Advertisement

The MEA-Scope Modelling Approach

  • Peter Zander
  • Sandra Uthes
  • Claudia Sattler
  • Franz-Josef Reinhardt
  • Annette Piorr
  • Kathrin Happe
  • Martin Damgaard
  • Amanda Sahrbacher
  • Tommy Dalgaard
  • Nicholas Hutchings
  • Chris Kjeldsen
  • Nina Detlefsen
  • Bo Iversen
  • Hycenth Tim Ndah
Chapter

Abstract

The MEA-Scope project developed, and applied a modelling approach that allows for the ex ante assessment of sustainability impacts of new policies, technologies and market changes. Thereby, the agricultural production at farm level and its effect on social, economic and environmental assets under changing circumstances is examined. The MEA-Scope modelling approach simulates the development of regional agricultural production structures over time. Within the same analysis, the approach considers details of individual farms and soils. During the project duration, three pre-existing models were further completed and interlinked with each other. The modelling approach was applied at two different levels of detail in seven different European regions to examine the effects of five agricultural policy scenarios. The core models involved were AgriPoliS, MODAM and FASSET/Farm-N. In this chapter, the modelling approach, characteristics of the models involved and the policy scenarios are introduced while results as well as details on the different modelling applications can be found in subsequent chapters of this book.

Keywords

Land use modelling policy evaluation policy impact regionalisation AgriPoliS MODAM FASSET and Farm-N 

References

  1. Alcamo J (2001) Scenarios as Tools for international environmental assessments, Environment Issue Report 24, Experts Corner report Prospects and Scenarios No 5 (Report for European Environment Agency)Google Scholar
  2. Berntsen J, Petersen BM, Jacobsen BH, Olesen JE, Hutchings NJ (2003) Evaluating nitrogen taxation scenarios using the dynamic whole farm simulation model FASSET. Agricultural Systems 76: 817–839CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Damgaard M, Osuch A, Happe K, Uthes S, Reinhardt F, Sattler C, Zander P, Detlefsen N, Hutchings N (2006) Documentation of the MEA-Scope tool prototypes with special focus on their capabilities to analyse multifunctionality policies. MEA-Scope Project report series, Volume 7. http://project.zalf.de/meascope/documents/MEA-ScopeD3.4.pdf
  4. Damgaard M, Kjeldsen C, Ungaro F, Ciancaglini A, Osuch A, Happe K (2007) Spatial characteristics, scale and scope: operability with reference to spatial modelling. MEA-Scope Project report series, Volume 11Google Scholar
  5. Happe K (2004) Agricultural policies and farm structures – agent-based modelling and application to EU-policy reform. Studies on the Agricultural and Food Sector in Central and Eastern Europe, vol. 30, IAMO, 291 pages. (http://www.iamo.de/dok/sr_vol30.pdf)Google Scholar
  6. Happe K, Balmann A, Kellermann K (2004) The agricultural policy simulator (AgriPoliS) – an agent-based model to study structural change in agriculture (version 1.0), IAMO Discussion paper, No. 71, IAMO Halle (Saale). (http://www.iamo.de/dok/dp71.pdf)
  7. Happe K, Kellermann K, Balmann A (2006a) Agent-based analysis of agricultural policies: an illustration of the agricultural policy simulator AgriPoliS, its adaptation and behavior. Ecology and Society 11(1): 49Google Scholar
  8. Happe K, Damgaard M, Osuch A, Sattler C, Zander P, Uthes S, Schuler J, Piorr A (2006b) CAP-reform and the provision of non-commodity outputs in Brandenburg. German Journal of Agricultural Economics 55(5/6): 268–279Google Scholar
  9. Kellermann K, Happe K, Sahrbacher C, Brady M. (2007) AgriPoliS 2.0 – documentation of the extended model. Deliverable 20 of the EU-funded Project IDEMA (SSPE-CT-2003-502171)Google Scholar
  10. Kjeldsen C, Dalgaard, T, Bøcher PK (2006) A GIS-based framework to model farm and landscape scale indicators for sustainable rural development. Paper presented at the 3rd Biennial meeting of the International Environmental Modelling and Software Society, July 9–12, 2006 at The Wyndham Hotel, Burlington, Vermont, USA. Cited 22 Feb 2009, http://www.djfgeo.dk/ckj/publikationer/iEMSs2006_final.pdf Google Scholar
  11. Osuch A, Happe K, Damgaard M, Uthes S, Sattler C, Dalgaard T, Hutchings N, Kedziora A, Jankowiak J, Ryszkowski L, Bienkowski J, Wasilewski J (2007) Analysis of exemplary policy issues: assessment of multifunctional impact. MEA-Scope deliverable 7.4, http://project.zalf.de/meascope/documents/MEAScopeD7.4.pdf
  12. Petersen BM, Olesen JE, Heidmann T (2002) A flexible tool for simulation of soil carbon turnover. Ecological Modelling 151: 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Piorr A, Uthes S, Waarts Y, Sattler C, Happe K, Mueller K (2006) Making the multifunctionality concepts operational for impact assessment. In: Meyer, BC (ed), 2006. Sustainable Land Use in Intensively Used Agricultural Regions. Landscape Europe. Alterra Report No. 1338, Wageningen. 47–54. Cited 22 Feb 2009: http://z2.zalf.de/oa/publ_alterra_2005.pdf
  14. Piorr A, Müller K, Happe K, Uthes S, Sattler C (2007) Agricultural management issues of implementing multifunctionality: commodity and non-commodity production in the approach of the MEA-Scope project. – In: Mander Ü, Helming K, Wiggering H [Hrsg.] Multifunctional Land Use: Meeting Future Demands for Landscape Goods and Services, pp 167–181, Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Piorr A, Ungaro F, Sattler C, Damgaard M, Osuch A, Happe K, Ciancaglini A, Uthes S (2008) Summary of results of the implementation of a targeted policy model towards multifunctionality. Deliverable 7.6, http://project.zalf.de/meascope/documents/MEA-ScopeD7.6.pdf. Cited 12 Mar 2009
  16. Piorr A, Ungaro F, Ciancaglini A, Happe K, Sahrbacher A, Sattler C, Uthes S, Zander P (2009) Integrated assessment of future CAP policies: land use changes, spatial patterns and targeting. Special Issue: Sensitive Region Policy. Environmental Science and Policy. In press. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2009.01.001 Cited 03 Mar 2009Google Scholar
  17. Piorr A, Müller K (2009) Rural Landscapes and Agricultural Policies in Europe; This VolumeGoogle Scholar
  18. Sahrbacher A, Schnicke H, Kellermann K, Happe K, Brady M (2007) Impacts of decoupling policies in selected regions of Europe. Deliverable 23 of the EU-funded Project IDEMA (SSPE-CT-2003-502171)Google Scholar
  19. Sattler C (2008) Ökologische Bewertung und Akzeptanzanalyse pflanzenbaulicher Produktionsverfahren. Dissertation HU BerlinGoogle Scholar
  20. Sattler C, Schuler J, Zander P (2006) Determination of Trade-off-functions to analyse the provision of agricultural Non-commodities. International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, 5(2/3): 309–325Google Scholar
  21. Schader C, Stolze M, Moschitz H (2007) Case study on regional differences in social demand on commodity and non-commodity concerns, MEA-Scope Project report series, Volume 6Google Scholar
  22. Uthes S., P. Zander, C. Sattler: 2007. Perspectives of a full-scale implementation of the MEA-Scope approach. Deliverable D7.5. http://project1.zalf.de/meascope/documents/MEA-ScopeD7.5.pdf
  23. Uthes S, Sattler C, Reinhardt F-J, Piorr A, Zander P, Happe K, Damgaard M, Osuch A (2007) Ecological effects of payment decoupling in a case study region in Germany. In: O’Reilly, S. (ed.) Proceedings of the 16th International Farm Management Association Congress: A Vibrant Rural Economy – The Challenge for Balance, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland, 15–20 July 2007; peer reviewed papers; volume II of II: pp. 761–770; CorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Vinther FP, Hansen S (2004) SimDen – A simple model to quantify N2O emission denitrification. Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences Report no 104 (in Danish)Google Scholar
  25. Waarts Y (2005) Indicators for the quantification of multifunctionality impacts. MEA-Scope publications 4, http://www.zalf.de/home_meascope/website/publications/mea-scope_vol4_indicators_for_multifunctionality.pdf Cited 22 Feb 2009
  26. Waarts Y (2007) Indicators for agricultural policy impact assessment in the case of multifunctional beef production. In: Mander Ü et al. (eds.): Multifunctional Land Use: Meeting Future Demands for Landscape Goods and Services. Springer, Heidelberg/Berlin, 281–292, http://www.springerlink.com/content/w48485r8j18hg233/?p=b5f3743cf0af4f0eb5b42fa40dba6643&pi=16 Cited 22 Feb 2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Zander P (2003) Agricultural land use and conservation options: a modelling approach, Dissertation, Wageningen University, (http://library.wur.nl/wda/dissertations/dis3372.pdf)
  28. Zander P, Kächele H (1999) Modelling multiple objectives of land use for sustainable development. Agricultural Systems 59: 311–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Zander
    • 1
  • Sandra Uthes
    • 1
  • Claudia Sattler
    • 1
  • Franz-Josef Reinhardt
    • 1
  • Annette Piorr
    • 1
  • Kathrin Happe
    • 2
  • Martin Damgaard
    • 4
    • 5
  • Amanda Sahrbacher
    • 2
  • Tommy Dalgaard
    • 3
  • Nicholas Hutchings
    • 3
  • Chris Kjeldsen
    • 3
  • Nina Detlefsen
    • 3
  • Bo Iversen
    • 3
  • Hycenth Tim Ndah
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Socio-Economics, Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF)MünchebergGermany
  2. 2.Department Structural Development of Farms and Rural AreasLeipniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe (IAMO)Halle (Saale)Germany
  3. 3.Department of Agroecology and Environment, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (DJF)University of AarhusTjeleDenmark
  4. 4.Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe (IAMO), University of CopenhagenHalle (Saale)Germany
  5. 5.Currently: Institute of Food and Resource EconomicsUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations