IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v333y2016icp92-100.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Group-based crop change planning: Application of SmartScape™ spatial decision support system for resolving conflicts

Author

Listed:
  • Tayyebi, Amin
  • Arsanjani, Jamal J.
  • Tayyebi, Amir H.
  • Omrani, Hichem
  • Moghadam, Hossein S.

Abstract

Agricultural changes are complex and managing an appropriate type of crop change to satisfy stakeholders with various interests is challenging. Decisions regarding a crop change need to be debated among multiple stakeholders with various conflicting viewpoints. Two kinds of conflicts might occur as a result of crop change in an agricultural landscape: (1) conflicts among multiple ecosystem services i.e., internal conflicts and (2) conflicts among multiple stakeholders i.e., external conflicts. While a spatial decision support system (SDSS) can provide answers concerning multifaceted problems, there are currently a few SDSSs that indicate the trade-offs among multiple ecosystem services as a result of crop change and also enable stakeholders with diverse preferences to arrive at group-based decisions. In this study, we held a series of meetings with stakeholders, who were experts in economics, energy, soil erosion, greenhouse gas emission, surface water, and biodiversity, to develop two crop change scenarios by replacing perennial energy crops with annual energy crops and vice versa. We then used an online SDSS, SmartScape™, and applied it to Dane county, Wisconsin, U.S. to (1) run the two aforementioned crop change scenarios separately in order to assess how effectively SmartScape™ enables decision makers to resolve internal conflicts while considering the relative values of multiple ecosystem services, and (2) run the two crop change scenarios jointly to show how well SmartScape™ enables decision makers to resolve external conflicts in a group while taking into account the diverse goals of stakeholders. The outcomes of this study can inform policy-makers about both internal conflicts within a crop change scenario and external conflicts among stakeholders and provide a unique framework to resolve both types of conflict in an effective way. Obtaining acceptable crop change solutions among stakeholders with conflicting interests can lead us in moving from individual decision-making to group-based decision-making so that we can enhance sustainability in agricultural landscapes.

Suggested Citation

  • Tayyebi, Amin & Arsanjani, Jamal J. & Tayyebi, Amir H. & Omrani, Hichem & Moghadam, Hossein S., 2016. "Group-based crop change planning: Application of SmartScape™ spatial decision support system for resolving conflicts," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 333(C), pages 92-100.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:333:y:2016:i:c:p:92-100
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2016.04.018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380016301466
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2016.04.018?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. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    2. Stephen Connelly & Tim Richardson, 2004. "Exclusion: the necessary difference between ideal and practical consensus," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(1), pages 3-17.
    3. Searchinger, Timothy & Heimlich, Ralph & Houghton, R. A. & Dong, Fengxia & Elobeid, Amani & Fabiosa, Jacinto F. & Tokgoz, Simla & Hayes, Dermot J. & Yu, Hun-Hsiang, 2008. "Use of U.S. Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change," Staff General Research Papers Archive 12881, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    4. LaBeau, Meredith B. & Robertson, Dale M. & Mayer, Alex S. & Pijanowski, Bryan C. & Saad, David A., 2014. "Effects of future urban and biofuel crop expansions on the riverine export of phosphorus to the Laurentian Great Lakes," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 277(C), pages 27-37.
    5. Song, Wei & Deng, Xiangzheng & Yuan, Yongwei & Wang, Zhan & Li, Zhaohua, 2015. "Impacts of land-use change on valued ecosystem service in rapidly urbanized North China Plain," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 318(C), pages 245-253.
    6. Mari, Riccardo & Bottai, Lorenzo & Busillo, Caterina & Calastrini, Francesca & Gozzini, Bernardo & Gualtieri, Giovanni, 2011. "A GIS-based interactive web decision support system for planning wind farms in Tuscany (Italy)," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 754-763.
    7. Diakoulaki, D. & Karangelis, F., 2007. "Multi-criteria decision analysis and cost-benefit analysis of alternative scenarios for the power generation sector in Greece," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 716-727, May.
    8. Skevas, T. & Swinton, S.M. & Meehan, T.D. & Kim, T.N. & Gratton, C. & Egbendewe-Mondzozo, A., 2014. "Integrating agricultural pest biocontrol into forecasts of energy biomass production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 195-203.
    9. Dubois, Laetitia & Mathieu, Jérôme & Loeuille, Nicolas, 2015. "The manager dilemma: Optimal management of an ecosystem service in heterogeneous exploited landscapes," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 301(C), pages 78-89.
    10. Bormann, Helge & Breuer, Lutz & Gräff, Thomas & Huisman, Johan A., 2007. "Analysing the effects of soil properties changes associated with land use changes on the simulated water balance: A comparison of three hydrological catchment models for scenario analysis," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 209(1), pages 29-40.
    11. Hein, Lars, 2006. "Cost-efficient eutrophication control in a shallow lake ecosystem subject to two steady states," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(4), pages 429-439, October.
    12. Turner, Katrine Grace & Anderson, Sharolyn & Gonzales-Chang, Mauricio & Costanza, Robert & Courville, Sasha & Dalgaard, Tommy & Dominati, Estelle & Kubiszewski, Ida & Ogilvy, Sue & Porfirio, Luciana &, 2016. "A review of methods, data, and models to assess changes in the value of ecosystem services from land degradation and restoration," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 319(C), pages 190-207.
    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. Picchi, Paolo & van Lierop, Martina & Geneletti, Davide & Stremke, Sven, 2019. "Advancing the relationship between renewable energy and ecosystem services for landscape planning and design: A literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 241-259.

    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. Catherine L. Kling & Raymond W. Arritt & Gray Calhoun & David A. Keiser, 2016. "Research Needs and Challenges in the FEW System: Coupling Economic Models with Agronomic, Hydrologic, and Bioenergy Models for Sustainable Food, Energy, and Water Systems," Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) Publications 16-wp563, Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa State University.
    2. Hoekman, S. Kent & Broch, Amber, 2018. "Environmental implications of higher ethanol production and use in the U.S.: A literature review. Part II – Biodiversity, land use change, GHG emissions, and sustainability," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 81(P2), pages 3159-3177.
    3. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    4. Colla, Martin & Ioannou, Anastasia & Falcone, Gioia, 2020. "Critical review of competitiveness indicators for energy projects," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    5. Gudrun Schwilch & Tatenda Lemann & Örjan Berglund & Carlo Camarotto & Artemi Cerdà & Ioannis N. Daliakopoulos & Silvia Kohnová & Dominika Krzeminska & Teodoro Marañón & René Rietra & Grzegorz Siebiele, 2018. "Assessing Impacts of Soil Management Measures on Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-26, November.
    6. Tianyi Cai & Xueyuan Luo & Liyao Fan & Jing Han & Xinhuan Zhang, 2022. "The Impact of Cropland Use Changes on Terrestrial Ecosystem Services Value in Newly Added Cropland Hotspots in China during 2000–2020," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-21, December.
    7. Maia de Souza, Danielle & Lopes, Gabriela Russo & Hansson, Julia & Hansen, Karin, 2018. "Ecosystem services in life cycle assessment: A synthesis of knowledge and recommendations for biofuels," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 200-210.
    8. Holland, Robert A. & Scott, Kate & Hinton, Emma D. & Austen, Melanie C. & Barrett, John & Beaumont, Nicola & Blaber-Wegg, Tina & Brown, Gareth & Carter-Silk, Eleanor & Cazenave, Pierre & Eigenbrod, Fe, 2016. "Bridging the gap between energy and the environment," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 181-189.
    9. Shen, Jiashu & Li, Shuangcheng & Liang, Ze & Liu, Laibao & Li, Delong & Wu, Shuyao, 2020. "Exploring the heterogeneity and nonlinearity of trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services bundles in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    10. Chen, Dengshuai & Li, Jing & Yang, Xiaonan & Zhou, Zixiang & Pan, Yuqi & Li, Manchun, 2020. "Quantifying water provision service supply, demand and spatial flow for land use optimization: A case study in the YanHe watershed," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    11. Retallack, Matthew, 2021. "The intersection of economic demand for ecosystem services and public policy: A watershed case study exploring implications for social-ecological resilience," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    12. Kwadwo Kyenkyehene Kusi & Abdellatif Khattabi & Nadia Mhammdi, 2023. "Analyzing the impact of land use change on ecosystem service value in the main watersheds of Morocco," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 2688-2715, March.
    13. Aretano, Roberta & Semeraro, Teodoro & Petrosillo, Irene & De Marco, Antonella & Pasimeni, Maria Rita & Zurlini, Giovanni, 2015. "Mapping ecological vulnerability to fire for effective conservation management of natural protected areas," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 295(C), pages 163-175.
    14. Acharya, Ram Prasad & Maraseni, Tek & Cockfield, Geoff, 2019. "Global trend of forest ecosystem services valuation – An analysis of publications," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    15. Catherine L. Kling & Raymond W. Arritt & Gray Calhoun & David A. Keiser, 2017. "Integrated Assessment Models of the Food, Energy, and Water Nexus: A Review and an Outline of Research Needs," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 9(1), pages 143-163, October.
    16. Zhonglin Tang & Geng Sun & Nannan Zhang & Jing He & Ning Wu, 2018. "Impacts of Land-Use and Climate Change on Ecosystem Service in Eastern Tibetan Plateau, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-19, February.
    17. Xiaoqing Lin & Chunyan Lu & Kaishan Song & Ying Su & Yifan Lei & Lianxiu Zhong & Yibin Gao, 2020. "Analysis of Coupling Coordination Variance between Urbanization Quality and Eco-Environment Pressure: A Case Study of the West Taiwan Strait Urban Agglomeration, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-19, March.
    18. Suopajärvi, Hannu & Umeki, Kentaro & Mousa, Elsayed & Hedayati, Ali & Romar, Henrik & Kemppainen, Antti & Wang, Chuan & Phounglamcheik, Aekjuthon & Tuomikoski, Sari & Norberg, Nicklas & Andefors, Alf , 2018. "Use of biomass in integrated steelmaking – Status quo, future needs and comparison to other low-CO2 steel production technologies," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 213(C), pages 384-407.
    19. Tonini, Davide & Vadenbo, Carl & Astrup, Thomas Fruergaard, 2017. "Priority of domestic biomass resources for energy: Importance of national environmental targets in a climate perspective," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 295-309.
    20. Lotze-Campen, Hermann & von Witzke, Harald & Noleppa, Steffen & Schwarz, Gerald, 2015. "Science for food, climate protection and welfare: An economic analysis of plant breeding research in Germany," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 79-84.

    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:ecomod:v:333:y:2016:i:c:p:92-100. 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.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    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.