 63:42–53. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.09.018 Google Scholar
  75. Nedkov S, Burkhard B (2012) Flood regulating ecosystem services—mapping supply and demand, in the Etropole municipality, Bulgaria. Ecol Indic 21:67–79. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.022 Google Scholar
  76. Ortolani L, Mcroberts N, Dendoncker N, Rounsevell M (2010) Analysis of farmers’ concepts of environmental management measures: an application of cognitive maps and cluster analysis in pursuit of modelling agents’ behaviour. Stud Fuzziness Soft Comput 247:363–381Google Scholar
  77. Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social–ecological systems. Science 325:419–422. doi: 10.1126/science.1172133 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Paracchini ML, Capitani C (2011) Implementation of a EU wide indicator for the rural–agrarian landscape. Water. doi: 10.2788/25137 Google Scholar
  79. Paracchini ML, Capitani C, Schmidt AM, et al. (2012) Measuring societal awareness of the rural agrarian landscape: Indicators and scale issues. 130. doi: 10.2788/81539
  80. Pearce DW, Turner RK (1990) Economics of natural resources. Harvester Wheatsheaf, HertfordshireGoogle Scholar
  81. Petrosillo I, Costanza R, Aretano R et al (2013) The use of subjective indicators to assess how natural and social capital support residents’ quality of life in a small volcanic island. Ecol Indic 24:609–620. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.08.021 Google Scholar
  82. Piorr A, Ungaro F, Ciancaglini A et al (2009) Integrated assessment of future CAP policies: land use changes, spatial patterns and targeting. Environ Sci Pol 12:1122–1136. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2009.01.001 Google Scholar
  83. Plieninger T, Dijks S, Oteros-rozas E, Bieling C (2013) Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33:118–129. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.013 Google Scholar
  84. Polman N, Slangen LHG (2008) Meervoudig Landgebruik in Winterswijk; Zelforganisatie in een aantrekkelijk landschap. 35Google Scholar
  85. Porter M (1985) Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. 40Google Scholar
  86. Porter M, Ketals C (2003) UK Competitiveness: moving to the next stage, DTI Economics Paper No. 3. 11Google Scholar
  87. Power AG (2010) Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philos Trans Royal Soc Lond B Biol Sci 365:2959–2971. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2010.0143 Google Scholar
  88. Prager K, Freese J (2009) Stakeholder involvement in agri-environmental policy making–learning from a local- and a state-level approach in Germany. J Environ Manag 90:1154–1167. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.05.005 Google Scholar
  89. Prager K, Reed M, Scott A (2012) Encouraging collaboration for the provision of ecosystem services at a landscape scale—rethinking agri-environmental payments. Land Use Policy 29:244–249. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.06.012 Google Scholar
  90. Rambonilaza M, Dachary-Bernard J (2007) Land-use planning and public preferences: what can we learn from choice experiment method? Landsc Urban Plan 83:318–326. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.013 Google Scholar
  91. Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N et al (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manag 90:1933–1949. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001 Google Scholar
  92. Reger B, Sheridan P, Simmering D et al (2009) Potential effects of direct transfer payments on farmland habitat diversity in a marginal European landscape. Environ Manag 43:1026–1038. doi: 10.1007/s00267-008-9270-8 Google Scholar
  93. Renwick A, Jansson T, Verburg PH et al (2013) Policy reform and agricultural land abandonment in the EU. Land Use Policy 30:446–457. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.04.005 Google Scholar
  94. Rey Benayas JM, Bullock JM (2012) Restoration of biodiversity and ecosystem services on agricultural land. Ecosystems. doi: 10.1007/s10021-012-9552-0 Google Scholar
  95. Ring I, Schröter-schlaack C (2011) Instrument mixes for biodiversity policiesGoogle Scholar
  96. Sayadi S, González-Roa MC, Calatrava-Requena J (2009) Public preferences for landscape features: the case of agricultural landscape in mountainous Mediterranean areas. Land Use Policy 26:334–344. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.04.003 Google Scholar
  97. Schmitzberger I, Wrbka T, Steurer B et al (2005) How farming styles influence biodiversity maintenance in Austrian agricultural landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ 108:274–290. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2005.02.009 Google Scholar
  98. Schouten M, Opdam P, Polman N, Westerhof E (2013) Resilience-based governance in rural landscapes: experiments with agri-environment schemes using a spatially explicit agent-based model. Land Use Policy 30:934–943. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.06.008 Google Scholar
  99. Schulp CJE, Alkemade R (2011) Consequences of uncertainty in global-scale land cover maps for mapping ecosystem functions: an analysis of pollination efficiency. Remote Sens 3:2057–2075. doi: 10.3390/rs3092057 Google Scholar
  100. 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 Google Scholar
  101. Schulp CJE, Alkemade R, Goldewijk KK, Petz K (2012) Mapping ecosystem functions and services in Eastern Europe using global-scale data sets. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 8:37–41Google Scholar
  102. Schulp CJE, Lautenbach S, Verburg PH (2014) Quantifying and mapping ecosystem services: demand and supply of pollination in the European Union. Ecol Indic 36:131–141. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.07.014 Google Scholar
  103. Seppelt R, Fath B, Burkhard B et al (2012) Form follows function? Proposing a blueprint for ecosystem service assessments based on reviews and case studies. Ecol Indic 21:145–154. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.09.003 Google Scholar
  104. Seto KC, Reenberg A, Boone CG et al (2012) Urban land teleconnections and sustainability. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:7687–7692. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1117622109 PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. Sevenant M, Antrop M (2009) Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes. J Environ Manag 90:2889–2899. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.016 Google Scholar
  106. Soini K, Vaarala H, Pouta E (2012) Residents’ sense of place and landscape perceptions at the rural–urban interface. Landsc Urban Plan 104:124–134. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.10.002 Google Scholar
  107. Soliva R, Bolliger J, Hunziker M (2010) Differences in preferences towards potential future landscapes in the Swiss Alps. Landsc Res 35:671–696. doi: 10.1080/01426397.2010.519436 Google Scholar
  108. Stoate C (2001) Ecological impacts of arable intensification in Europe. J Environ Manag 63:337–365. doi: 10.1006/jema.2001.0473 Google Scholar
  109. Strumse E (1994) Environmental attributes and the prediction of visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in Western Norway. J Environ Psychol 293–303Google Scholar
  110. Swanwick C, Hanley N (2007) Scoping study on agricultural landscape valuationGoogle Scholar
  111. Syrbe R-U, Walz U (2012) Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecol Indic 21:80–88. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.02.013 Google Scholar
  112. TEEB (2010a) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEBGoogle Scholar
  113. TEEB (2010b) A quick guide to the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for local and regional policy makersGoogle Scholar
  114. Tempesta T (2010) The perception of agrarian historical landscapes: a study of the Veneto plain in Italy. Landsc Urban Plan 97:258–272. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.06.010
  115. Termorshuizen JW, Opdam ÆP, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landsc Ecol 24:1037–1052. doi: 10.1007/s10980-008-9314-8 Google Scholar
  116. Thomson N, Ward N (2005) Rural areas and regional competitiveness. 34Google Scholar
  117. Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A et al (2005) Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity—ecosystem service management. Ecol Lett 8:857–874. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00782.x Google Scholar
  118. UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2011) UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the key findingsGoogle Scholar
  119. Valbuena D, Verburg PH, Bregt AK (2008) A method to define a typology for agent-based analysis in regional land-use research. Agric Ecosyst Environ 128:27–36. doi: 10.1016/j.agee.2008.04.015 Google Scholar
  120. Valbuena D, Verburg PH, Veldkamp A et al (2010) Effects of farmers’ decisions on the landscape structure of a Dutch rural region: an agent-based approach. Landsc Urban Plan 97:98–110. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.05.001 Google Scholar
  121. van Berkel DB, Verburg PH (2011) Sensitising rural policy: assessing spatial variation in rural development options for Europe. Land Use Policy 28:447–459. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.09.002 Google Scholar
  122. van Berkel DB, Verburg PH (2012) Combining exploratory scenarios and participatory backcasting: using an agent-based model in participatory policy design for a multi-functional landscape. Landsc Ecol 27:641–658. doi: 10.1007/s10980-012-9730-7 Google Scholar
  123. van Berkel DB, Verburg PH (2013) Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecol Indic. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.06.025 Google Scholar
  124. van den Berg AE, Koole SL (2006) New wilderness in the Netherlands: an investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 78:362–372. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.11.006 Google Scholar
  125. van der Zanden EH, Verburg PH, Mücher CA (2013) Modelling the spatial distribution of linear landscape elements in Europe. Ecol Indic 27:125–136. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.12.002 Google Scholar
  126. van Oudenhoven APE, Petz K, Alkemade R et al (2012) Framework for systematic indicator selection to assess effects of land management on ecosystem services. Ecol Indic 21:110–122. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.01.012 Google Scholar
  127. Vandermeulen V, Verspecht A, van Huylenbroeck G et al (2006) The importance of the institutional environment on multifunctional farming systems in the peri-urban area of Brussels. Land Use Policy 23:486–501. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.06.002 Google Scholar
  128. Vanslembrouck I, van Huylenbroeck G (2005) Impact of agriculture on rural tourism: a hedonic pricing approach. J Agric Econ 56:17–30Google Scholar
  129. Vedung E (1998) Policy instruments: typologies and theories. In: Bemelmans-Videc ML, Rist RC, Vedung E (eds) Carrots, sticks, and sermons: policy instruments and their evaluation. Transaction, New Brunswick, pp 21–58Google Scholar
  130. Verburg PH, van Berkel DB, Doorn AM et al (2009) Trajectories of land use change in Europe: a model-based exploration of rural futures. Landsc Ecol 25:217–232. doi: 10.1007/s10980-009-9347-7 Google Scholar
  131. Verburg PH, Asselen S, Zanden EH, Stehfest E (2013) The representation of landscapes in global scale assessments of environmental change. Landsc Ecol 28:1067–1080. doi: 10.1007/s10980-012-9745-0 Google Scholar
  132. Wade MR, Gurr GM, Wratten SD (2008) Ecological restoration of farmland: progress and prospects. Philos Trans Royal Soc Lond B Biol Sci 363:831–847. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2186 Google Scholar
  133. Waltert F, Schläpfer F (2010) Landscape amenities and local development: a review of migration, regional economic and hedonic pricing studies. Ecol Econ 70:141–152. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.031 Google Scholar
  134. Willemen L, Verburg PH, Hein L, van Mensvoort MEF (2008) Spatial characterization of landscape functions. Landsc Urban Plan 88:34–43. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.08.004 Google Scholar
  135. Willemen L, Hein L, Verburg PH (2010) Evaluating the impact of regional development policies on future landscape services. Ecol Econ 69:2244–2254. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.06.012 Google Scholar
  136. Willis K, Garrod G (1993) Valuing landscape: a contingent valuation approach. J Environ Manag 1–22Google Scholar
  137. Wilson GA (2008) From “weak” to “strong” multifunctionality: conceptualising farm-level multifunctional transitional pathways. J Rural Stud 24:367–383. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.12.010 Google Scholar
  138. Wilson GA, Hart K (2000) Financial imperative or conservation concern? EU farmers’ motivations for participation in voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Environ Plan A 32:2161–2185. doi: 10.1068/a3311 Google Scholar
  139. Wünscher T, Engel S, Wunder S (2008) Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: a tool for boosting conservation benefits. Ecol Econ 65:822–833. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.11.014 Google Scholar
  140. Zasada I (2011) Multifunctional peri-urban agriculture—a review of societal demands and the provision of goods and services by farming. Land Use Policy 28:639–648. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.01.008 Google Scholar
  141. Zasada I, Fertner C, Piorr A, Nielsen T (2011) Peri-urbanisation and multifunctional adaptation of agriculture around Copenhagen. Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish 111:59–72Google Scholar
  142. Zhang W, Ricketts TH, Kremen C et al (2007) Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol Econ 64:253–260. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.024 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© INRA and Springer-Verlag France 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Boris T. van Zanten
    • 1
    Email author
  • Peter H. Verburg
    • 1
  • Maria Espinosa
    • 2
  • Sergio Gomez-y-Paloma
    • 2
  • Giuliano Galimberti
    • 3
  • Jochen Kantelhardt
    • 4
  • Martin Kapfer
    • 4
  • Marianne Lefebvre
    • 2
  • Rosa Manrique
    • 5
  • Annette Piorr
    • 6
  • Meri Raggi
    • 3
  • Lena Schaller
    • 4
  • Stefano Targetti
    • 5
  • Ingo Zasada
    • 6
  • Davide Viaggi
    • 5
  1. 1.Institute for Environmental StudiesVU UniversityAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.European Commission, Joint Research Centre, IPTS Seville, Edificio EXPOSevilleSpain
  3. 3.Department of StatisticsUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  4. 4.Institute of Agricultural and Forestry Economics, Department of Economics and Social SciencesUniversity of Natural Resources and Life SciencesViennaAustria
  5. 5.Department of Agricultural ScienceUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  6. 6.Institute of Socio-Economics, Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) e.V.MünchebergGermany

Personalised recommendations