Applying Multifunctionality to Address the Challenges and Benefits of Land-Use Management



China’s actions to restore vegetation on the Loess Plateau have made progress in improving the ecological and social conditions, but they have also resulted in some undesired consequences for natural resources. For a sustainable regional development, we need an improved approach to harmonise the conflicts between environmental protection and human benefits. To this end, we propose the concept of multifunctional land use as an alternative solution to remedy the negative impacts and challenges, as it can increase synergies and co-benefits across sectors and connect ecosystem functions to ecosystem services.


Ecosystem Service Loess Plateau Ecosystem Function Sustainable Land Management Sustainable Regional Development 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Barkmann J, Glenk K, Keil A, Leemhuis C, Dietrich N, Gerold G, Marggraf R (2008) Confronting unfamiliarity with ecosystem functions: the case for an ecosystem service approach to environmental valuation with stated preference methods. Ecol Econ 65:48–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blum WE (2005) Functions of soil for society and the environment. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 4:75–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bouma J (2010) Implications of the knowledge paradox for soil science. Adv Agron 106:143–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouma J (2014) Soil science contributions towards sustainable development goals and their implementation: linking soil functions with ecosystem services. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 177:111–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brammer H, Ravenscroft P (2009) Arsenic in groundwater: a threat to sustainable agriculture in South and South-east Asia. Environ Int 35:647–654CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burch D, Lawrence G, Green GP, Ichijo K, Nonaka I, Pimentel M, Bower J, Gilbert C, Couto Filho V, Flavio L, others (2007) World Development Report 2008: agriculture for development. The World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  7. Cao S, Chen L, Shankman D, Wang C, Wang X, Zhang H (2011) Excessive reliance on afforestation in China’s arid and semi-arid regions: lessons in ecological restoration. Earth-Sci Rev 104:240–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carvalho-Ribeiro SM, Lovett A, O’Riordan T (2010) Multifunctional forest management in Northern Portugal: moving from scenarios to governance for sustainable development. Land Use Policy 27:1111–1122. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.02.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen J, Tang C, Sakura Y, Yu J, Fukushima Y (2005) Nitrate pollution from agriculture in different hydrogeological zones of the regional groundwater flow system in the North China Plain. Hydrogeol J 13:481–492CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen X, Lupi F, Vina A, He G, Liu J (2010) Using cost-effective targeting to enhance the efficiency of conservation investments in payments for ecosystem services. Conserv Biol 24:1469–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cordell D, Drangert J-O, White S (2009) The story of phosphorus: global food security and food for thought. Glob Environ Change 19:292–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dawson CJ, Hilton J (2011) Fertiliser availability in a resource-limited world: production and recycling of nitrogen and phosphorus. Food Policy 36:S14–S22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeFries RS, Foley JA, Asner GP (2004) Land-use choices: balancing human needs and ecosystem function. Front Ecol Environ 2:249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Groot R, Hein L (2007) Concept and valuation of landscape functions at different scales. In: Mander Ü, Wiggering H, Helming K (eds) Multifunctional land use. Springer, pp 15–36Google Scholar
  15. de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7:260–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Groot RS, Wilson MA, Boumans RM (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dominati E, Mackay A, Green S, Patterson M (2014) A soil change-based methodology for the quantification and valuation of ecosystem services from agro-ecosystems: a case study of pastoral agriculture in New Zealand. Ecol Econ 100:119–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Droogers P, Bouma J (2014) Simulation modelling for water governance in basins. Int J Water Resour Dev 30:475–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dwyer J, Guyomard H (2006) International trade, agricultural policy reform and the multifunctionality of EU agriculture. In: Kaditi E, Swinnen J (eds) Trade agreements, multifunctionality and EU agriculture. Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), Brussels, pp 187–202Google Scholar
  20. FAO (2011) The state of the world’s land and water resources for food and agriculture (SOLAW)—managing systems at risk. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  21. Garrity DP (2004) Agroforestry and the achievement of the millennium development goals. Agrofor Syst 61:5–17Google Scholar
  22. Godfray HCJ, Beddington JR, Crute IR, Haddad L, Lawrence D, Muir JF, Pretty J, Robinson S, Thomas SM, Toulmin C (2010) Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 327:812–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Herrmann K, Seeland K, Zimmermann W (2002) Multifunctional forestry as a means to rural developmentCountry report Switzerland. doi: 10.3929/ethz-a-004321963
  24. Jama B, Zeila A (2005) Agroforestry in the drylands of eastern Africa: a call to action. World Agroforestry CentreGoogle Scholar
  25. Kendy E, Bredehoeft JD (2006) Transient effects of groundwater pumping and surface-water-irrigation returns on streamflow. Water Resour Res 42. doi: 10.1029/2005WR004792
  26. Lal R, Lorenz K, Hüttl RF, Schneider BU, von Braun J (2013) Societal dependence on soil’s ecosystem services. In: Lal R, Lorenz K, Hüttl RF, Schneider BU, von Braun J (eds) Ecosystem services and carbon sequestration in the biosphere. Springer, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  27. Laterra P (2011) From multifunctional grasslands to multifunctional landscapes. In: Proceedings IX IRC. Rosario, pp 709–713Google Scholar
  28. Mander Ü, Helming K, Wiggering H (2007) Multifunctional land use: meeting future demands for landscape goods and services. Springer, Berlin, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Island press Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  30. Millennium Ecosystems Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  31. OECD (2003) Multifunctionality : the policy implications. OECD PublicationGoogle Scholar
  32. O’Farrell PJ, Anderson PM (2010) Sustainable multifunctional landscapes: a review to implementation. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2:59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ramachandran Nair PK, Mohan Kumar B, Nair VD (2009) Agroforestry as a strategy for carbon sequestration. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 172:10–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sabogal C, Guariguata MR, Broadhead J, Lescuyer G, Savilaakso S, Essoungou JN, Sist P (2013) Multiple-use forest management in the humid tropics: opportunities and challenges for sustainable forest management. FAO Forestry Paper no. 173. FAO, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  35. Scanlon BR, Jolly I, Sophocleous M, Zhang L (2007) Global impacts of conversions from natural to agricultural ecosystems on water resources: quantity versus quality. Water Resour Res 43. doi: 10.1029/2006WR005486
  36. Tallis H, Kareiva P, Marvier M, Chang A (2008) An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:9457–9464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. UNCCD (2011) Desertification: a visual synthesis. United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification, BonnGoogle Scholar
  38. Wallace KJ (2007) Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biol Conserv 139:235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wiggering H, Dalchow C, Glemnitz M, Helming K, Müller K, Schultz A, Stachow U, Zander P (2006) Indicators for multifunctional land use—linking socio-economic requirements with landscape potentials. Ecol Indic 6:238–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. World Bank (2006) Sustainable land management: challenges, opportunities, and trade-offs. Wolrd Bank, Washington, DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Integrated Management of Material Fluxes and of Resources (UNU-FLORES)United Nations UniversityDresdenGermany

Personalised recommendations