IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i11p3844-d177811.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Model-Based Evaluation of Land Management Strategies with Regard to Multiple Ecosystem Services

Author

Listed:
  • Nina Zarrineh

    (Agroscope, Agroecology and Environment Division, Reckenholzstrasse 191, CH-8046 Zürich, Switzerland
    Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Hochschulstrasse 4, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland)

  • Karim C. Abbaspour

    (Eawag, Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology, P.O. Box 611, CH-8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland)

  • Ann Van Griensven

    (Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Department of Hydrology and Hydraulic Engineering, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium
    IHE-Delft Institute for Water Education, Department of IWSG, 2601 DA Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Bernard Jeangros

    (Agroscope, Plant Production Systems, CH-1260 Nyon, Switzerland)

  • Annelie Holzkämper

    (Agroscope, Agroecology and Environment Division, Reckenholzstrasse 191, CH-8046 Zürich, Switzerland
    Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Hochschulstrasse 4, CH-3012 Bern, Switzerland)

Abstract

In agroecosystem management, conflicts between various services such as food provision and nutrient regulation are common. This study examined the trade-offs between selected ecosystem services such as food provision, water quantity and quality, erosion and climate regulations in an agricultural catchment in Western Switzerland. The aim was to explore the existing land use conflicts by a shift in land use and management strategy following two stakeholder-defined scenarios based on either land sparing or land sharing concepts. The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) was used to build an agro-hydrologic model of the region, which was calibrated and validated based on daily river discharge, monthly nitrate and annual crop yield, considering uncertainties associated with land management set up and model parameterization. The results show that land sparing scenario has the highest agricultural benefit, while also the highest nitrate concentration and GHG emissions. The land sharing scenario improves water quality and climate regulation services and reduces food provision. The management changes considered in the two land use scenarios did not seem to reduce the conflict but only led to a shift in trade-offs. Water quantity and erosion regulation remain unaffected by the two scenarios.

Suggested Citation

  • Nina Zarrineh & Karim C. Abbaspour & Ann Van Griensven & Bernard Jeangros & Annelie Holzkämper, 2018. "Model-Based Evaluation of Land Management Strategies with Regard to Multiple Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-21, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:11:p:3844-:d:177811
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/11/3844/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/11/3844/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ullrich, Antje & Volk, Martin, 2009. "Application of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to predict the impact of alternative management practices on water quality and quantity," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(8), pages 1207-1217, August.
    2. Fischer, Joern & Abson, David J. & Butsic, Van & Chappell, M. Jahi & Ekroos, Johan & Hanspach, Jan & Kuemmerle, Tobias & Smith, Henrik G. & von Wehrden, Henrik, 2014. "Land sparing versus land sharing: Moving forward," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 7(3), pages 149-157.
    3. Logsdon, Rebecca A. & Chaubey, Indrajeet, 2013. "A quantitative approach to evaluating ecosystem services," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 257(C), pages 57-65.
    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. Baral, Nawa Raj & Mishra, Shruti K. & George, Anthe & Gautam, Sagar & Mishra, Umakant & Scown, Corinne D., 2022. "Multifunctional landscapes for dedicated bioenergy crops lead to low-carbon market-competitive biofuels," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 169(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. Benjamin T. Phalan, 2018. "What Have We Learned from the Land Sparing-sharing Model?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-24, May.
    2. André Eduardo Biscaia Lacerda & Ana Lúcia Hanisch & Evelyn Roberta Nimmo, 2020. "Leveraging Traditional Agroforestry Practices to Support Sustainable and Agrobiodiverse Landscapes in Southern Brazil," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-19, June.
    3. Ryan S. Naylor & Carter A. Hunt, 2021. "Tourism and Livelihood Sovereignty: A Theoretical Introduction and Research Agenda for Arctic Contexts," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-11, August.
    4. Chervier, Colas & Le Velly, Gwenolé & Ezzine-de-Blas, Driss, 2019. "When the Implementation of Payments for Biodiversity Conservation Leads to Motivation Crowding-out: A Case Study From the Cardamoms Forests, Cambodia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 499-510.
    5. Loconto, Allison & Desquilbet, Marion & Moreau, Théo & Couvet, Denis & Dorin, Bruno, 2020. "The land sparing – land sharing controversy: Tracing the politics of knowledge," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    6. Jeong, Hanseok & Kim, Hakkwan & Jang, Taeil & Park, Seungwoo, 2016. "Assessing the effects of indirect wastewater reuse on paddy irrigation in the Osan River watershed in Korea using the SWAT model," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 393-402.
    7. Marko Reljić & Marija Romić & Davor Romić & Gordon Gilja & Vedran Mornar & Gabrijel Ondrasek & Marina Bubalo Kovačić & Monika Zovko, 2023. "Advanced Continuous Monitoring System—Tools for Water Resource Management and Decision Support System in Salt Affected Delta," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-19, February.
    8. Zhang, Dejian & Chen, Xingwei & Yao, Huaxia & Lin, Bingqing, 2015. "Improved calibration scheme of SWAT by separating wet and dry seasons," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 301(C), pages 54-61.
    9. Laura M. Norman & Miguel L. Villarreal & Rewati Niraula & Mark Haberstich & Natalie R. Wilson, 2019. "Modelling Development of Riparian Ranchlands Using Ecosystem Services at the Aravaipa Watershed, SE Arizona," Land, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-21, April.
    10. Emmanuelle Augeraud-Véron & Giorgio Fabbri & Katheline Schubert, 2019. "The Value of Biodiversity as an Insurance Device," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 101(4), pages 1068-1081.
    11. Nordén, Anna & Coria, Jessica & Jönsson, Anna Maria & Lagergren, Fredrik & Lehsten, Veiko, 2017. "Divergence in stakeholders' preferences: Evidence from a choice experiment on forest landscapes preferences in Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 179-195.
    12. Augeraud-Véron, Emmanuelle & Fabbri, Giorgio & Schubert, Katheline, 2021. "Volatility-reducing biodiversity conservation under strategic interactions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    13. Gao, Jie & Wang, Rusong & Huang, Jinlou & Liu, Min, 2015. "Application of BMP to urban runoff control using SUSTAIN model: Case study in an industrial area," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 318(C), pages 177-183.
    14. Davide Marino & Giampiero Mazzocchi & Davide Pellegrino & Veridiana Barucci, 2022. "Integrated Multi-Level Assessment of Ecosystem Services (ES): The Case of the Casal del Marmo Agricultural Park Area in Rome (Italy)," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-15, November.
    15. Jacqueline Loos & Henrik Von Wehrden, 2018. "Beyond Biodiversity Conservation: Land Sharing Constitutes Sustainable Agriculture in European Cultural Landscapes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-11, May.
    16. Staes, Jan & Broekx, Steven & Van Der Biest, Katrien & Vrebos, Dirk & Olivier, Beauchard & De Nocker, Leo & Liekens, Inge & Poelmans, Lien & Verheyen, Kris & Jeroen, Panis & Meire, Patrick, 2017. "Quantification of the potential impact of nature conservation on ecosystem services supply in the Flemish Region: A cascade modelling approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 124-137.
    17. Huilin Li & Zuomin Wen, 2023. "A Market-Based Payment Study for Forest Water Purification Service in Loess Plateau of Yellow River Basin, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(20), pages 1-16, October.
    18. Wang, Chunying & Jiang, Rui & Boithias, Laurie & Sauvage, Sabine & Sánchez-Pérez, José-Miguel & Mao, Xiaomin & Han, Yuping & Hayakawa, Atsushi & Kuramochi, Kanta & Hatano, Ryusuke, 2016. "Assessing potassium environmental losses from a dairy farming watershed with the modified SWAT model," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 91-104.
    19. Accatino, Francesco & Tonda, Alberto & Dross, Camille & Léger, François & Tichit, Muriel, 2019. "Trade-offs and synergies between livestock production and other ecosystem services," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 58-72.
    20. Miyuki Iiyama & Athanase Mukuralinda & Jean Damascene Ndayambaje & Bernard Musana & Alain Ndoli & Jeremias G. Mowo & Dennis Garrity & Stephen Ling & Vicky Ruganzu, 2018. "Tree-Based Ecosystem Approaches (TBEAs) as Multi-Functional Land Management Strategies—Evidence from Rwanda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-24, April.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:11:p:3844-:d:177811. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.