Hotspots of land use change in Europe

Die Zweitveröffentlichung der Publikation wurde durch Studierende des Projektseminars "Open Access Publizieren an der HU" im Sommersemester 2017 betreut. Nachgenutzt gemäß den CC-Bestimmungen des Lizenzgebers bzw. einer im Dokument selbst enthaltenen CC-Lizenz.Assessing changes in the extent and management intensity of land use is crucial to understanding land-system dynamics and their environmental and social outcomes. Yet, changes in the spatial patterns of land management intensity, and thus how they might relate to changes in the extent of land uses, remains unclear for many world regions.Wecompiled and analyzed high-resolution, spatiallyexplicit land-use change indicators capturing changes in both the extent and management intensity of cropland, grazing land, forests, and urban areas for all of Europe for the period 1990–2006. Based on these indicators, we identified hotspots of change and explored the spatial concordance of area versus intensity changes.Wefound a clear East–West divide with regard to agriculture, with stronger cropland declines and lower management intensity in the East compared to the West. Yet, these patterns were not uniform and diverging patterns of intensification in areas highly suitable for farming, and disintensification and cropland contraction in more marginal areas emerged. Despite the moderate overall rates of change, many regions in Europe fell into at least one land-use change hotspot during 1990–2006, often related to a spatial reorganization of land use (i.e., co-occurring area decline and intensification or co-occurring area increase and disintensification). Our analyses highlighted the diverse spatial patterns and heterogeneity of land-use changes in Europe, and the importance of jointly considering changes in the extent and management intensity of land use, as well as feedbacks among land-use sectors. Given this spatial differentiation of land-use change, and thus its environmental impacts, spatially-explicit assessments of land-use dynamics are important for context-specific, regionalized land-use policy making.Peer Reviewe

Multifunctionality at what scale? A landscape multifunctionality assessment for the European Union under conditions of land use change

Context: The provision of multiple ecosystem services (ES) within a landscape is commonly referred to as landscape multifunctionality. Modifying landscapes to increase multifunctionality and reduce trade-offs with concurrent services bears the potential to enhance sustainability in human-dominated landscapes. Assessing landscape multifunctionality is thus crucial for land management and planning, but lack of a clear definition and operationalization of multifunctionality impedes comparisons of different study results. Objectives: We want to address how elements of the study design affect results of multifunctionality assessments. Furthermore, we want to quantify future multifunctionality in the European Union (EU) and indicate the role of land use change and land use diversity on multifunctionality. Methods: We analyzed diverging scenarios depicting land use change in the EU between 2000 and 2040 for their effects on landscape multifunctionality. We tested different multifunctionality indicators at various spatial scales based on the modelling of 12 ES and biodiversity indicators. Results: Particularly the analysis scale determines the interpretation of landscape multifunctionality. Coldspots identified by different indicators are in higher agreement than hotspots. We could not confirm links between land use diversity and landscape multifunctionality. While, at EU scale, multifunctionality slightly increases in future scenarios, agricultural intensification and (peri-)urban growth pose large threats to multifunctional landscapes. Conclusions: The choice of indicator and analysis scale strongly determine possible interpretations of the results. Rather than focusing on the impacts of land use change on multifunctionality, it is recommended to base land use policy on the impacts of location-specific change on ES supply and demands

Assessing the impact of changes in land-use intensity and climate on simulated trade-offs between crop yield and nitrogen leaching

In this study, a global vegetation model (LPJ-GUESS) is forced with spatial information (Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics (NUTS) 2 level) of land-use intensity change in the form of nitrogen (N) fertilization derived from a model chain which informed the Common Agricultural Policy Regionalized Impact (CAPRI) model. We analysed the combined role of climate change and land-use intensity change for trade-offs between agricultural yield and N leaching in the European Union under two plausible scenarios up until 2040. Furthermore, we assessed both driver importance and uncertainty in future trends based on an alternative land-use intensity dataset derived from an integrated assessment model. LPJ-GUESS simulated an increase in wheat and maize yield but also N leaching for most regions when driven by changes in land-use intensity and climate under RCP 8.5. Under RCP 4.5, N leaching is reduced in 53% of the regions while there is a trade-off in crop productivity. The most important factors influencing yield were CO2 (wheat) and climate (maize), but N application almost equaled these in importance. For N leaching, N application was the most important factor, followed by climate. Therefore, using a constant N application dataset in the absence of future projections has a substantial effect on simulated ecosystem responses, especially for maize yield and N leaching. This study is a first assessment of future N leaching and yield responses based on projections of climate and land-use intensity. It further highlights the importance of accounting for changes in future N applications and land-use intensity in general when evaluating environmental impacts over long time periods

Ecosystem service supply by European landscapes under alternative land-use and environmental policies

The European Union (EU) 2020 Biodiversity strategy aims at guaranteeing and enhancing the future supply of ecosystem services (‘ES’) in the member states. In an ex-ante assessment of plausible environmental policies, we projected the supply of 10 ES under 3 policy alternatives of land-use change (‘Nature Protection’, ‘Payment for carbon sequestration’ and ‘Payment for recreational services’) in the 27 EU member states (EU27). We assessed changes in supply of individual services across administrative units (at the NUTS-2 and EU27 levels) as well as bundles (at the EU27 level) between 2010 and 2040. Results show that the policy options only marginally affected ES bundles but several services could change substantially at the EU27 level (e.g. energy content from agricultural production and pollination). Wood supply, carbon sequestration and moderation of wind disturbance responded very differently across policy alternatives. At the NUTS-2 level, biocontrol of pests, carbon sequestration, moderation of wind disturbance and wood supply showed the most contrasted deviation from their regional supply in 2010. Finally, while payments for carbon sequestration benefited carbon sequestration as expected, specific payments for recreation services failed to promote them. Our analyses suggest that protecting nature appeared to be the best way of fostering ES supply within Europe.JRC.D.5-Food Securit

Ecosystem service supply by European landscapes under alternative land-use and environmental policies

The European Union (EU) 2020 Biodiversity strategy aims at guaranteeing and enhancing the future supply of ecosystem services (‘ES’) in the member states. In an ex-ante assessment of plausible environmental policies, we projected the supply of 10 ES under 3 policy alternatives of land-use change (‘Nature Protection’, ‘Payment for carbon sequestration’ and ‘Payment for recreational services’) in the 27 EU member states (EU27). We assessed changes in supply of individual services across administrative units (at the NUTS-2 and EU27 levels) as well as bundles (at the EU27 level) between 2010 and 2040. Results show that the policy options only marginally affected ES bundles but several services could change substantially at the EU27 level (e.g. energy content from agricultural production and pollination). Wood supply, carbon sequestration and moderation of wind disturbance responded very differently across policy alternatives. At the NUTS-2 level, biocontrol of pests, carbon sequestration, moderation of wind disturbance and wood supply showed the most contrasted deviation from their regional supply in 2010. Finally, while payments for carbon sequestration benefited carbon sequestration as expected, specific payments for recreation services failed to promote them. Our analyses suggest that protecting nature appeared to be the best way of fostering ES supply within Europe.EDITED BY Rob Alkemad

Archetypical patterns and trajectories of land systems in Europe

Assessments of land-system change have dominantly focused on conversions among broad land-use categories, whereas intensity changes within these categories have received less attention. Considering that both modes of land change typically result in diverse patterns and trajectories of land-system change, there is a need to develop approaches to reduce this complexity. Using Europe as a case study, we applied a clustering approach based on self-organising maps and 12 land-use indicators to map (1) land-system archetypes for the year 2006, defined as characteristic patterns of land-use extent and intensity, and (2) archetypical change trajectories, defined as characteristic changes in these indicators between 1990 and 2006. Our analysis identified 15 land-system archetypes, with low-intensity archetypes dominating (ca. 55 % coverage) followed by high-intensity archetypes (ca. 26 %). In terms of change, we identified 17 archetypical change trajectories, clustered in four broad categories. Stable land systems were most widespread (ca. 40 % of the EU27), followed by land systems characterised by land-use conversions (ca. 26 %), de-intensification trends (ca. 18 %), and intensification trends (ca. 15 %). Intensively used and intensifying land systems were particularly widespread in Western Europe, whereas low-intensity and de-intensifying land systems dominated in Europe’s east. Comparing our archetypes with environmental and socio-economic factors revealed that good accessibility and favourable topographic, climatic, and soil conditions characterised intensively managed areas. Intensification was also most common in these areas, suggesting an ongoing polarisation of intensification in favourable areas and de-intensification and abandonment trends in more marginal areas. By providing spatially and thematically improved maps of land-use patterns and changes therein, our archetypes could serve as useful inputs for more detailed assessments of ecosystem service demand and supply, as well as explorations of land-system change trade-offs, especially with regard to land-use intensity. Further, they could serve useful for identifying regions within which similar policy tools could be valuable to develop regionalised, context-specific land-management policies to steer European land systems onto desired pathways

Ecosystem service supply by European landscapes under alternative land-use and environmental policies

<p>The European Union (EU) 2020 Biodiversity strategy aims at guaranteeing and enhancing the future supply of ecosystem services (‘ES’) in the member states. In an <i>ex-ante</i> assessment of plausible environmental policies, we projected the supply of 10 ES under 3 policy alternatives of land-use change (‘Nature Protection’, ‘Payment for carbon sequestration’ and ‘Payment for recreational services’) in the 27 EU member states (EU27). We assessed changes in supply of individual services across administrative units (at the NUTS-2 and EU27 levels) as well as bundles (at the EU27 level) between 2010 and 2040. Results show that the policy options only marginally affected ES bundles but several services could change substantially at the EU27 level (e.g. energy content from agricultural production and pollination). Wood supply, carbon sequestration and moderation of wind disturbance responded very differently across policy alternatives. At the NUTS-2 level, biocontrol of pests, carbon sequestration, moderation of wind disturbance and wood supply showed the most contrasted deviation from their regional supply in 2010. Finally, while payments for carbon sequestration benefited carbon sequestration as expected, specific payments for recreation services failed to promote them. Our analyses suggest that protecting nature appeared to be the best way of fostering ES supply within Europe.</p><p><b>EDITED BY</b> Rob Alkemade</p><p></p> <p><b>EDITED BY</b> Rob Alkemade</p