IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v112y2022ics0264837721005834.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Promised Land: Contrasting frames of marginal land in the European Union

Author

Listed:
  • Muscat, A.
  • de Olde, E.M.
  • Candel, J.J.L.
  • de Boer, I.J.M.
  • Ripoll-Bosch, R.

Abstract

Appropriating marginal land is seen as a way to overcome a wide range of land-use challenges such as food-feed-fuel competition, avoiding land abandonment, and preserving nature. As a result, there is growing interest in policy and academic communities to identify, define and measure the potential of marginal land to overcome these challenges. However, multiple definitions of marginal land exist due to the various ways of framing the problems and the solutions marginal land can address. This leads to a number of competing claims on and diverging debates about marginal land. To explore the competing claims on marginal land in these frames, we performed a framing analysis of EU policy debates about marginal land. Through this analysis, we find that different actors have conflicting ways of framing what problems marginal land can address and what courses of action to take. These frames do not overcome but form part of contested land-use debates already present in Europe. Exact definitions or estimations of marginal land are unlikely to overcome land-use debates because land-use decisions are subject to the same competing claims and hence normative decisions as land-use decisions around productive land. These marginal land frames reflect a vision for how land should be used; for food, feed, fuel or nature. We argue that exact estimations of marginal land are unlikely to fix controversies on land-use due to the inherent ambiguity of marginal land. Instead, we believe that deliberative science-policy relationships are needed.

Suggested Citation

  • Muscat, A. & de Olde, E.M. & Candel, J.J.L. & de Boer, I.J.M. & Ripoll-Bosch, R., 2022. "The Promised Land: Contrasting frames of marginal land in the European Union," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:112:y:2022:i:c:s0264837721005834
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105860
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837721005834
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105860?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. de Olde, Evelien M. & Valentinov, Vladislav, 2019. "The moral complexity of agriculture: A challenge for corporate social responsibility," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 32(3), pages 413-430.
    2. Govinda R. Timilsina & John C. Beghin & Dominique van der Mensbrugghe & Simon Mevel, 2012. "The impacts of biofuels targets on land‐use change and food supply: A global CGE assessment," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 43(3), pages 315-332, May.
    3. Bryngelsson, David K. & Lindgren, Kristian, 2013. "Why large-scale bioenergy production on marginal land is unfeasible: A conceptual partial equilibrium analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 454-466.
    4. Candel, Jeroen J.L. & Breeman, Gerard E. & Stiller, Sabina J. & Termeer, Catrien J.A.M., 2014. "Disentangling the consensus frame of food security: The case of the EU Common Agricultural Policy reform debate," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 47-58.
    5. Andy Stirling, 2010. "Keep it complex," Nature, Nature, vol. 468(7327), pages 1029-1031, December.
    6. De Schutter, Olivier & Jacobs, Nick & Clément, Chantal, 2020. "A ‘Common Food Policy’ for Europe: How governance reforms can spark a shift to healthy diets and sustainable food systems," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    7. Sarah Pilgrim & Mark Harvey, 2010. "Battles over Biofuels in Europe: NGOs and the Politics of Markets," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 15(3), pages 45-60, August.
    8. Benjamin Saunders & Julius Sim & Tom Kingstone & Shula Baker & Jackie Waterfield & Bernadette Bartlam & Heather Burroughs & Clare Jinks, 2018. "Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(4), pages 1893-1907, July.
    9. Brett A. Bryan & Rebecca K. Runting & Tim Capon & Michael P. Perring & Shaun C. Cunningham & Marit E. Kragt & Martin Nolan & Elizabeth A. Law & Anna R. Renwick & Sue Eber & Rochelle Christian & Kerrie, 2016. "Designer policy for carbon and biodiversity co-benefits under global change," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 6(3), pages 301-305, March.
    10. Arkaitz Usubiaga-Liaño & Georgina M. Mace & Paul Ekins, 2019. "Limits to agricultural land for retaining acceptable levels of local biodiversity," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 2(6), pages 491-498, June.
    11. Nicola Isendahl & Art Dewulf & Marcela Brugnach & Greet François & Sabine Möllenkamp & Claudia Pahl-Wostl, 2009. "Assessing Framing of Uncertainties in Water Management Practice," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 23(15), pages 3191-3205, December.
    12. Shortall, O.K., 2013. "“Marginal land” for energy crops: Exploring definitions and embedded assumptions," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 19-27.
    13. Helliwell, Richard, 2018. "Where did the marginal land go? Farmers perspectives on marginal land and its implications for adoption of dedicated energy crops," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 166-172.
    14. Andreas Klinke & Ortwin Renn, 2002. "A New Approach to Risk Evaluation and Management: Risk‐Based, Precaution‐Based, and Discourse‐Based Strategies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(6), pages 1071-1094, December.
    15. Adam Hannah & Erik Baekkeskov, 2020. "The promises and pitfalls of polysemic ideas: ‘One Health’ and antimicrobial resistance policy in Australia and the UK," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 437-452, September.
    16. Grace Skogstad & Matt Wilder, 2019. "Strangers at the gate: the role of multidimensional ideas, policy anomalies and institutional gatekeepers in biofuel policy developments in the USA and European Union," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(3), pages 343-366, September.
    17. Kajsa Emilsson & Håkan Johansson & Magnus Wennerhag, 2020. "Frame Disputes or Frame Consensus? “Environment” or “Welfare” First Amongst Climate Strike Protesters," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-20, January.
    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. Csikós, Nándor & Tóth, Gergely, 2023. "Concepts of agricultural marginal lands and their utilisation: A review," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 204(C).

    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. Mellor, P. & Lord, R.A. & João, E. & Thomas, R. & Hursthouse, A., 2021. "Identifying non-agricultural marginal lands as a route to sustainable bioenergy provision - A review and holistic definition," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    2. Yakubu Abdul-Salam & Melf-Hinrich Ehlers & Jelte Harnmeijer, 2017. "Anaerobic Digestion of Feedstock Grown on Marginal Land: Break-Even Electricity Prices," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(9), pages 1-21, September.
    3. Marek Helis & Maria Strzelczyk & Wojciech Golimowski & Aleksandra Steinhoff-Wrześniewska & Anna Paszkiewicz-Jasińska & Małgorzata Hawrot-Paw & Adam Koniuszy & Marek Hryniewicz, 2021. "Biomass Potential of the Marginal Land of the Polish Sudetes Mountain Range," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-16, November.
    4. Weng, Yuwei & Chang, Shiyan & Cai, Wenjia & Wang, Can, 2019. "Exploring the impacts of biofuel expansion on land use change and food security based on a land explicit CGE model: A case study of China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 236(C), pages 514-525.
    5. Niblick, Briana & Landis, Amy E., 2016. "Assessing renewable energy potential on United States marginal and contaminated sites," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 489-497.
    6. De Laporte, Aaron V. & Ripplinger, David G., 2019. "The effects of site selection, opportunity costs and transportation costs on bioethanol production," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 73-82.
    7. Yan, Dan & Liu, Litao & Li, Jinkai & Wu, Jiaqian & Qin, Wei & Werners, Saskia E., 2021. "Are the planning targets of liquid biofuel development achievable in China under climate change?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 186(C).
    8. Jennifer Tartaglia & Michelle McIntosh & Jonine Jancey & Jane Scott & Andrea Begley, 2021. "Exploring Feeding Practices and Food Literacy in Parents with Young Children from Disadvantaged Areas," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-18, February.
    9. Kaveh Madani & Laura Read & Laleh Shalikarian, 2014. "Voting Under Uncertainty: A Stochastic Framework for Analyzing Group Decision Making Problems," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(7), pages 1839-1856, May.
    10. Rivera-Ferre, Marta G. & Ortega-Cerda, Miquel, 2011. "Assessment of the Agri-food System for Sustainability: Recognizing Ignorance," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 115965, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. James Thurlow & Giacomo Branca & Erika Felix & Irini Maltsoglou & Luis E. Rincón, 2016. "Producing Biofuels in Low-Income Countries: An Integrated Environmental and Economic Assessment for Tanzania," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 64(2), pages 153-171, June.
    12. Şahika Simsek-Cetinkaya & Simge Evrenol Ocal, 2023. "“Psychological Injuries Are Not Visible†: Experiences and Perceptions of Midwives and Nurses about Domestic Violence during Pregnancy," Clinical Nursing Research, , vol. 32(8), pages 1115-1123, November.
    13. Haile, M.G. & Kalkuhl, M., 2014. "Volatility in the international food markets: implications for global agricultural supply and for market and price policy," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49, March.
    14. Çağatay, Selim & Taşdoğan, Celal & Özeş, Reyhan, 2017. "Analysing the impact of targeted bio-ethanol blending ratio in Turkey," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 6(2), September.
    15. Kym Anderson & Anna Strutt, 2014. "Emerging economies, productivity growth and trade with resource-rich economies by 2030," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 58(4), pages 590-606, October.
    16. Rafols, Ismael & Leydesdorff, Loet & O’Hare, Alice & Nightingale, Paul & Stirling, Andy, 2012. "How journal rankings can suppress interdisciplinary research: A comparison between Innovation Studies and Business & Management," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(7), pages 1262-1282.
    17. Silvia Scaramuzzi & Sara Gabellini & Giovanni Belletti & Andrea Marescotti, 2021. "Agrobiodiversity-Oriented Food Systems between Public Policies and Private Action: A Socio-Ecological Model for Sustainable Territorial Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(21), pages 1-32, November.
    18. Jonathan Breckon, 2022. "Communicating and using systematic reviews—Learning from other disciplines," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(4), December.
    19. Tongyu Meng & Jamie Newth & Christine Woods, 2022. "Ethical Sensemaking in Impact Investing: Reasons and Motives in the Chinese Renewable Energy Sector," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 179(4), pages 1091-1117, September.
    20. Adu-Gyamfi Poku & Regina Birner & Saurabh Gupta, 2018. "Making Contract Farming Arrangements Work in Africa’s Bioeconomy: Evidence from Cassava Outgrower Schemes in Ghana," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, May.

    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:lauspo:v:112:y:2022:i:c:s0264837721005834. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.