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. 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.
    2. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Augeraud-Véron, Emmanuelle & Fabbri, Giorgio & Schubert, Katheline, 2021. "Volatility-reducing biodiversity conservation under strategic interactions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    8. Ramos, Alya & Jujnovsky, Julieta & Almeida-Leñero, Lucía, 2018. "The relevance of stakeholders’ perceptions of ecosystem services in a rural-urban watershed in Mexico City," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 85-95.
    9. Blanco, Julien & Sourdril, Anne & Deconchat, Marc & Barnaud, Cécile & San Cristobal, Magali & Andrieu, Emilie, 2020. "How farmers feel about trees: Perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices associated with rural forests in southwestern France," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    10. Neyret, M. & Fischer, M. & Allan, E. & Hölzel, N. & Klaus, V.H. & Kleinebecker, T. & Krauss, J. & Le Provost, G. & Peter, S. & Schenk, N. & Simons, N.K. & van der Plas, F. & Binkenstein, J. & Börsch, 2021. "Assessing the impact of grassland management on landscape multifunctionality," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    11. Junyu Qi & Sheng Li & Qiang Li & Zisheng Xing & Charles P.-A. Bourque & Fan-Rui Meng, 2016. "Assessing an Enhanced Version of SWAT on Water Quantity and Quality Simulation in Regions with Seasonal Snow Cover," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 30(14), pages 5021-5037, November.
    12. Zhang, Da & Huang, Qingxu & He, Chunyang & Wu, Jianguo, 2017. "Impacts of urban expansion on ecosystem services in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei urban agglomeration, China: A scenario analysis based on the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 115-130.
    13. Ricci, Giovanni Francesco & D’Ambrosio, Ersilia & De Girolamo, Anna Maria & Gentile, Francesco, 2022. "Efficiency and feasibility of Best Management Practices to reduce nutrient loads in an agricultural river basin," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).
    14. Schneider, Julia M. & Zabel, Florian & Schünemann, Franziska & Delzeit, Ruth & Mauser, Wolfram, 2022. "Global cropland could be almost halved: Assessment of land saving potentials under different strategies and implications for agricultural markets," Open Access Publications from Kiel Institute for the World Economy 253265, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    15. De Girolamo, Anna Maria & Barca, Emanuele & Pappagallo, Giuseppe & Lo Porto, Antonio, 2017. "Simulating ecologically relevant hydrological indicators in a temporary river system," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 180(PB), pages 194-204.
    16. Cisneros, J.M. & Grau, J.B. & Antón, J.M. & de Prada, J.D. & Cantero, A. & Degioanni, A.J., 2011. "Assessing multi-criteria approaches with environmental, economic and social attributes, weights and procedures: A case study in the Pampas, Argentina," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 98(10), pages 1545-1556, August.
    17. 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.
    18. Gasselin, Pierre & Lardon, Sylvie & Cerdan, Claire & Loudiyi, Salma & Sautier, Denis, 2020. "The coexistence of agricultural and food models at the territorial scale: an analytical framework for a research agenda," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 101(2-3), July.
    19. Pignalosa, Antonio & Silvestri, Nicola & Pugliese, Francesco & Corniello, Alfonso & Gerundo, Carlo & Del Seppia, Nicola & Lucchesi, Massimo & Coscini, Nicola & De Paola, Francesco & Giugni, Maurizio, 2022. "Long-term simulations of Nature-Based Solutions effects on runoff and soil losses in a flat agricultural area within the catchment of Lake Massaciuccoli (Central Italy)," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 273(C).
    20. George HALKOS & Georgia GALANI, 2014. "Cost Effectiveness Analysis in Reducing Nutrient Loading in Baltic and Black Seas A Review," Journal of Advanced Research in Management, ASERS Publishing, vol. 5(1), pages 28-51.

    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.