Advertisement

Land Use Competition: Ecological, Economic and Social Perspectives

  • Jörg NiewöhnerEmail author
  • Antje Bruns
  • Helmut Haberl
  • Patrick Hostert
  • Tobias Krueger
  • Christian Lauk
  • Juliana Lutz
  • Daniel Müller
  • Jonas Ø. Nielsen
Chapter
Part of the Human-Environment Interactions book series (HUEN, volume 6)

Abstract

This chapter introduces competition as a heuristic concept to analyse how specific land use practices establish themselves against possible alternatives. We briefly outline the global importance of land use practices as the material and symbolic basis for people’s livelihoods, particularly the provision of food security and well-being. We chart the development over time from research on land cover towards research on drivers of land use practices as part of an integrated land systems science. The increasingly spatially, temporally and functionally distributed nature of these drivers poses multiple challenges to research on land use practices. We propose the notion of ‘competition’ to respond to some of these challenges and to better understand how alternative land use practices are negotiated. We conceive of competition as a relational concept. Competition asks about agents in relation to each other, about the mode or the logic in which these relations are produced and about the material environments, practices and societal institutions through which they are mediated. While this has centrally to do with markets and prices, we deliberately open the concept to embrace more than economic perspectives. As such competition complements a broadening of analytical attention from the ‘who’, ‘what’ and ‘when’ to include prominently the ‘how’ and ‘why’ of particular land use practices and the question to whom this matters and ought to matter. We suggest that competition is an analytically productive concept, because it does not commit the analyst to a particular epistemological stance. It addresses reflexivity and feed-back, emergence and downward causation, history and response rates—concepts that all carry very different conceptual and analytical connotations in different disciplines. We propose to make these differences productive by putting them alongside each other through the notion of competition. Last not least, the heuristic lens of competition affords the combination of empirical and normative aspects, thus addressing land use practices in material, social and ethical terms.

Keywords

Relational perspective Land cover Global change Scaling Interdisciplinarity 

References

  1. Balée, W. L. (2013). Advances in historical ecology. New York City: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Barad, K. (1999). Agential Realism. Feminist interventions in understanding scientific practices. In M. Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Barry, A., & Born, G. (2013). Interdisciplinarity: Reconfigurations of the social and natural sciences, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (1999). The sociology of critical capacity. European Journal of Social Theory, 2, 359–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Breckenridge, C. A., Chakrabarty, D., Bhabha, H., & Pollock, S. (2000). Cosmospolitanisms. Public Culture, 12.Google Scholar
  6. Cain, M. L. (2008). Ecology. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  7. Callon, M. (2012). Framing finance: the boundaries of markets and modern capitalism. Contemporary Sociology-a Journal of Reviews, 41, 665–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clark, W. C., Tomich, T. P., Van Noordwijk, M., Guston, D., Catacutan, D., Dickson, N. M., & Mcnie, E. (2011). Boundary work for sustainable development: Natural resource management at the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR). In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  9. Cumming, G. S., & Cumming, D. H. M., & Redman, C. L. (2006). Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: Causes, consequences, and solutions. Ecology and Society, 11.Google Scholar
  10. Durkheim, E., & Lukes, S. (1982). Rules of sociological method, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  11. Eakin, H., Defries, R., Kerr, S., Lambin, E. F., Liu, J., Marcotullio, P. J., et al. (2014). Significance of telecoupling for exploration of land use change. In S. Kc & A. Reenberg (Eds.), Rethinking global land use in an urban era. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fischer-Kowalski, M., & Haberl, H. (Eds.). (2007). Socioecological transitions and global change. Trajectories of social metabolism and land use. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  13. Friis, C., Nielsen, J. Ø., Otero, I., Haberl, H., Niewöhner, J., & Hostert, P. (2015). From teleconnection to telecoupling: taking stock of an emerging framework in land system science. Journal of Land Use Science, 1–23.Google Scholar
  14. Garrett, R. D., Lambin, E. F., & Naylor, R. L. (2013). Land institutions and supply chain configurations as determinants of soybean planted area and yields in Brazil. Land Use Policy, 31, 385–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grove, R. H. (1995). Green imperialism: colonial expansion, tropical Island Edens and the origins of environmentalism, pp. 1600–1860.Google Scholar
  16. Gutman, G. (2004). Land change science: observing, monitoring and understanding trajectories of change on the earth’s surface. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  17. Haberl, H. (2015). Competition for land: a sociometabolic perspective. Ecological Economics, 119, 424–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hacking, I. (2006). Kinds of people: moving targets. London: British Academy Lecture.Google Scholar
  19. Hall, P. A., & Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of capitalism: the institutional foundations of comparative advantage: the institutional foundations of comparative advantage. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hostert, P., Griffiths, P., Linden, S. V. D., & Pflugmacher, D. (2015). Time series analyses in a new era of optical satellite data. In: Kuenzer, C. (Ed.), Remote sensing time series. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Hughes, J. (2000). Ecology and historical materialism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ingold, T. (2004). Beyond biology and culture. The meaning of evolution in a relational world. Social Anthropology, 12, 209–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kastner, T., Rivas, M. J. I., Koch, W., & Nonhebel, S. (2012). Global changes in diets and the consequences for land requirements for food. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 6868–6872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Knorr-Cetina, K. (2009). The synthetic situation: interactionism for a global world. Symbolic Interaction, 32, 61–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Knorr-Cetina, K., & Bruegger, U. (2002). Global microstructures: the virtual societies of financial markets. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 905–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kosec, K., Haider, H. S., Spielman, D. J., & Zaidi, F. (2015). The effects of political competition on rural land: evidence from Pakistan. IFPRI Discussion Paper, 1441, http://ebrary.ifpri.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15738coll2/id/129182.
  27. Krausmann, F., Haberl, H., Schulz, N. B., Erb, K.-H., Darge, E., & Gaube, V. (2003). Land-use change and socio-economic metabolism in Austria—Part I: driving forces of land-use change: 1950–1995. Land Use Policy, 20, 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Krueger, T., Maynard, C., Carr, G., Bruns, A., Mueller, E.N. & Lane, S. (2016). A transdisciplinary account of water research. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Water, 3, 369–389. doi: 10.1002/wat2.1132.
  29. Lambin, E., & Geist, H. (2007). Causes of land-use and land-cover change. Retrieved from http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/150964.
  30. Lambin, E. F., & Meyfroidt, P. (2011). Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 3465–3472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lambin, E. F., Turner, B. L., Geist, H. J., Agbola, S. B., Angelsen, A., Bruce, J. W., et al. (2001). The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths. Global Environmental Change, 11, 261–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Law, J. (2009). Seeing like a survey. Cultural Sociology, 3, 239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Law, J., & Hassard, J. (1999). Actor network theory and after, Oxford [England]; Malden, MA, Blackwell/Sociological Review.Google Scholar
  35. Ledford, H. (2015). How to solve the world’s biggest problems. Nature, 525, 308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Liu, J., Hall, V., Moran, E., Nagendra, H., Swaffield, S.R., & Ii, B. L. T. (2014). Applications of the telecoupling framework to land-change science. In: S. Kc, & A. Reenberg (Eds.), Rethinking global land use in an urban era. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  37. Manson, S. M. (2008). Does scale exist? An epistemological scale continuum for complex human-environment systems. Geoforum, 39, 776–788.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marcus, G. E. (1995). Ethnography in/of the World System: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marston, S. A., Jones, J. P., & Woodward, K. (2005). Human geography without scale. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 30, 416–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martinez-Alier, J. (2002). The environmentalism of the poor: A study of ecological conflicts and valuation. Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  41. Meyfroidt, P., Lambin, E. F., Erb, K. H., & Hertel, T. W. (2013). Globalization of land use: distant drivers of land change and geographic displacement of land use. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5, 438–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nielsen, J. Ø., D’haen, S., & Reenberg, A. (2012). Adaptation to climate change as a development project: a case study from Northern Burkina Faso. Climate and Development, 4, 16–25.Google Scholar
  44. O’brien, K. (2010). Responding to environmental change: A new age for human geography? Progress in Human Geography.Google Scholar
  45. Odling-Smee, F. J., Laland, K. N., & Feldman, M. W. (2003). Niche construction: The neglected process in evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Ouma, S., Boeckler, M., & Lindner, P. (2013). Extending the margins of marketization: Frontier regions and the making of agro-export markets in northern Ghana. Geoforum, 48, 225–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Palsson, G., Szerszynski, B., Sörlin, S., Marks, J., Avril, B., Crumley, C., et al. (2013). Reconceptualizing the ‘Anthropos’ in the Anthropocene: Integrating the social sciences and humanities in global environmental change research. Environmental Science and Policy, 28, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Park, R. E. (1915). The city: suggestions for the investigation of human behavior in the city environment. American Journal of Sociology, 20, 577–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rabinow, P. (2004). Anthropos today. Reflections on modern equipment. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, A., Chapin, F. S., Lambin, E. F., et al. (2009). A safe operating space for humanity. Nature, 461, 472–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sahlins, M. D., & America, V. O. (1964). Culture and environment: the study of cultural ecology, Voice of America, U.S. Information Agency.Google Scholar
  53. Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: how certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Seto, K. C., Reenberg, A., Boone, C. G., Fragkias, M., Haase, D., Langanke, T., et al. (2012). Urban land teleconnections and sustainability. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences of the United States of America, 109, 7687–7692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smith, P., Gregory, P. J., Van Vuuren, D., Obersteiner, M., Havlík, P., Rounsevell, M., et al. (2010). Competition for land. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 365, 2941–2957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations and boundary objects—amateurs and professionals in Berkeleys-Museum-of-Vertebrate-Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S. R., De Vries, W., De Wit, C. A., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G. M., Persson, L. M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., & Sörlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347.Google Scholar
  58. Turner, B. L., Lambin, E. F., & Reenberg, A. (2007). The emergence of land change science for global environmental change and sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104, 20666–20671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. United Nations (2015). World Population Prospects. The 2015 Revision. New York: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.Google Scholar
  60. Verburg, P. H., Crossman, N., Ellis, E. C., Heinimann, A., Hostert, P., Mertz, O., Nagendra, H., Sikor, T., Erb, K. -H., Golubiewski, N., Grau, R., Grove, M., Konaté, S., Meyfroidt, P., Parker, D. C., Chowdhury, R. R., Shibata, H., Thomson, A., & Zhen, L., Land system science and sustainable development of the earth system: a global land project perspective. Anthropocene (in press).Google Scholar
  61. Verburg, P. H., Mertz, O., Erb, K.-H., Haberl, H., & Wu, W. (2013). Land system change and food security: towards multi-scale land system solutions. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5, 494–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. WBGU (2011). Welt im Wandel. Gesellschaftsvertrag für eine Große Transformation, Berlin, Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderung.Google Scholar
  63. Wetzel, D. J. (2013). Soziologie des Wettbewerbs. Eine kultur- und wirtschaftssoziologische Analyse der Marktgesellschaft, Jena, VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  64. Young, O. R., Lambin, E. F., Alcock, F., Haberl, H., Karlsson, S. I., Mcconnell, W. J., et al. (2006). A portfolio approach to analyzing complex human-environment interactions: institutions and land change. Ecology and Society, 11, 15.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jörg Niewöhner
    • 1
    Email author
  • Antje Bruns
    • 2
  • Helmut Haberl
    • 3
  • Patrick Hostert
    • 5
  • Tobias Krueger
    • 5
  • Christian Lauk
    • 3
  • Juliana Lutz
    • 3
  • Daniel Müller
    • 4
  • Jonas Ø. Nielsen
    • 5
  1. 1.Institute of European Ethnology and Integrative Research Institute THESysHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Governance and Sustainability Lab, Trier and IRI THESysTrier UniversityTrierGermany
  3. 3.Institute of Social EcologyAlpen-Adria UniversityViennaAustria
  4. 4.Leibniz Institute for Agricultural Development in Transition Economies, Halle (Saale) & IRI THESysBerlinGermany
  5. 5.Department of Geography & IRI THESysHumboldt-Universität zu BerlinBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations