IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/kucawp/187605.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Revisiting production and ecosystem services for evaluating land use alternatives in a rural landscape

Author

Listed:
  • Lerouge, Frederik
  • Sannen, Kurt
  • Gulinck, Hubert
  • Vranken, Liesbet

Abstract

Land is a scarce resource and should be used in such a way that the increasing global demand for food and feed can be fulfilled, ensuring sufficient levels of ecosystem services. While the demand on open space to deliver a multitude of services is increasing, drivers like global change and urbanization are undermining these services. Decision makers and other stakeholders are in need of appropriate diagnostic tools to estimate trade-offs and synergies associated with land allocation and land use intensity decisions. This often implies trade-offs between food and biomass production and other non-provisioning ecosystem services. This paper presents an analytical framework to evaluate land use strategies. An integrated approach that combines spatial and economic analyses and that relies on the ecosystem services concept is used to evaluate land use in a rural area under urban pressure. A preliminary application of this framework to a case study area demonstrates the relevance of this approach, and highlights current challenges. The results suggest that the optimal land use scenario in consideration of ecosystem services depends on the biophysical and spatial context as well as on the socio-economic context.

Suggested Citation

  • Lerouge, Frederik & Sannen, Kurt & Gulinck, Hubert & Vranken, Liesbet, 2014. "Revisiting production and ecosystem services for evaluating land use alternatives in a rural landscape," Working Papers 187605, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:kucawp:187605
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.187605
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/187605/files/BioeconWP_2014_8_updated.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.187605?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Vanloqueren, Gaëtan & Baret, Philippe V., 2009. "How agricultural research systems shape a technological regime that develops genetic engineering but locks out agroecological innovations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 971-983, July.
    2. Vanloqueren, Gaëtan & Baret, Philippe V., 2008. "Why are ecological, low-input, multi-resistant wheat cultivars slow to develop commercially? A Belgian agricultural 'lock-in' case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(2-3), pages 436-446, June.
    3. Wainger, Lisa A. & King, Dennis M. & Mack, Richard N. & Price, Elizabeth W. & Maslin, Thomas, 2010. "Can the concept of ecosystem services be practically applied to improve natural resource management decisions?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(5), pages 978-987, March.
    4. Dale, Virginia H. & Polasky, Stephen, 2007. "Measures of the effects of agricultural practices on ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 286-296, December.
    5. David Kleijn & Frank Berendse & Ruben Smit & Niels Gilissen, 2001. "Agri-environment schemes do not effectively protect biodiversity in Dutch agricultural landscapes," Nature, Nature, vol. 413(6857), pages 723-725, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.
    2. Jacquet, Florence & Butault, Jean-Pierre & Guichard, Laurence, 2011. "An economic analysis of the possibility of reducing pesticides in French field crops," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(9), pages 1638-1648, July.
    3. Magrini, Marie-Benoit & Anton, Marc & Cholez, Célia & Corre-Hellou, Guenaelle & Duc, Gérard & Jeuffroy, Marie-Hélène & Meynard, Jean-Marc & Pelzer, Elise & Voisin, Anne-Sophie & Walrand, Stéphane, 2016. "Why are grain-legumes rarely present in cropping systems despite their environmental and nutritional benefits? Analyzing lock-in in the French agrifood system," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 152-162.
    4. Dörschner, T. & Musshoff, O., 2015. "How do incentive-based environmental policies affect environment protection initiatives of farmers? An experimental economic analysis using the example of species richness," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 90-103.
    5. Katharine Legun & Marion Sautier, 2018. "Sustainability programs and deliberative processes: assembling sustainable winegrowing in New Zealand," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 35(4), pages 837-852, December.
    6. Desquilbet, Marion & Dorin, Bruno & Couvet, Denis, 2013. "Land sharing vs. land sparing for biodiversity: How agricultural markets make the difference," TSE Working Papers 13-435, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE), revised Oct 2015.
    7. Marion Desquilbet & Bruno Dorin & Denis Couvet, 2016. "Land Sharing vs Land Sparing to Conserve Biodiversity: How Agricultural Markets Make the Difference [land-sharing/land-sparing, comment les marchés font la différence]," Post-Print hal-03948463, HAL.
    8. Edwin Nuijten & Monika M. Messmer & Edith T. Lammerts van Bueren, 2016. "Concepts and Strategies of Organic Plant Breeding in Light of Novel Breeding Techniques," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-19, December.
    9. Véronique De Herde & Kevin Maréchal & Philippe V. Baret, 2019. "Lock-ins and Agency: Towards an Embedded Approach of Individual Pathways in the Walloon Dairy Sector," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(16), pages 1-19, August.
    10. Angela Münch, 2010. "Agri-Environmental Schemes and Grassland Biodiversity: Another Side of the Coin," Jena Economics Research Papers 2010-026, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    11. Dedeurwaerdere, Tom & Hannachi, Mourad, 2019. "Socio-economic drivers of coexistence of landraces and modern crop varieties in agro-biodiversity rich Yunnan rice fields," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 177-188.
    12. Bareille, François & Dupraz, Pierre, 2016. "Biodiversity productive effects in milk farms of western France: a multi-output primal system," 149th Seminar, October 27-28, 2016, Rennes, France 244774, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Vermunt, D.A. & Wojtynia, N. & Hekkert, M.P. & Van Dijk, J. & Verburg, R. & Verweij, P.A. & Wassen, M. & Runhaar, H., 2022. "Five mechanisms blocking the transition towards ‘nature-inclusive’ agriculture: A systemic analysis of Dutch dairy farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 195(C).
    14. Brausmann, Alexandra & Bretschger, Lucas, 2018. "Economic development on a finite planet with stochastic soil degradation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 1-19.
    15. Shambu Prasad Chebrolu & Deborah Dutta, 2021. "Managing Sustainable Transitions: Institutional Innovations from India," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-16, May.
    16. Albaladejo, Christophe, 2020. "The impossible and necessary coexistence of agricultural development models in the Pampas: the case of Santa Fe province (Argentina)," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 101(2-3), March.
    17. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    18. Pigford, Ashlee-Ann E. & Hickey, Gordon M. & Klerkx, Laurens, 2018. "Beyond agricultural innovation systems? Exploring an agricultural innovation ecosystems approach for niche design and development in sustainability transitions," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 116-121.
    19. Qingqing Yang & Yanhui Gao & Xinjun Yang & Jian Zhang, 2022. "Rural Transformation Driven by Households’ Adaptation to Climate, Policy, Market, and Urbanization: Perspectives from Livelihoods–Land Use on Chinese Loess Plateau," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-23, July.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Community/Rural/Urban Development; Environmental Economics and Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:ags:kucawp:187605. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/alkulbe.html .

    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.