Advertisement

Land use functions — a multifunctionality approach to assess the impact of land use changes on land use sustainability

  • Marta Pérez-Soba
  • Sandrine Petit
  • Laurence Jones
  • Nathalie Bertrand
  • Vincent Briquel
  • Luigi Omodei-Zorini
  • Caterina Contini
  • Katharina Helming
  • John H. Farrington
  • Maria Tinacci Mossello
  • Dirk Wascher
  • Felix Kienast
  • Rudolf de Groot

Abstract

The dramatic changes in land use observed in Europe in the last fifty years have generally resulted in improvement of human welfare and economic development. On the other hand, they have caused serious environmental problems. There is therefore a need for approaches that help to understand in an integrative way the economic, environmental and societal impacts that land use changes have on sustainability. Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA), which assesses the impact of policies on sustainability, addresses this challenge. SIA partly builds on the concept of the multifunctionality of land which helps to deal with the complexity of interactions between different land uses, their temporal and spatial changes, and finally how policies might steer those changes towards sustainability. Following this need for true integration of economic, environmental and societal issues across policy areas at a meaningful spatial scale, an interdisciplinary team in the SENSOR project has developed an innovative conceptual framework to assess the impact of policies on land sustainability at various levels of spatial aggregation i.e. the Land Use Functions (LUFs) framework. LUFs are the goods and services provided by the different land uses that summarise the most relevant economic, environmental and societal issues of a region. The LUFs framework integrates the changes observed in a large set of impact indicators into nine Land Use Functions (LUFs), which are balanced among the three pillars of sustainability. The LUFs framework makes it possible for policy makers, scientists and stakeholders to identify at a glance those functions of the land which are hindered or enhanced under various scenarios of land use change, and makes it possible to explore the trade-offs between them. The LUFs framework allows therefore the building of assessment across disciplines, sectors and the three sustainability dimensions. It has proved to be very helpful for the systematisation of relevant sustainability indicators within SENSOR and is intended to be further used in other projects as a tool for Sustainability Impact Assessment. The rationale leading to the LUFs concept, its definition and the conceptual framework is described in this chapter. We conclude that the concept of LUFs allows users to make explicit the analytical links between multifunctional land use and sustainable development, and therefore to look at multifunctionality as a way towards sustainability.

Keywords

Land use change Land Use Function regional impact assessment Sustainability Impact Assessment multifunctionality 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bertrand N, Jones L, Hasler B, Omodei-Zorini L, Petit S, Contini C (2008) Limits and targets for a regional sustainability assessment: an interdisciplinary exploration of the threshold concept In: Helming K, Tabbush P, Perez-Soba M (eds) Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes. Springer, 405–424Google Scholar
  2. Bunce B, Hazeu G, Dziamski, Pérez-Soba M (2007) Detailed description of Cluster Regions for supporting Regional Sustainability Assessment. SENSOR D 3.2.2 ‘Regional sustainability assessment through expert identification of social, economic, cultural and environmental thresholds/limits and Land Use Functions’, Annex I. Internal SENSOR document.Google Scholar
  3. Commission of the European Community (2005). Impact Assessment Guidelines. SEC(2005) 791.Google Scholar
  4. CEU 2006 (Council of the European Union). Adoption of the Renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy http://ec.europa.eu/sustainable/sds2006/index_en.htm
  5. Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot RS et al (1997). The Total Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Nature Vol 387:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. European Environment Agency (2005) The European Environment-State and Outlook 2005, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  7. European Spatial Agency SP-1304 (2006) The Changing Earth-New Scientific Challenges for ESA’s Living Planet Programme, The Netherlands, ISSN 0379-6566, 83 ppGoogle Scholar
  8. Farrington JH, Kuhlman T, Rothman DS, Imrichova Z, Reid L, Konkoly E (2008) Reflections on social and economic indicators for land use changes. In: Helming K, Tabbush P, Perez-Soba M (eds). Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes. Springer, 325–347Google Scholar
  9. Frederiksen P, Kristensen P (2008) An indicators framework for analysing sustainability impacts of land use change In: Helming K, Tabbush P, Perez-Soba (eds) Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes. Springer, 293–304Google Scholar
  10. Glasson J, Therivel R, Chadwi A ( 2005) Introduction to environmental impact assessment. Routeledge, London and New York, ISBN 0-415-33836-0, 423 ppGoogle Scholar
  11. De Groot RS, Wilson A, Boumans RMJ (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuatin of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics 41: 393–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Groot RS (2006) Function analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable, multifunctional landscapes, Landscape Urban Plan. 75 (2006) (3–4), 175–186Google Scholar
  13. Hediger W (2006) Concepts and definitions of multifunctionality in Swiss agricultural policy and research. In: Series on Multifunctionality nr 10-MULTAGRI project special issue on ‘The concepts of multifunctionality and their evolution’, coordinators Caron P and Le Cotty T, 149–174Google Scholar
  14. Hein L and de Groot D (2005) Analysis of landscape functions: typology and sustainability indicators. Internal M3 SENSOR documentGoogle Scholar
  15. Helming K, Bach H, Dilly O, Hüttl RF, König B, Kuhlman T., Pérez-Soba M, Sieber S, Smeets P, Tabbush P, Tscherning K, Wascher D, Wiggering H (2008) Ex ante impact assessment of land use change in European regions-the SENSOR approach. In: Helming K, Tabbush P, Pérez-Soba M (eds). Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes. Springer, 77–105Google Scholar
  16. Jansson T, Bakker M, Boitier B, Fougeyrollas A, Helming J, Van Meijl H, Verkerk PJ (2008) Cross sector land use modelling framework. In: Helming K, Tabbush P, Pérez-Soba M (eds). Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes. Springer, 159–180Google Scholar
  17. Kates RW, Clark WC, Corell R, Hall JM, Jaeger CC, Lowe I, McCarthy JJ, Schellnhuber HJ, Bolin J, Dickson NM, Faucheux S, Gallopin GC, Grübler A, Huntley B, Jäger J, Jodha NS, Kasperson RE, Mabogunje A, Matson P, Mooney H, Moore III B, O’Riordan T and Svedin U, Sustainability science, Science 292 (2001), 641–642Google Scholar
  18. Kienast et al (2007) Development of a landscape functional approach applied to cluster regions. Internal M3 SENSOR documentGoogle Scholar
  19. Knickel K, Renting H, van der Ploeg JD (2004) Multifunctionality in European agriculture. In: Brouwer F (ed) Sustaining agriculture and the rural economy: governance, policy and multifunctionality. Edward Elgar Publishing Inc, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuhlman T (2008) Scenarios-driving forces and policies. In: Helming K, Tabbush P, Perez-Soba M (eds). Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes. Springer, 131–157Google Scholar
  21. Millenium Ecosystem Assessment-MEA (2003). Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: A framework for assessment. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  22. Morris J, Camilleri M, Moncada S (2008) Key sustainability issues in European sensitive areas-a participatory approach. In: Helming K, Tabbush P, Perez-Soba M (eds). Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes. Springer, 451–470Google Scholar
  23. OECD (2000). Production, externality and public goods aspects of multifuncitonality: introduction. [COM-AGR-APM-TD-WP(00)3-PART1]. Paris, OECD, 12 ppGoogle Scholar
  24. OECD (2001) Multifunctionality: Towards an analytical framework. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  25. Oostinde H, Roep D, Renting H (2006) Definitions, references and interpretations of the concept of multifunctionality in The Netherlands. In: Series on Multifunctionality nr 10-MULTAGRI project special issue on ‘The concepts of multifunctionality and their evolution’, coordinators Caron P and Le Cotty T, 41–81Google Scholar
  26. Paraccini ML, Pacini C, Vogt J, Calvo S (2008) Weighting and aggregation of indicators for sustainability impact assessment in the SENSOR context. In: Helming K, Tabbush P, Perez-Soba M (eds). Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes. Springer, 349–372Google Scholar
  27. Petit S, Vinther FP, Verkerk PJ, Firbank LG, Halberg N, Dalgaard T, Kjeldsen C, Lindner M, Zudin S (2008) Indicators for environmental impacts of land use changes. In: Helming K, Tabbush P, Pérez-Soba M (eds). Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes. Springer, 305–324Google Scholar
  28. Potschin M, Haines-Young R (2008) Making Sustainability Impact Assessments: Limits, Thresholds and the Sustainability Choice Space. In: Helming K, Tabbush P, Perez-Soba M (eds). Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes. Springer, 425–450Google Scholar
  29. Ploeg JD, van der Roep D (2003) Multifunctionality and rural development: the actual situation in Europe. In: van Huylenbroek G, Durand G (eds) Multifunctional agriculture; a new paradigm for European agriculture and rural development. Ashgate, Hampshire, 37–53Google Scholar
  30. Reig E (2006) Agricultural multifunctionality: the stat-of-the-art in Spanish research work. In: Series on Multifunctionality nr 10-MULTAGRI project special issue on ‘The concepts of multifunctionality and their evolution’, coordinators Caron P and Le Cotty T, 109–147Google Scholar
  31. Renetzeder C, van Eupen M, Mücher CA, Wrbka T (2008) Clustering Europe: a Spatial Regional Reference Framework for Sustainability Assessment. In: Helming K, Tabbush P, Perez-Soba M (eds). Sustainability impact assessment of land use changes. Springer, 249–268Google Scholar
  32. Tress B, Tress G and Fry G (2005) Key steps for reaching integration. In: Tress B, Tress G, Fry G and Opdam P, eds, From Landscape Research to Landscape Planning: Aspects of Integration, Education and Application, Springer, Wageningen (2005) UR Frontis SeriesGoogle Scholar
  33. Vereijken PH (2002) Multifunctionality: applying the OECD framework, a review of the literature in the Netherlands. Plant Research International Report, Wageningen University and Research Centre, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  34. Wiggering H, Mueller K, Werner A and Helming K (2003): The concept of multifunctionality in sustainable land development. In: Helming K and Wiggering H (eds) (2003): Sustainable Development of Multifunctional Landscapes. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  35. Winder N (2003) Successes and problems when conducting interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary (= integrative) research. In: Tress B, Tress G, van der Valk A, Fry G (eds) Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary landscape studies: Potential and limitations. Delta series 2, Wageningen, ISBN 90-807637-1-3, 74–90Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marta Pérez-Soba
    • 1
  • Sandrine Petit
    • 2
  • Laurence Jones
    • 3
  • Nathalie Bertrand
    • 4
  • Vincent Briquel
    • 4
  • Luigi Omodei-Zorini
    • 5
  • Caterina Contini
    • 5
  • Katharina Helming
    • 6
  • John H. Farrington
    • 7
  • Maria Tinacci Mossello
    • 5
  • Dirk Wascher
    • 1
  • Felix Kienast
    • 8
  • Rudolf de Groot
    • 9
  1. 1.Alterra WURWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.INRA-ENESAD-Université de BourgogneFrance
  3. 3.Center for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH)UK
  4. 4.Cemagref, Research Unit Development of Mountain TerritoriesGrenobleFrance
  5. 5.University of FlorenceItaly
  6. 6.Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF)MünchebergGermany
  7. 7.University of AberdeenUK
  8. 8.Snow and landscape Research WSLSwiss Federal Institute for ForestBirmensdorfSwitzerland
  9. 9.Environmental Systems Analysis GroupWageningen URWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations