Developing stakeholder-driven scenarios on land sharing and land sparing – Insights from five European case studies

Empirical research on land sharing and land sparing has been criticized because preferences of local stakeholders, socio-economic aspects, a bundle of ecosystem services and the local context were only rarely integrated. Using storylines and scenarios is a common approach to include land use drivers and local contexts or to cope with the uncertainties of future developments. The objective of the presented research is to develop comparable participatory regional land use scenarios for the year 2030 reflecting land sharing, land sparing and more intermediate developments across five different European landscapes (Austria, Germany, Switzerland, The Netherlands and Spain). In order to ensure methodological consistency among the five case studies, a hierarchical multi-scale scenario approach was developed, which consisted of i) the selection of a common global storyline to frame a common sphere of uncertainty for all case studies, ii) the definition of three contrasting qualitative European storylines (representing developments for land sharing, land sparing and a balanced storyline), and iii) the development of three explorative case study-specific land use scenarios with regional stakeholders in workshops. Land use transition rules defined by stakeholders were used to generate three different spatially-explicit scenarios for each case study by means of high-resolution land use maps. All scenarios incorporated various aspects of land use and management to allow subsequent quantification of multiple ecosystem services and biodiversity indicators. The comparison of the final scenarios showed both common as well as diverging trends among the case studies. For instance, stakeholders identified further possibilities to intensify land management in all case studies in the land sparing scenario. In addition, in most case studies stakeholders agreed on the most preferred scenario, i.e. either land sharing or balanced, and the most likely one, i.e. balanced. However, they expressed some skepticism regarding the general plausibility of land sparing in a European context. It can be concluded that stakeholder perceptions and the local context can be integrated in land sharing and land sparing contexts subject to particular process design principles

Validity of willingness to pay measures under preference uncertainty

This paper is part of the project ACCEPT, which is funded by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research (grant number 01LA1112A). The publication of this article was funded by the Open Access fund of the Leibniz Association. All data is available on the project homepage (https://www.ifw-kiel.de/forschung/umwelt/projekte/accept) and from Figshare (https://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.3113050.v1).Recent studies in the marketing literature developed a new method for eliciting willingness to pay (WTP) with an open-ended elicitation format: the Range-WTP method. In contrast to the traditional approach of eliciting WTP as a single value (Point-WTP), Range-WTP explicitly allows for preference uncertainty in responses. The aim of this paper is to apply Range-WTP to the domain of contingent valuation and to test for its theoretical validity and robustness in comparison to the Point-WTP. Using data from two novel large-scale surveys on the perception of solar radiation management (SRM), a little-known technique for counteracting climate change, we compare the performance of both methods in the field. In addition to the theoretical validity (i.e. the degree to which WTP values are consistent with theoretical expectations), we analyse the test-retest reliability and stability of our results over time. Our evidence suggests that the Range-WTP method clearly outperforms the Point-WTP method.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Agri-environmental policy valuation: Farmers’ contract design preferences for afforestation schemes

Many regions in the EU aim to increase their forest cover in order to expand timber production, sequester C

Incentivizing afforestation agreements: Institutional-economic conditions and motivational drivers

The main objective of this study is to estimate and compare farmer demand for afforestation agreements in the Netherlands and Germany under different institutional-economic contract design conditions. Farmers' responsiveness to financial and non-financial incentives to convert part of their land into forest is examined in a discrete choice experiment. Besides landowner and contract characteristics, we test the role of motivational drivers in explaining farmers' willingness to conclude afforestation agreements. These are expected to lower demand for financial compensation. We fix financial compensation levels in contractual agreements relatively low compared to opportunity costs, but comparable to what farmers currently receive for nature conservation measures. Although we find substantial demand for afforestation agreements in both samples, Dutch and German farmers value contract conditions differently. This has important implications for the effectiveness of varying compensation levels on scheme participation rates. Farmers are willing to trade-off financial compensation against non-financial terms and conditions. However, having a positive environmental disposition towards wildlife conservation does not necessarily result in the acceptance of lower levels of financial compensation