IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v137y2015icp12-23.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modelling farmer decision-making to anticipate tradeoffs between provisioning ecosystem services and biodiversity

Author

Listed:
  • Guillem, E.E.
  • Murray-Rust, D.
  • Robinson, D.T.
  • Barnes, A.
  • Rounsevell, M.D.A.

Abstract

In this paper, an agent-based model of heterogeneous farmer decision-making was coupled with an individual-based model of skylark breeding populations, and applied to a small intensive arable catchment in Scotland. The impacts of farmer decisions on a tradeoff between food and bioenergy production, and skylark numbers, were simulated under the assumptions of three socio-economic scenarios until the year 2050. Bioenergy and food production had a significant negative effect on adult and fledgling skylarks. In a business-as-usual context, the production of food and bioenergy increases smoothly, and the number of skylarks is more stable over time than in other scenarios. Food production was higher in an economic liberalisation scenario, due to intensive management and higher yield performance. This explained the low average number of skylarks found at the landscape level in this scenario. The number of skylarks was highest in a sustainability-oriented scenario, but a sharp decrease was observed from 2035 onwards due to the large area planted with bioenergy crops. The different values for economic, environmental and social attributes of farmer decisions played an important role in the land use mosaic, the implementation of ecologically-related actions and on the provision of ecosystem services and biodiversity. Overall, results suggest that a re-assessment of policy targets and design is necessary to maximise environmental management efficiency at the catchment level by taking into account the heterogeneity in farmer objectives and the tradeoffs in ecosystem services provision. The novel approach of coupling an ABM with an IBM is encouraged in further land use related studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Guillem, E.E. & Murray-Rust, D. & Robinson, D.T. & Barnes, A. & Rounsevell, M.D.A., 2015. "Modelling farmer decision-making to anticipate tradeoffs between provisioning ecosystem services and biodiversity," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 12-23.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:137:y:2015:i:c:p:12-23
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2015.03.006
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X15000402
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.03.006?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stephen Polasky & Erik Nelson & Derric Pennington & Kris Johnson, 2011. "The Impact of Land-Use Change on Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity and Returns to Landowners: A Case Study in the State of Minnesota," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 219-242, February.
    2. McLane, Adam J. & Semeniuk, Christina & McDermid, Gregory J. & Marceau, Danielle J., 2011. "The role of agent-based models in wildlife ecology and management," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 222(8), pages 1544-1556.
    3. Li An & Alex Zvoleff & Jianguo Liu & William Axinn, 2014. "Agent-Based Modeling in Coupled Human and Natural Systems (CHANS): Lessons from a Comparative Analysis," Annals of the American Association of Geographers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 104(4), pages 723-745, July.
    4. Berger, Thomas, 2001. "Agent-based spatial models applied to agriculture: a simulation tool for technology diffusion, resource use changes and policy analysis," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 25(2-3), pages 245-260, September.
    5. Goldman, Rebecca L. & Thompson, Barton H. & Daily, Gretchen C., 2007. "Institutional incentives for managing the landscape: Inducing cooperation for the production of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 333-343, December.
    6. Tranter, R.B. & Swinbank, A. & Wooldridge, M.J. & Costa, L. & Knapp, T. & Little, G.P.J. & Sottomayor, M.L., 2007. "Implications for food production, land use and rural development of the European Union's Single Farm Payment: Indications from a survey of farmers' intentions in Germany, Portugal and the UK," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(5-6), pages 656-671.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Adam Pawlewicz & Wojciech Gotkiewicz & Katarzyna Brodzińska & Katarzyna Pawlewicz & Bartosz Mickiewicz & Paweł Kluczek, 2022. "Organic Farming as an Alternative Maintenance Strategy in the Opinion of Farmers from Natura 2000 Areas," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(7), pages 1-22, March.
    2. Qinglong Ding & Yang Chen & Lingtong Bu & Yanmei Ye, 2021. "Multi-Scenario Analysis of Habitat Quality in the Yellow River Delta by Coupling FLUS with InVEST Model," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-19, March.
    3. Harrison, Paula A. & Dunford, Rob & Barton, David N. & Kelemen, Eszter & Martín-López, Berta & Norton, Lisa & Termansen, Mette & Saarikoski, Heli & Hendriks, Kees & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Czúcz, Báli, 2018. "Selecting methods for ecosystem service assessment: A decision tree approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 481-498.
    4. Huber, Robert & Bakker, Martha & Balmann, Alfons & Berger, Thomas & Bithell, Mike & Brown, Calum & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne & Xiong, Hang & Le, Quang Bao & Mack, Gabriele & Meyfroidt, Patrick & Millingt, 2018. "Representation of decision-making in European agricultural agent-based models," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 143-160.
    5. Kremmydas, Dimitris & Athanasiadis, Ioannis N. & Rozakis, Stelios, 2018. "A review of Agent Based Modeling for agricultural policy evaluation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 95-106.
    6. Nicholas R. Magliocca, 2020. "Agent-Based Modeling for Integrating Human Behavior into the Food–Energy–Water Nexus," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-25, December.
    7. Yang Chen & Martha M. Bakker & Arend Ligtenberg & Arnold K. Bregt, 2016. "How Are Feedbacks Represented in Land Models?," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-20, September.
    8. Christian Albert & Johannes Hermes & Felix Neuendorf & Christina Von Haaren & Michael Rode, 2016. "Assessing and Governing Ecosystem Services Trade-Offs in Agrarian Landscapes: The Case of Biogas," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-17, January.
    9. Yajuan Chen & Qian Zhang & Wenping Liu & Zhenrong Yu, 2017. "Analyzing Farmers’ Perceptions of Ecosystem Services and PES Schemes within Agricultural Landscapes in Mengyin County, China: Transforming Trade-Offs into Synergies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-18, August.
    10. Guo, Miao & van Dam, Koen H. & Touhami, Noura Ouazzani & Nguyen, Remy & Delval, Florent & Jamieson, Craig & Shah, Nilay, 2020. "Multi-level system modelling of the resource-food-bioenergy nexus in the global south," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    11. Olosutean Horea, 2015. "Methods for Modeling Ecosystem Services: A Review," Management of Sustainable Development, Sciendo, vol. 7(1), pages 5-12, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gregory M. Parkhurst & Jason F. Shogren & Thomas Crocker, 2016. "Tradable Set-Aside Requirements (TSARs): Conserving Spatially Dependent Environmental Amenities," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 719-744, April.
    2. Gianluca Fabiani & Nikolaos Evangelou & Tianqi Cui & Juan M. Bello-Rivas & Cristina P. Martin-Linares & Constantinos Siettos & Ioannis G. Kevrekidis, 2024. "Task-oriented machine learning surrogates for tipping points of agent-based models," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 15(1), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Alain‐Désiré Nimubona & Jean‐Christophe Pereau, 2022. "Negotiating over payments for wetland ecosystem services," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 1507-1538, August.
    4. Rich, Karl M. & Ross, R. Brent & Baker, A. Derek & Negassa, Asfaw, 2011. "Quantifying value chain analysis in the context of livestock systems in developing countries," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 214-222, April.
    5. Qenani-Petrela, Eivis & Noel, Jay E. & Mastin, Thomas, 2007. "A Benefit Transfer Approach to the Estimation of Agro-Ecosystems Services Benefits: A Case Study of Kern County, California," Research Project Reports 121605, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California Institute for the Study of Specialty Crops.
    6. Constanza Fosco, 2012. "Spatial Difusion and Commuting Flows," Documentos de Trabajo en Economia y Ciencia Regional 30, Universidad Catolica del Norte, Chile, Department of Economics, revised Sep 2012.
    7. Kellermann, Konrad & Balmann, Alfons, 2006. "How Smart Should Farms Be Modeled? Behavioral Foundation of Bidding Strategies in Agent-Based Land Market Models," 2006 Annual Meeting, August 12-18, 2006, Queensland, Australia 25446, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Min Liu & Jianpeng Fan & Yuanzheng Li & Qizheng Mao, 2023. "Ecosystem Service Optimisation in the Central Plains Urban Agglomeration Based on Land Use Structure Adjustment," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-27, July.
    9. Brendan Fisher & Stephen Polasky & Thomas Sterner, 2011. "Conservation and Human Welfare: Economic Analysis of Ecosystem Services," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 151-159, February.
    10. Pacillo, Grazia, 2016. "Market participation, innovation adoption and poverty in rural Ghana," Economics PhD Theses 0916, Department of Economics, University of Sussex Business School.
    11. Bindewald, Eckart, 2017. "A survey suggests individual priorities are virtually unique: Implications for group dynamics, goal achievement and ecology," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 362(C), pages 69-79.
    12. Mengzhu Liu & Leilei Min & Jingjing Zhao & Yanjun Shen & Hongwei Pei & Hongjuan Zhang & Yali Li, 2021. "The Impact of Land Use Change on Water-Related Ecosystem Services in the Bashang Area of Hebei Province, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, January.
    13. Kanapaux, William & Kiker, Gregory A., 2013. "Development and testing of an object-oriented model for adaptively managing human disturbance of least tern (Sternula antillarum) nesting habitat," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 268(C), pages 64-77.
    14. Duy X. Tran & Diane Pearson & Alan Palmer & David Gray, 2020. "Developing a Landscape Design Approach for the Sustainable Land Management of Hill Country Farms in New Zealand," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-29, June.
    15. Claudia Dislich & Elisabeth Hettig & Jan Salecker & Johannes Heinonen & Jann Lay & Katrin M Meyer & Kerstin Wiegand & Suria Tarigan, 2018. "Land-use change in oil palm dominated tropical landscapes—An agent-based model to explore ecological and socio-economic trade-offs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(1), pages 1-20, January.
    16. Janssen, Sander & van Ittersum, Martin K., 2007. "Assessing farm innovations and responses to policies: A review of bio-economic farm models," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 622-636, June.
    17. Viaggi, Davide & Raggi, Meri & Gomez y Paloma, Sergio, 2011. "Farm-household investment behaviour and the CAP decoupling: Methodological issues in assessing policy impacts," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 127-145, January.
    18. Fuhong Zhang & Apurbo Sarkar & Hongyu Wang, 2021. "Does Internet and Information Technology Help Farmers to Maximize Profit: A Cross-Sectional Study of Apple Farmers in Shandong, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, April.
    19. Happe, Kathrin & Balmann, Alfons, 2002. "Struktur-, Effizienz- und Einkommenswirkungen von Direktzahlungen," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 51(08), pages 1-13.
    20. Carmen Schwartz & Mostafa Shaaban & Sonoko Dorothea Bellingrath-Kimura & Annette Piorr, 2021. "Participatory Mapping of Demand for Ecosystem Services in Agricultural Landscapes," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-20, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:137:y:2015:i:c:p:12-23. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.