IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v176y2019ics0308521x19301702.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Landscape-scale simulations as a tool in multi-criteria decision making to support agri-environment schemes

Author

Listed:
  • Topping, Christopher J.
  • Dalby, Lars
  • Valdez, Jose W.

Abstract

Increasing concerns over the environmental impacts of agriculture in Europe has led to the introduction of agri-environment schemes (AES) into the Common Agricultural Policy to help mitigate biodiversity loss by encouraging farmers with subsidies for implementing environmentally-friendly farming techniques. However, effectiveness of AES has been mixed and only partially successful in achieving desired outcomes. To improve effectiveness and reduce costs, multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) can help support decision-making and determine the most effective management action. Although MCDA has great potential for evaluating policy measures, it rarely considers the context-dependency of species responses to management practices across different landscapes. Landscape simulations can, therefore, be valuable for reducing the uncertainties when predicting the consequences of management actions. A potential suitable simulation system is the Animal, Landscape, and Man Simulation System (ALMaSS), a mechanistic simulation with can improve MCDA with the automatic integration of landscape context and a species ecology and behaviour. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the effectiveness of ALMaSS in evaluating AES management practices across different landscapes and estimate their ability to achieve the proposed conservation outcomes in three species of conservation interest. In this study, the effect of a particular management strategy on a species was dependent on the landscape context, in our case, a combination of landscape structure and the type and distribution of farms, and varied depending on the metrics being measured. We demonstrate how simulations can be used for MCDA to select between management strategies with different costs. Despite the complexity of ALMaSS models, the simulation results provided are easy to interpret. Landscape simulations, such as ALMaSS, can be an important tool in multi-criteria decision making by simulating a wide range of managements and contexts and provide supporting information for filtering management options based on specific conservation goals.

Suggested Citation

  • Topping, Christopher J. & Dalby, Lars & Valdez, Jose W., 2019. "Landscape-scale simulations as a tool in multi-criteria decision making to support agri-environment schemes," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:176:y:2019:i:c:s0308521x19301702
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102671
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X19301702
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.102671?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. Hailu, Yohannes G. & Brown, Cheryl, 2007. "Regional Growth Impacts on Agricultural Land Development: A Spatial Model for Three States," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(1), pages 149-163, April.
    2. J. A. Finn & F. Bartolini & D. Bourke & I. Kurz & D. Viaggi, 2009. "Ex post environmental evaluation of agri-environment schemes using experts' judgements and multicriteria analysis," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 717-737.
    3. Hailu, Yohannes G. & Brown, Cheryl, 2007. "Regional Growth Impacts on Agricultural Land Development: A Spatial Model for Three States," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 36(1), pages 1-15, April.
    4. Topping, Chris J. & Høye, Toke T. & Olesen, Carsten Riis, 2010. "Opening the black box—Development, testing and documentation of a mechanistically rich agent-based model," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 221(2), pages 245-255.
    5. J. R. Park & M. J. Stabler & S. R. Mortimer & P. J. Jones & D. J. Ansell & G. P. D. Parker, 2004. "The use of a multiple criteria decision analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of landscape and habitat enhancement mechanisms: An example from the South Downs," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(5), pages 773-793.
    6. Sturm, Astrid & Drechsler, Martin & Johst, Karin & Mewes, Melanie & Wätzold, Frank, 2018. "DSS-Ecopay – A decision support software for designing ecologically effective and cost-effective agri-environment schemes to conserve endangered grassland biodiversity," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 113-116.
    7. 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)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Devkota, Mina & Devkota, Krishna Prasad & Kumar, Shiv, 2022. "Conservation agriculture improves agronomic, economic, and soil fertility indicators for a clay soil in a rainfed Mediterranean climate in Morocco," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    2. Peng Tian & Luodan Cao & Jialin Li & Ruiliang Pu & Hongbo Gong & Changda Li, 2020. "Landscape Characteristics and Ecological Risk Assessment Based on Multi-Scenario Simulations: A Case Study of Yancheng Coastal Wetland, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-20, December.
    3. Irina Pilvere & Aleksejs Nipers & Agnese Krievina & Ilze Upite & Daniels Kotovs, 2022. "LASAM Model: An Important Tool in the Decision Support System for Policymakers and Farmers," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-26, May.

    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. Ar. R. T. Hidayat & Corinthias P. M. Sianipar & Shizuka Hashimoto & Satoshi Hoshino & Muhammad Dimyati & Ahmad E. Yustika, 2023. "Personal Cognition and Implicit Constructs Affecting Preferential Decisions on Farmland Ownership: Multiple Case Studies in Kediri, East Java, Indonesia," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, September.
    2. Bartkowski, Bartosz & Droste, Nils & Ließ, Mareike & Sidemo-Holm, William & Weller, Ulrich & Brady, Mark V., 2021. "Payments by modelled results: A novel design for agri-environmental schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    3. Xiangping Liu & Lori Lynch, 2011. "Do Agricultural Land Preservation Programs Reduce Farmland Loss? Evidence from a Propensity Score Matching Estimator," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(2), pages 183-201.
    4. Signorotti, Claudio & Marconi, Valentina & Raggi, Meri & Viaggi, Davide, 2013. "How Do Agri-Environmental Schemes (AES’s) Contribute to High Nature Value (HNV) Farmland: A Case Study in Emilia Romagna," 2013 Second Congress, June 6-7, 2013, Parma, Italy 149762, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    5. Siyi Feng & Myles Patton, 2017. "Empirical analysis of differential spillover effects within a growth equilibrium framework: Urban–rural versus rural–rural linkages," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 96(4), pages 743-758, November.
    6. Targetti, Stefano & Viaggi, Davide & Cuming, David, 2011. "A comparative cost-effectiveness analysis of biodiversity indicators in grassland farming systems," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 116077, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Targetti, Stefano & Viaggi, Davide & Cuming, David & Sarthou, J.P. & Choisis, J.P., "undated". "Assessing the costs of measuring biodiversity: methodological and empirical issues," 120th Seminar, September 2-4, 2010, Chania, Crete 109414, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Barraquand, F. & Martinet, V., 2011. "Biological conservation in dynamic agricultural landscapes: Effectiveness of public policies and trade-offs with agricultural production," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(5), pages 910-920, March.
    9. Anja Schmitz & Johannes Isselstein, 2020. "Effect of Grazing System on Grassland Plant Species Richness and Vegetation Characteristics: Comparing Horse and Cattle Grazing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-17, April.
    10. Rovai, Massimo & Bartolini, Fabio & Brunori, Gianluca & Fastelli, Laura, 2014. "Exploring the provision of ecosystem services through rural landscape management: a development of conceptual framework," 2014 Third Congress, June 25-27, 2014, Alghero, Italy 174943, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    11. Fabio Blanco-Mesa & Anna M. Gil-Lafuente & José M. Merigó, 2018. "Subjective stakeholder dynamics relationships treatment: a methodological approach using fuzzy decision-making," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 441-472, December.
    12. Sturm, Astrid & Schöttker, Oliver & Kadir, Karmand & Wätzold, Frank, 2024. "SMIBe – Konzept eines softwarebasiertes Mehrebenen-Informationssystem für Behörden zur digitalen Erfassung und Evaluierung von beweidungsbezogenen AUKM ["SMIBe – Concept of a software-based mu," MPRA Paper 119741, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Vermaat, Jan E. & Eppink, Florian & van den Bergh, Jeroen C.J.M. & Barendregt, Aat & van Belle, Jasper, 2005. "Aggregation and the matching of scales in spatial economics and landscape ecology: empirical evidence and prospects for integration," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 229-237, January.
    14. Meijerink, Gerdien W., 2007. "If services aren't delivered, people won't pay: the role of measurement problems and monitoring in Payments for Environmental Services," 106th Seminar, October 25-27, 2007, Montpellier, France 7948, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Gerling, Charlotte & Drechsler, Martin & Keuler, Klaus & Sturm, Astrid & Wätzold, Frank, 2022. "Time to consider the timing of conservation measures: designing cost-effective agri-environment schemes under climate change," MPRA Paper 113877, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Wamelink, G.W.W. & de Jong, J.J. & Van Dobben, H.F. & Van Wijk, M.N., 2005. "Additional costs of nature management caused by deposition," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(4), pages 437-451, March.
    19. Mack, Gabriele & Ritzel, Christian & Jan, Pierrick, 2020. "Determinants for the Implementation of Action-, Result- and Multi-Actor-Oriented Agri-Environment Schemes in Switzerland," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    20. Martinet, Vincent, 2014. "The economics of the Food versus Biodiversity debate," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182800, European Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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:176:y:2019:i:c:s0308521x19301702. 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.