Implementation of Multifunctional Land Management: Research Needs

Chapter

Abstract

Siloed and sectored management practices have contributed to the minimisation of soil erosion in dryland China thanks to soil conservation efforts for decades, but they have also led to other environmental problems such as water shortage. This further aggravates conflicts and competition between water users, for instance, between upstream and downstream users, rural and urban areas, and agriculture and forestry. This increases socioeconomic pressure and undermines regional sustainability. Such vicious circle of ‘solutions to one problem leading to a new problem’ has to be broken by shifting a single-resource/sector-oriented land system to a multifunctional land-use system. Multifunctional land use is an all-encompassing system that is coordinated and integrated across sectors in a balanced environmental and social setting, and resulting in benefits for both environment and society. Despite decades of looking for solutions and advances in the development of multifunctional land-use systems, several issues still discourage and impede their implementation. Our work reviews the progress made in science and practice, as well as the challenges to implementation, using the Loess Plateau in China as an example. In this context, research needs are identified and suggestions are made for realising multifunctionality in an ecological system.

References

  1. Alca J (2015) Systems Thinking for Advancing a Nexus Approach to Water, Soil and Waste. Lecture Series—No. 2. Dresden: United Nations University Institute for Integrated Management of Material Fluxes and of Resources (UNU-FLORES)Google Scholar
  2. Bautista S, Mayor AG, Bourakhouadar J, Bellot J (2007) Plant spatial pattern predicts hillslope runoff and erosion in a semiarid Mediterranean landscape. Ecosystems 10:987–998CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blum WE (2016) Role of soil for satisfying global demands for food, water, and bioenergy. In: Environmental resource management and the nexus approach—managing water, soil, and waste in the context of global change, pp 143–177. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  4. Boody G, Vondracek B, Andow DA, Krinke M, Westra J, Zimmerman J, Welle P (2005) Multifunctional agriculture in the United States. Bioscience 55:27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bouma J (2010) Implications of the knowledge paradox for soil science. Adv Agron 106:143–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Bouma J, Van Altvorst AC, Eweg R, Smeets P, Van Latesteijn HC (2011) The role of knowledge when studying innovation and the associated wicked sustainability problems in agriculture. In: Advances in agronomy, p 283Google 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. Daily GC, Matson PA (2008) Ecosystem services: from theory to implementation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 105:9455–9456. doi:10.1073/pnas.0804960105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeFries RS, Foley JA, Asner GP (2004) Land-use choices: balancing human needs and ecosystem function. Front Ecol Environ 2:249–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Deybe D (2007) Policies, research perspective and challenges on multifunctional land use. In: Multifunctional land use. Springer, pp 143–152Google Scholar
  13. Droogers P, Bouma J (2014) Simulation modelling for water governance in basins. Int J Water Resour Dev 30:475–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fang Q, Elliott M (2016) China: prevent misuse of eco-compensation. Nature 533:321–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. FAO (2013) Policy support guidelines for the promotion of sustainable production intensification and ecosystem services. Plant Production and Protection Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, RomeGoogle Scholar
  16. Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68:643–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hoff H (2011) Understanding the Nexus. Background paper for the Bonn2011 conference: the water, energy and food security Nexus. The Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  18. ICSU-UNESCO-UNU (2008) Ecosystem change and human wellbeing: research and monitoring priorities based on the millennium ecosystem assessment. International Council for Science, ParisGoogle Scholar
  19. Jose S (2009) Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. Agrofor Syst 76:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kauffman S, Droogers P, Hunink J, Mwaniki B, Muchena F, Gicheru P, Bindraban P, Onduru D, Cleveringa R, Bouma J (2014) Green water credits–exploring its potential to enhance ecosystem services by reducing soil erosion in the Upper Tana basin, Kenya. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 10:133–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kremen C (2005) Managing ecosystem services: what do we need to know about their ecology? Ecol Lett 8:468–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Liu G, Tsunekawa A, Dang X, Du S (2014) Future development-related challenges on the Loess Plateau. In: Restoration and development of the degraded Loess Plateau, China. Springer, pp 267–282Google Scholar
  23. Lü M-Q, Xia Z-L, Wang J-J (2014) Recent changes on the Loess Plateau: land resource development and rapid urbanization. In: Restoration and development of the degraded Loess Plateau, China. Springer, pp 255–265Google Scholar
  24. Meyer B, Degorski M (2007) Integration of multifunctional goals into land use—the planning perspective. In: Multifunctional land use. Springer, pp 153–166Google Scholar
  25. O’Farrell PJ, Anderson PM (2010) Sustainable multifunctional landscapes: a review to implementation. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2:59–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Otte A, Simmering D, Wolters V (2007) Biodiversity at the landscape level: recent concepts and perspectives for multifunctional land use. Landsc Ecol 22:639–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pérez-Soba M, Petit S, Jones L, Bertrand N, Briquel V, Omodei-Zorini L, Contini C, Helming K, Farrington JH, Mossello MT, Wascher D, Kienast F, de Groot R (2008) Land use functions—a multifunctionality approach to assess the impact of land use changes on land use sustainability. In: Helming DK, Pérez-Soba DM, Tabbush MP (eds) Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 375–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Plieninger T, Bens O, Hüttl RF (2007) Innovations in land-use as response to rural change—a case report from Brandenburg, Germany. In: Multifunctional land use. Springer, pp 369–385Google Scholar
  29. Polasky S, Nelson E, Camm J, Csuti B, Fackler P, Lonsdorf E, Montgomery C, White D, Arthur J, Garber-Yonts B, Haight R, Kagan J, Starfield A, Tobalske C (2008) Where to put things? Spatial land management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. Biol Conserv 141:1505–1524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Reagain PO, Bushell J (2008) Sustainable and profitable grazing management in a highly variable environment-evidence and insights from a long term grazing trial in northern Australia. In: Multifunctional grasslands in a changing world, Volume II: XXI International Grassland Congress and VIII International Rangeland Congress, Hohhot, China, 29 June-5 July 2008. Guangdong People’s Publishing House, pp 14–19Google Scholar
  31. Ringler C, Bhaduri A, Lawford R (2013) The nexus across water, energy, land and food (WELF): potential for improved resource use efficiency? Curr Opin Environ Sustain 5:617–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Seppelt R, Dormann CF, Eppink FV, Lautenbach S, Schmidt S (2011) A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J Appl Ecol 48:630–636. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01952.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Tallis H, Mooney H, Andelman S, Balvanera P, Cramer W, Karp D, Polasky S, Reyers B, Ricketts T, Running S, Thonicke K, Tietjen B, Walz A (2012) A global system for monitoring ecosystem service change. Bioscience 62:977–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tassone VC, Wesseler JHH, Kros H, Nesci FS (2008) Effects of environmental benefits from afforestation on optimal harvesting age in a mediterranean marginal area. In: The multifunctional role of forests: policies, methods and case studies. EFI Proceedings n. 55, Padova, Italy, 24-30 April 2005. - Joensuu, Finland: European Forest Institute - ISBN 9789525453140 - p. 327–340.Google Scholar
  35. United Nations (2015) Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. USDA (2009) Grassland reserve program. programmatic environmental assessment. WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  37. Vanacker V, Govers G, Barros S, Poesen J, Deckers J (2003) The effect of short-term socio-economic and demographic change on landuse dynamics and its corresponding geomorphic response with relation to water erosion in a tropical mountainous catchment, Ecuador. Landsc Ecol 18:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wallace KJ (2007) Classification of ecosystem services: problems and solutions. Biol Conserv 139:235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wiggering H, Müller K, Werner A, Helming K (2003) The concept of multifunctionality in sustainable land development. In: Helming, K. and H. Wiggering (eds) Sustainable development of multifunctional landscape. Spring-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 3–18Google Scholar
  40. Zhang L, Podlasly C, Feger K-H, Wang Y, Schwärzel K (2015) Different land management measures and climate change impacts on the runoff—A simple empirical method derived in a mesoscale catchment on the Loess Plateau. J Arid Environ 120:42–50. doi:10.1016/j.jaridenv.2015.04.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zhang L, Podlasly C, Ren Y, Feger K-H, Wang Y, Schwärzel K (2014) Separating the effects of changes in land management and climatic conditions on long-term streamflow trends analyzed for a small catchment in the Loess Plateau region, NW China. Hydrol Process 28:1284–1293. doi:10.1002/hyp.9663 CrossRefGoogle 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