Cost-Benefit Analysis in Planning Processes: An Interactive Instrument in an Integrated Approach

Increasing pressure on space demands careful assessment between competing functions in a planning process. Especially, in metropolitan landscapes, space is in short supply and hence expensive. Housing, industrial sites and office parks, and infrastructure are strong drivers of landscape change, often dominating nature and landscape which represent values with a more collective good character. Nevertheless, in The Netherlands, nature is becoming an important force in spatial planning. This assessment between competing functions, requires interactive planning and appropriate instruments. In the usual planning process, the costs and benefits of the development plans to society are only computed in the final stage of the process. We argue in this paper for integration of a social cost-benefit analysis (SCBA) in interactive regional planning processes. Firstly, it avoids time and money being spent on elaborating a plan, which is not beneficial to society. Secondly, it helps to prevent unwarranted enthusiasm for inauspicious plans among participants. From earlier studies, we learned that in the application of SCBA the discussion between researchers, clients and other participants should focus on two or three clearly distinctive models. Too much detail should be avoided. On the other hand, key indicators used in calculating effects have to be available and well documented. The summation of the costs and benefits provides a first impression of the financial and social feasibility of the plan. In a first planning session, therefore, a common understanding of the mechanisms underlying the assessment of the plan will be built up. This improves the support for SCBA of the final project. It also provides the stakeholders and shareholders with information about the feasibility of the plan at an early stage. Another advantage is that SCBA focuses on the benefits to society as a whole. Recently, we have spent much effort in the development of an interactive tool that is both relevant and user friendly. Relevant means that it takes into account the essential values of different types of land use and their interaction. At the moment we focus on spatial interaction and incorporating ecological network values. A prototype of the interactive integrated model is available for demonstration.

Regionale anticipatie Mestbeleid op Kaderrichtlijn Water

This report looks into the extent to which regions are able to take anticipatory measures in implementing the Manure Policy in preparation for the Water Framework Directive, which will be implemented in 2009. Alongside a literature search, regional anticipation was investigated by means of interviews and a workshop. The general conclusion from the research is that regional anticipation is worth the effort of further elaboration. The parties involved have indicated both limitations and preferences, but no serious objections have been expressed. In dit rapport wordt onderzocht in hoeverre regio's met het uitvoeren van het Mestbeleid anticiperende maatregelen kunnen nemen om in te spelen op de Kaderrichtlijn Water, die in 2009 wordt ingevoerd. Naast literatuuronderzoek is op regionale anticipatie ingegaan in interviews en in een workshop. De algemene conclusie uit het onderzoek is dat regionale anticipatie de moeite van verdere uitwerking waard is. Door betrokken partijen zijn zowel beperkingen als voorkeuren aangegeven, maar er zijn geen blokkades uitgesproken.Environmental Economics and Policy, Livestock Production/Industries,

Linking models in land use simulation - Application of the Land Use Scanner to changes in agricultural area

When we model land use change, we utilize – consciously or unconsciously – other models as well. The variables we regard as exogenous are often generated endogenously by a different model. We are not always fully aware of the implications of this for our modelling exercises. The model which generated the demographic growth that we use in forecasting the need for residential space may have used assumptions that are at variance with ours. The model resulting in claims for agricultural land may have already taken competing claims into account – whereas our land use model may simulate this competition all over again. The data used for different models may not be compatible. Conversely, our land use simulation exercises can also be used by others as input. A model for the agricultural sector, for instance, must consider the constraint of available land – especially whether the land required is available in a particular area which is regarded as optimal for a particular production line. Land use models can provide that input. The Agricultural Economics Research Institute in The Hague, uses a number of models at various spatial levels – from the individual farm to the global economy – and for different purposes. Recently, the linkages between these models have received more attention, which also lays bare the compatibility problems between them. In order to examine both the possibilities and the problems inherent in these linkages, a research project on this ‘model train’ has been undertaken. Based on two opposing scenarios prepared by the Dutch Central Planning Bureau, the study calculates the long-term consequences of these scenarios: beginning with a general equilibrium model at global level (GTAP) through a sectoral model at national and regional scale - the Dutch Regionalized Agricultural Model (DRAM) – to a model assessing ecological effects in a local area (SOMMA). The Land Use Scanner, a land use information system and simulation model for the Netherlands, has been used to predict changes in the agricultural area for the regions used in DRAM. The land claims, which are an exogenous variable in the Land Use Scanner, were generated from projections of future population and GDP, on the basis of their historical correlation with land use. This project has led to interesting insights into the problems of linking models. It is hoped that these insights will help to improve the models we use – including land use models. The paper highlights the importance of making modelling assumptions explicit, such that the outcome of one model can indeed be a useful input into another one. The integrated modelling approach yields more consistent projections of land use.

Less Favoured Area Measure in the Netherlands: a welcome or negligible addition?

The Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) Directive (75/268) which was introduced in 1975, was the first common European instrument of regional agricultural structural policy. LFAs are areas where agriculture is hampered by permanent natural handicaps. The major objectives were to ensure the continuation of farming, thereby maintaining a minimum population level and preserving scenic landscapes and environmentally valuable habitats. In the Netherlands, the LFA measure is used as an additional payment, to compensate farmers for negative economic effects due to the conservation of these natural handicaps. It was not implemented as a stand alone policy, but is linked to measures aiming at active nature and landscape conservation management. In this paper, the effects will be examined of the regulations aiming at the conservation of natural handicaps on farm businesses within LFAs, when comparing them to farm businesses outside LFAs, where these regulations and handicaps do not exist. The main data source that was used is the Farm Accountancy Data Network. Reference groups of farms were compiled with the use of the simple and multiple imputation approach in Stars (Statistics for Regional Studies). Both analyses were tested with the use of a parametric and a nonparametric test. When comparing the results of both analyses, it can be concluded that there is no evidence that there is a statistical difference in family farm income corrected for and not corrected for LFA payment between the LFA farm businesses and the reference groups. Based on these findings it can be concluded that the size of the compensatory allowances is small and there is no evidence that it has a significant effect on the family farm income of LFA farm businesses. The main purpose of the Dutch LFA policy is to compensate farm businesses for negative economic effects due to the conservation of natural handicaps. Although this may be true for some individual farms, based on the methods used in this paper, it appears not to be the case for the collectivity of LFA premium beneficiaries as a whole.Less Favoured Areas, family farm income, regional development, Agricultural and Food Policy,

Future land-use change in the Netherlands: an analysis based on a chain of models

Analyses of the impact of European policies on agricultural change are most often based on agricultural sector models. Such models have their limitations: they cannot specify the interaction between agriculture and the rest of the economy, and their spatial dimension is usually limited. Land use simulation models, on the other hand, usually depend on other models for assessing the demand for land. The consistency of those models with the assumptions and databases of the land use model is often not examined. This article reports on a research project where the links between a macroeconomic model, an agricultural sector model and a land use model were explicitly explored in order to arrive at a consistent model chain. This integrated framework was put to the test by applying it to two contrasting scenarios, which compare impact on agricultural incomes, land use and land management.land use, CAP, agricultural policy analyses, Netherlands, Agricultural and Food Policy, Land Economics/Use,

Regionale anticipatie Mestbeleid op Kaderrichtlijn Water

This report looks into the extent to which regions are able to take anticipatory measures in implementing the Manure Policy in preparation for the Water Framework Directive, which will be implemented in 2009. Alongside a literature search, regional anticipation was investigated by means of interviews and a workshop. The general conclusion from the research is that regional anticipation is worth the effort of further elaboration. The parties involved have indicated both limitations and preferences, but no serious objections have been expressed. In dit rapport wordt onderzocht in hoeverre regio's met het uitvoeren van het Mestbeleid anticiperende maatregelen kunnen nemen om in te spelen op de Kaderrichtlijn Water, die in 2009 wordt ingevoerd. Naast literatuuronderzoek is op regionale anticipatie ingegaan in interviews en in een workshop. De algemene conclusie uit het onderzoek is dat regionale anticipatie de moeite van verdere uitwerking waard is. Door betrokken partijen zijn zowel beperkingen als voorkeuren aangegeven, maar er zijn geen blokkades uitgesproken

Less favoured area measure in the Netherlands: a welcome or negligible addition?

The Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) Directive (75/268) which was introduced in 1975, was the first common European instrument of regional agricultural structural policy. LFAs are areas where agriculture is hampered by permanent natural handicaps. The major objectives were to ensure the continuation of farming, thereby maintaining a minimum population level and preserving scenic landscapes and environmentally valuable habitats. In the Netherlands, the LFA measure is used as an additional payment, to compensate farmers for negative economic effects due to the conservation of these natural handicaps. It was not implemented as a stand alone policy, but is linked to measures aiming at active nature and landscape conservation management. In this paper, the effects will be examined of the regulations aiming at the conservation of natural handicaps on farm businesses within LFAs, when comparing them to farm businesses outside LFAs, where these regulations and handicaps do not exist. The main data source that was used is the Farm Accountancy Data Network. Reference groups of farms were compiled with the use of the simple and multiple imputation approach in Stars (Statistics for Regional Studies). Both analyses were tested with the use of a parametric and a nonparametric test. When comparing the results of both analyses, it can be concluded that there is no evidence that there is a statistical difference in family farm income corrected for and not corrected for LFA payment between the LFA farm businesses and the reference groups. Based on these findings it can be concluded that the size of the compensatory allowances is small and there is no evidence that it has a significant effect on the family farm income of LFA farm businesses. The main purpose of the Dutch LFA policy is to compensate farm businesses for negative economic effects due to the conservation of natural handicaps. Although this may be true for some individual farms, based on the methods used in this paper, it appears not to be the case for the collectivity of LFA premium beneficiaries as a whole

Less favoured area measure in the Netherlands: a welcome or negligible addition?

The Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) Directive (75/268) which was introduced in 1975, was the first common European instrument of regional agricultural structural policy. LFAs are areas where agriculture is hampered by permanent natural handicaps. The major objectives were to ensure the continuation of farming, thereby maintaining a minimum population level and preserving scenic landscapes and environmentally valuable habitats. In the Netherlands, the LFA measure is used as an additional payment, to compensate farmers for negative economic effects due to the conservation of these natural handicaps. It was not implemented as a stand alone policy, but is linked to measures aiming at active nature and landscape conservation management. In this paper, the effects will be examined of the regulations aiming at the conservation of natural handicaps on farm businesses within LFAs, when comparing them to farm businesses outside LFAs, where these regulations and handicaps do not exist. The main data source that was used is the Farm Accountancy Data Network. Reference groups of farms were compiled with the use of the simple and multiple imputation approach in Stars (Statistics for Regional Studies). Both analyses were tested with the use of a parametric and a nonparametric test. When comparing the results of both analyses, it can be concluded that there is no evidence that there is a statistical difference in family farm income corrected for and not corrected for LFA payment between the LFA farm businesses and the reference groups. Based on these findings it can be concluded that the size of the compensatory allowances is small and there is no evidence that it has a significant effect on the family farm income of LFA farm businesses. The main purpose of the Dutch LFA policy is to compensate farm businesses for negative economic effects due to the conservation of natural handicaps. Although this may be true for some individual farms, based on the methods used in this paper, it appears not to be the case for the collectivity of LFA premium beneficiaries as a whole

Less Favoured Area Measure in the Netherlands: a welcome or negligible addition?

The Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) Directive (75/268) which was introduced in 1975, was the first common European instrument of regional agricultural structural policy. LFAs are areas where agriculture is hampered by permanent natural handicaps. The major objectives were to ensure the continuation of farming, thereby maintaining a minimum population level and preserving scenic landscapes and environmentally valuable habitats. In the Netherlands, the LFA measure is used as an additional payment, to compensate farmers for negative economic effects due to the conservation of these natural handicaps. It was not implemented as a stand alone policy, but is linked to measures aiming at active nature and landscape conservation management. In this paper, the effects will be examined of the regulations aiming at the conservation of natural handicaps on farm businesses within LFAs, when comparing them to farm businesses outside LFAs, where these regulations and handicaps do not exist. The main data source that was used is the Farm Accountancy Data Network. Reference groups of farms were compiled with the use of the simple and multiple imputation approach in Stars (Statistics for Regional Studies). Both analyses were tested with the use of a parametric and a nonparametric test. When comparing the results of both analyses, it can be concluded that there is no evidence that there is a statistical difference in family farm income corrected for and not corrected for LFA payment between the LFA farm businesses and the reference groups. Based on these findings it can be concluded that the size of the compensatory allowances is small and there is no evidence that it has a significant effect on the family farm income of LFA farm businesses. The main purpose of the Dutch LFA policy is to compensate farm businesses for negative economic effects due to the conservation of natural handicaps. Although this may be true for some individual farms, based on the methods used in this paper, it appears not to be the case for the collectivity of LFA premium beneficiaries as a whole

Less favoured area measure in the Netherlands: a welcome or negligible addition?

The Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) Directive (75/268) which was introduced in 1975, was the first common European instrument of regional agricultural structural policy. LFAs are areas where agriculture is hampered by permanent natural handicaps. The major objectives were to ensure the continuation of farming, thereby maintaining a minimum population level and preserving scenic landscapes and environmentally valuable habitats. In the Netherlands, the LFA measure is used as an additional payment, to compensate farmers for negative economic effects due to the conservation of these natural handicaps. It was not implemented as a stand alone policy, but is linked to measures aiming at active nature and landscape conservation management. In this paper, the effects will be examined of the regulations aiming at the conservation of natural handicaps on farm businesses within LFAs, when comparing them to farm businesses outside LFAs, where these regulations and handicaps do not exist. The main data source that was used is the Farm Accountancy Data Network. Reference groups of farms were compiled with the use of the simple and multiple imputation approach in Stars (Statistics for Regional Studies). Both analyses were tested with the use of a parametric and a nonparametric test. When comparing the results of both analyses, it can be concluded that there is no evidence that there is a statistical difference in family farm income corrected for and not corrected for LFA payment between the LFA farm businesses and the reference groups. Based on these findings it can be concluded that the size of the compensatory allowances is small and there is no evidence that it has a significant effect on the family farm income of LFA farm businesses. The main purpose of the Dutch LFA policy is to compensate farm businesses for negative economic effects due to the conservation of natural handicaps. Although this may be true for some individual farms, based on the methods used in this paper, it appears not to be the case for the collectivity of LFA premium beneficiaries as a whole.Less Favoured Areas, family farm income, regional development, Agribusiness, Agricultural and Food Policy, Agricultural Finance, Community/Rural/Urban Development,