indicators for multifunctional land use— linking socio...
TRANSCRIPT
Indicators for multifunctional land use—
Linking socio-economic requirements with
landscape potentials
Hubert Wiggering a,b,*, Claus Dalchow a, Michael Glemnitz a,Katharina Helming a, Klaus Muller a,c, Alfred Schultz d,
Ulrich Stachow a, Peter Zander a
a Leibniz-Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Eberswalder Str. 84, D-15384 Muncheberg, GermanybUniversity of Potsdam, Faculty of Mathematics and Sciences, Institute for Geoecology, PO Box 601553, D-14415 Potsdam, Germany
cHumboldt-Universitat zu Berlin, Faculty of Agriculture and Horticulture,
Institute for Agricultural Economics and Social Sciences, Luisenstr. 56, D-10099 Berlin, GermanydUniversity of Applied Science of Eberswalde, Faculty of Forestry, Alfred-Moller-Str. 1, D-16225 Eberswalde, Germany
Abstract
Indicators to assess sustainable land development often focus on either economic or ecologic aspects of landscape use. The
concept of multifunctional land use helps merging those two focuses by emphasising on the rule that economic action is per se
accompanied by ecological utility: commodity outputs (CO, e.g., yields) are paid for on the market, but non-commodity outputs
(NCO, e.g., landscape aesthetics) so far are public goods with no markets.
Agricultural production schemes often provided both outputs by joint production, but with technical progress under
prevailing economic pressure, joint production increasingly vanishes by decoupling of commodity from non-commodity
production.
Simultaneously, by public and political awareness of these shortcomings, there appears a societal need or even demand for
some non-commodity outputs of land use, which induces a market potential, and thus, shift towards the status of a commodity
outputs.
An approach is presented to merge both types of output by defining an indicator of social utility (SUMLU): production
schemes are considered with respect to social utility of both commodity and non-commodity outputs. Social utility in this sense
includes environmental and economic services as long as society expresses a demand for them. For each combination of
parameters at specific frame conditions (e.g., soil and climate properties of a landscape) a production possibility curve can reflect
trade-offs between commodity and non-commodity outputs. On each production possibility curve a welfare optimum can be
identified expressing the highest achievable value of social utility as a trade-off between CO and NCO production.
When applying more parameters, a cluster of welfare optimums is generated. Those clusters can be used for assessing
production schemes with respect to sustainable land development.
This article is also available online at:www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolind
Ecological Indicators 6 (2006) 238–249
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (H. Wiggering).
1470-160X/$ – see front matter # 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2005.08.014
H. Wiggering et al. / Ecological Indicators 6 (2006) 238–249 239
Examples of production possibility functions are given on easy applicable parameters (nitrogen leaching versus gross
margin) and on more complex ones (biotic integrity).
Social utility, thus allows to evaluate sustainability of land development in a cross-sectoral approach with respect to
multifunctionality.
# 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Indicator for sustainable land development; Multifunctional land use; Agricultural production schemes; Joint production;
Production possibility curve; Social utility
1. The notion of multifunctionality in the
context of sustainable land use
The term multifunctionality was coined by OECD
and EU in their theoretical considerations on
agricultural policy reforms. The recent developments
of the 2003 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)
reform are a response to a continuing wave of
fundamental changes in the driving forces that shape
European agriculture. The fundamental paradigm of
sustainable development of rural areas as well as a
better targeting of social, environmental and consumer
concerns has introduced a shift of policies from
production oriented (1st pillar) towards rural devel-
opment oriented (2nd pillar) targets. This shift was
accelerated through the international negotiations
within the World Trade Organisation (WTO) frame-
work resulting in the reduction of trade barriers and of
price- or production-based farming subsidies (COM,
2002).
The new perspective of CAP is characterised by
recognising the full range of economic, social, cultural
and environmental functions of agriculture. This
multifunctional perspective is an essential component
of the model of European agriculture (MEA) (COM,
2003), the new paradigm of European agricultural
policy. With the recognition of the multifunctional
role of agriculture, the complex interaction of the
production of agricultural commodities with the rural
economy, with rural communities and rural environ-
ments comes into sight. In addition to their economic
implications, agricultural production and rural land-
scapes are increasingly judged from these perspectives
that in part mirror the view of urban consumers and
urban citizens.
The analytical framework of the Organisation for
Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
presents a comprehensive theoretical basis, which
outlines the most important problems of multi-
functionality (OECD, 2001). In this context, the
concept of multifunctional agriculture is based on the
assumption, that every economic action fulfils several
functions besides its main function. The OECD
subsumes those functions to the term ‘‘non-commod-
ity outputs’’. On this basis, the OECD has developed a
draft definition of multifunctionality, which combines
the varying demands on land use. Key elements of
multifunctionality are (i) the existence of several
‘commodity (CO) and non-commodity (NCO) out-
puts’ being produced by, e.g., agriculture and (ii) the
fact, that some of those ‘non-commodity outputs’
show features of externalisations and public goods
with the result, that markets for these goods do not
exist or function unsatisfactorily (Boisvert, 2001a,b).
Within the EU, the concept of multifunctionality is
utilised to emphasise on the many services which
agriculture displays in addition to its prime purpose.
As a result, agriculture is less put into the context of
the production of food (commodity outputs), but
rather into the context of resources protection, leisure
and recovering space as well as cultural landscape
(non-commodity outputs). To the EU, this concept of
multifunctionality presents a powerful opportunity to
continue the financial support of farmers through a
remuneration of the production of non-commodity
outputs. Within the EU, the concept of multi-
functionlity has consequently experienced an
increasing relevancy with regard to diversification
strategies while describing the various private and
public use potentials of land for farmers, for rural
areas and for society in general (Maier and
Shobayashi, 2001).
While the above attempts are exclusively discussed
in the sectoral background of agricultural production,
the concept of multifunctionality is given further
importance to sustainable land development provided
H. Wiggering et al. / Ecological Indicators 6 (2006) 238–249240
that it is regarded cross-sectorally in the general context
of land use and landscape. Multifunctionality of a
landscape in this context is the key issue to define what
sustainable land development means. Multifunction-
ality denotes the phenomenon that the landscape
actually or potentially provides multiple material and
immaterial ‘‘goods’’ that satisfy societal needs or meet
societal demands by the states, structures or processes
of the landscape (Barkmann et al., 2004). A landscape
that displays this phenomenon can be called a
multifunctional landscape.
Sustainable development is here understood in
lines with the Brundtland definition (WCED, 1987) as
an anthropocentric, socially motivated paradigm for
the development of human–environment and human–
human interactions. Then, a demand or need oriented
approach of implementing the multifunctionality
concept is considered to support sustainable land
use and development, respectively. This presupposes,
that (i) all demands on land use and landscape
functions are identified and considered simultaneously
and (ii) their spatio-temporal interrelations are
analysed in the land use context.
Basis of analysing multifunctionality is to under-
stand how land use affect landscape functions and how
they satisfy the multiple demands that society places
on the use and services of landscapes. A sustainable
use and development of landscapes has to integrate
aspects of environmental protection, social welfare
and economic growth and meet further demands such
as providing sites for development, traffic, industry,
raw material processing or waste disposal. Further
important but not yet completely understood land-
scape functions include biodiversity and habitat
functions and the buffering capacities for matter
and energy as well as mitigation abilities to extreme
weather events (floods, drought) which might be of
increasing importance with evolving climate change
effects. In addition, the use of landscapes has to be
regarded as an element of the urban–rural-intercon-
nection, by which recreational and educational
demands as well as issues of cultural heritage are to
be included.
Generally, every distinct landscape within the
European regions has its specific set of functions
and land use demands placed on it. This characteristic
set is by itself a characteristic property of the
respective landscape. The problem is to properly
characterise and delineate landscapes and to derive
information of all groups expressing demands on the
use of landscapes. One crucial step towards the full
inventory is to check whether the various demands on
landscapes expressed by society are synonymous with
relevant landscape functions as, e.g., listed by experts.
Some landscape functions might not be addressed by
interest groups since their importance is only relevant
in a longer time scale (i.e., buffering capacities,
genetic pools), not completely understood (cooling
and mitigation functions) or of relevance only for
extreme events (floods, droughts) and not publicly
anticipated in the near future. These functions are
summarised as option and bequest values in the
economic terminology but need to be addressed
explicitly when sustainable land use is intended and be
based on a trade-off of land use demands.
Once the demands and related functions have been
identified for a specific landscape in a given spatio-
temporal context, it has to be analysed how land use
affects these functions and how they interrelate with
each other. Each type, pattern and intensity of land use
has its specific impact on the land and determines the
way the functions perform in relation to societal
demands. The knowledge of land use—landscape
function relations is a prerequisite for the optimisation
of land use patterns and production schemes towards
the fulfilment of the multiple landscape functions.
Indicator systems integrating the economic, social and
environmental dimension of land use—landscape
functions are required to dispel this relation.
2. Indicators for sustainable land use:
requirements and reality
Although the common, nevertheless general defini-
tion(s) of sustainable development touches upon
nearly all areas of ecological, economic and social
developments, adequate management rules of
resource use including a multifunctional land devel-
opment have been derived from it (e.g., Daly, 1990,
pp. 2–5; Pearce and Turner, 1990, p. 43).
The general problem of ecological as well as socio-
economic effects due to multifunctional land use and
the consecutive decision making processes is the
enormous complexity of the according patterns. To
build up an evident projection which is able to
H. Wiggering et al. / Ecological Indicators 6 (2006) 238–249 241
represent the most important features of the particular
state, the complex ensembles of the different system
elements and the multiple webs of actions, reactions
and interactions have to be condensed into an
applicable pattern. An approach to reach such a
practicable model can be based on indicators. These
are variables or indices, which represent, integrate and
characterise information embodied in comprehensive
data sets (Muller and Wiggering, 2003, pp. 19–27)
which often are not measurable directly. Indicators are
suitable tools whenever the primary information of an
object is too complex to be handled without
aggregations. Consequently, indicators should not
only be derived considering pragmatical argumenta-
tions, but also referring to an optimal theoretical
background. This demand is especially important
because in many cases indirect effects, chronical
interactions, accumulative reaction chains and com-
plex interaction webs can lead to the most evident
consequences for the performance of the particular
system processes. Thus, a holistic approach is an
important prerequisite for a reliable indication of
complex systems with different scales.
Already Opschoor and Rjeinders (1991, p. 19)
explicitly have described the necessary process how to
derive indicators to characterise the so called functions
of scale limits (see also Daly, 1992, p. 192). In the
subsequent years, several concepts and sets of
indicators came up.
Broadly, the conceptional approaches can strictly
become divided into two underlying strategies: (a) the
economic orientation and (b) the ecological orienta-
tion (Rennings and Wiggering, 1997, pp. 25–36). Still,
a consequent merging of these two interest oriented
approaches has taken place only to a minor degree.
Thus, we suggest to focus onto the necessity to
strengthen the discussion on multifunctional land
development and land use. Therefore we are going to
bring together the socio-economic and ecological
perspectives of solving, e.g., the problems within rural
areas forcing sustainable and a subsequent multi-
functional land development.
Multifunctionality within this context necessarily
has to draw emphasis on both commodity and non-
commodity outputs. This is why economic action
always is accompanied by ecological and social utility.
Sustainable production schemes at the end depend on
the relative prices of commodity and non-commodity
outputs. Thus, social utility resulting from different
degrees of jointness of production can be an indicator
for the degree of multifunctional land use and of
sustainable use of resources.
3. ‘‘Social utility’’: concept for an indicator
derived from economic theory
In an overall simplified analysis of the above
described OECD-approach, two groups of products
(outputs) of a multifunctional use of landscapes can be
distinguished: (i) commodity outputs and (ii) non
commodity outputs. The COs depict what we are used
to pay for in the past—classical agricultural products.
NCOs are new products (and functions) of the
landscape jointly generated by agricultural production
which fulfil additional private or societal needs related
to the use of land and landscapes, e.g., securing
biodiversity or reduction of nitrate leaching (Bark-
mann et al., 2004). Because of a joint production of
CO and NCO in the past, the supply of CO was
accompanied with a (free of charge) provision of
NCO—despite of the fact, that here was in general no
direct monetary demand with regard to NCO. But the
production of NCO, which include avoiding negative
externalities, is – just as the production of CO –
connected with costs. Thus, existing economic
incentives (globalisation, competition, technical pro-
gress) drive the farmers to replace traditional joint
production schemes by production schemes which are
focusing on COs and increasingly decoupling NCO
from CO production. In consequence, scarcities
changed over time because the supply of NCO was
decreasing and – beside of this, according to Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1970) – demand for NCO
was increasing in the process of economic develop-
ment. The results are shortages with regard to NCOs,
felt by society.
These shortages induced a monetary demand
revealed mainly by government in public support
programs and created a new ‘‘market potential’’ for
farmers: the production of NCO—either (if possible)
as a (in a technical sense) separate production of NCO
or as a joint production of NCO and CO. Due to this
change, markets and quasi-markets for NCOs
emerged. Thus, NCOs are going to shift into a status,
that allows to earn money with their production.
H. Wiggering et al. / Ecological Indicators 6 (2006) 238–249242
The latter is nothing else but the revival of a
multifunctional land use. Optimal production schemes
are depending now on the relative prices of CO and
NCO, on the degree of jointness of production, and on
the production technologies/management schemes
available. The market potential of such NCO-produc-
tion depends on scarcity of NCO in a given region, on
individual and aggregated individual preferences
(societal demand) with respect to NCO and correspond-
ing monetary demand for such ‘‘new’’ products and on
the quality of established economic institutions to
allocate supply and demand of NCO. Overall income of
farmers is not any longer determined only by sales
revenues and costs of production of CO any longer but
also by sales revenues and costs of production of NCO.
To maximise profits, a farmer can choose between
different technologies of production (production
schemes) which are connected with different quantities
of CO and NCO. These facts are illustrated in Fig. 1.
Such a demand oriented approach requires infor-
mation, with respect to: (i) site conditions, (ii) the
degree of joint production of different production
schemes available (production possibility curve), (iii)
the revealed demand with respect to NCO and (iv) the
relative prices of CO/NCO.
Fig. 1. Multifunction
A single farmer is confronted with a given demand
for NCOs and COs, which is determined by individual
demand for COs and NCOs that have the character-
istics of private goods and by societal demand for COs
and NCOs that have the properties of public goods.
Just to simplify, we suppose, that NCOs have the
characteristics of public goods and COs have the
properties of private goods.
The production possibility curves shown in Fig. 2
illustrates how NCO output changes with CO output
and vice versa. The shape of the production possibility
curve is determined by site conditions, by the degree
of joint production of different production schemes
available, and by the concrete NCO under considera-
tion. Under a given framework of technical possibi-
lities and site conditions there are no efficient
production schemes below the production possibility
curve because production schemes underneath the
curve do not realise the specific possible NCO and CO
output and are therefore not efficient. However, other
technical conditions and site characteristics will create
differing shapes of the production possibility curve as
below-mentioned. The concept of welfare economics,
which is basing the following remarks are described in
Boadway and Bruce (1984).
al agriculture.
H. Wiggering et al. / Ecological Indicators 6 (2006) 238–249 243
Fig. 2. Types of production possibility curves.
Supposable are production possibility curves of
type 1 as described in Fig. 2 (left side), where an
increased production of NCO is always related with an
reduced output of the CO (trade-off); a special case of
this type is a linear production possibility curve. But
also supposable is a production possibility curves of
type 2 (Fig. 2, right side), where in two parts of the
curve an increased supply of NCO is related with an
increased output of the CO, respectively an increased
production of CO is related with an increased output of
NCO, whereas in another part of the curve an
increased production of NCO is connected with a
reduced supply of NCO et vice versa. Special cases of
type 2 are production possibility curves which start or
end with one branch in the point of origin.
If we move on a given production possibility curve
(with respect to a certain NCO), organic farming, e.g.,
can be situated on the upper section (with more NCO
and less CO provision) of the production possibility
curve, while integrated farming may be situated on the
downward section (with less NCO and more CO
provision).
Each combination of CO and NCO is connected
with a specific social utility1 as illustrated in Fig. 3. To
visualise the level of social utility we use – from welfare
economics well-known – social indifference curves
(high, middle and low social utility), which are defined
as curves with an identical social utility for different
combinations of CO/NCO availability. The social
1 Social utility in this sense includes economic, ecological and
sociocultural issues and is sometimes also named as societal utility.
indifference curves are representing the aggregated
individual preferences of the overall society with regard
to the provision of NCO and CO, i.e., they express the
demand of society with regard to CO and NCO.
The optimal combination of NCO and CO (welfare
optimum) is determined by the osculation point of the
production possibility curve and the highest reachable
social indifference curve (e.g., middle social utility in
Fig. 3).
More in general, the level of social utility reached
(expressed by a social indifference curve) can be used
as an indicator to compare production schemes with
respect to their degree of adaptation to social
determined multifunctionality in the land use of a
specific region. To give the level of social utility
achieved the conceptual status of an indicator, we
propagate the term SUMLU (social utility of multi-
functional land use) or just ‘‘social utility’’. SUMLU
satisfies the need derived above to merge ecological,
economic and sociocultural parameters to assess
multifunctional land use in a theoretical point of
view and can be operationalised with approaches as
described in chapters 4 and 5 or available from cost–
benefit analysis, contingent valuation or similar
concepts.
The parameter of NCO may be realised by
enumerable abundance, but NCO may also be realised
by highly aggregated indicators as, e.g., biotic integrity,
as long as there is any acceptable paradigmatic way of
quantification with respect to CO output and there also
is a well defined contribution of this complex NCO to
the social utility.
H. Wiggering et al. / Ecological Indicators 6 (2006) 238–249244
Fig. 3. Social indifference curves, production possibility curves and welfare optimum.
By becoming less abstract, the NCO parameters
adaptable on the y-axis can range from simple
quantitative parameters as the portion of sunflower
blossoms in summertime and fall to risk probabilities
related to nitrogen leaching (see chapter 4). Even
extreme holistic parameters as biotic integrity (by
itself a complex derivation from indicators of
biological diversity, see chapter 5) will be applicable
at the NCO axis, as long as considering their general
problem of quantification.
All possible NCO parameters, however, (have to)
cover some aspect of a landscape potential, either on
human welfare (landscapes aesthetics, etc.) or on biotic
advantage, or on any combination of both. The CO
parameters on the x-axis can range form quantitative
yield to total gross margin. In general, they (have to)
cover any land use-related socio-economic parameter.
However, with different sets of parameters on the x-
and y-axes, one specific production scheme generates
different production possibility curves with different
welfare optimums.
Thus, with growing number of parameters con-
sidered, there will be a cluster of welfare optimums.
Defined thresholds at each parameter scale create a
corridor (or space) of general acceptance, which can
be defined dynamically depending on the specific
purpose (like decision support or assessment, scenar-
ios).
4. Production possibility function: example of
nitrogen leaching and profitability
Fig. 4 presents an example of the determination of
the production possibility function, showing the
relation between the non-commodity ‘‘reduction of
the negative externality nitrogen leaching’’ and the
monetary commodity ‘‘gross margin of a farm’’. The
example is based on economic optimisation with the
help of a linear programming farm model that
maximises the total gross margin of a synthetical
farm which covers a small region of about 1800 ha.
The farm model includes calculations of potential
nitrogen leaching for every combination of sites and
possible production activities (Zander, 2003). As the
model is based on currently practiced production
activities, the calculated trade-off between the
environmental objective to minimise potential nitro-
H. Wiggering et al. / Ecological Indicators 6 (2006) 238–249 245
Fig. 4. Production possibility curve between the risk of nitrogen
leaching and total gross margin of an arable farm (Zander, 2003).
gen leaching and the economic objective to maximise
total gross margin for the arable farm, is equivalent to
the actual production possibility function, as displayed
by curve type 1 in Fig. 2.
This example illustrates the losses in total gross
margin if one conservation objective is subsequently
maximised—starting from the economic optimum.
Without appreciable losses in gross margin or negative
effects on attainment of other environmental targets, a
20 % increase in goal attainment, here: reduction in
potential nitrogen leaching from agricultural land use
is attainable. Further reductions in potential nitrogen
losses lead to more significant losses in total gross
margin. The limited losses in gross margins at the
beginning of the trade-off curve can be explained by
the fact that the farm cropping plan hardly changes,
only the allocation of the different crops over the 60
fields is altered. This allows the model farm to profit
from the comparative advantages of different sites in
this heterogeneous landscape.
With increasing goal attainment, that means
reduced nitrogen leaching, alternative crops become
part of the solution. First, the area of wheat and peas
decreases in favour of rye, barley and triticale, which
are less susceptible to nitrogen leaching than wheat.
The area of peas is reduced because of their
susceptibility to nitrogen leaching, mainly the result
of the long winter fallow period. With increasing
restrictions on nitrogen leaching, winter rape is
replaced by sunflower and linseed, while production
of rye and triticale is replaced by summer barley,
combined with intercrops. Hence, crops with a lower
risk of nitrogen leaching gain increasing importance.
This example represents only one non-commodity
output in one specific landscape managed by a specific
farm type at a specific moment. The reallocation of
production practices within the landscape shows
clearly that every specific landscape and farm type
will show a specific production possibility function.
To attain the sectoral production function, aggregation
over space and for different farm types is necessary.
Above, this static, economic perception of produc-
tion possibilities and social indifference versus the
production of non-commodities and commodities, has
to be extended by the temporal dimension of societal
processes related to policy making, stakeholder
activities and scientific research (Zander and Kachele,
1999), that aim to change (i) the indifference curve
through changed demands, e.g., new policy instru-
ments, (ii) the production possibilities through
scientific research and (iii) the market conditions
through advanced marketing of NCOs.
5. Highly aggregated non-commodities: the
case of biotic integrity and agricultural land use
The preservation and careful usage of environ-
mental resources is a central societal demand since the
continual extinction of species has become common
currency. The societal perception of this process and
the demand for action against was primary carried by
some single, mostly very attractive species. Driven by
an increasing economic pressure on landscape change
and development, the need for revising the traditional
concepts of nature protection has become evident
during the last decades. Today the world is faced with
the greatest mass extinction since the dinosaurs
perished 65 million years ago. Most of this loss is
caused by human activities effecting landscape
structure and matter cycles. Modern production
schemes are characterised by a high spatial coverage
of their impacts, high pressures on single spots and
decreasing jointness in production of appropriate
preconditions for life communities. The coexistence
of production and conservation is one of the most
important current challenges in landscapes.
Biodiversity as holistic approach denotes the
diversity of all life forms in all their values and
elations to each other and is present on different spatial
and temporal scales.
H. Wiggering et al. / Ecological Indicators 6 (2006) 238–249246
The importance of biodiversity is beyond any
doubt. Unfortunately biodiversity itself can hardly be
quantified and operationalised for, e.g., comparative
analyses between different landscapes or decision
support related to land use impacts. One possible way
to solve this problem is the use of appropriate
indicators, describing relevant parts of the entire
complexity. To be able to interpret biodiversity, the
notion of biotic integrity is introduced. Biotic
integrity can be understood as evaluated biodiversity
dependent on landscape potentials and will be
determined by various indicators of biodiversity.
These indicators should include the following aspects
in combination:
- h
Fi
slo
im
abitat qualities of selected plants and animals,
functional groups or guilds (habitat quality),
- th
e spatial arrangement of landscape elements(structural properties),
- d
iversity, heterogeneity and dissimilarity of selectedbiotic components, e.g., plant and animal species
(species diversity),
- d
evelopment potentials of landscapes (dynamicproperties).
g. 5. Production possibility curves for multiple NCOs within one exempl
pes and the peaks of the curves differ due to different local potentials for
proving the biotope configuration of the landscape unit ‘‘Schorfheide’’
Biotic integrity may be understood as essential part
of sustainability. The goal is to use landscapes and to
influence biodiversity only in a manner, that char-
acteristic landscape functions can be maintained in
long term. The communities of plants, animals and
micro-organisms which can be expected according to
landscape character may show a lead (Tilman et al.,
1997).
With regard to the joint production scheme, biotic
integrity as NCO cannot be described by one single
production possibility curve but only by multiple
ones—considering potentially different landscapes
and including various indicators of biodiversity. The
complexity of this evaluation process is influenced by
the fact that the indicatory power of single biotic
parameters is interrelated with the specific landscape
configuration and thus will differ among landscapes.
The reason for that are basic requirements for the
expected communities or natural habitats unequally
distributed in different landscapes. The actual appear-
ance of these attributes is determined by:
- g
ary
th
in
eomorphological character of the landscape (phy-
sically determined biotic potentials),
given landscape. The shapes, the starting points on the y-axis, the
e singular NCOs. The curves describe exemplary the potentails for
Northeastern Germany.
H. Wiggering et al. / Ecological Indicators 6 (2006) 238–249 247
- c
Fi
de
Bu
limate impacts,
- h
istorical landscape use,- th
e mode and intensity of current landscape use.Particular aspects may cover different types of
curve shapes, which cannot be merged to a single
curve and should be analysed separately (Fig. 5). The
regionalisation of the production possibility curve, as
well as the definition of the relevant scale in space and
time, are essential prerequisites for performing the
concept as essential basis for deriving indicators as
described in the above chapters.
The cross-validation of nature protection targets
with their costs, either in form of societal payments or
income restrictions for the relevant stakeholders (e.g.,
land user) is an evident part of the formation of the
societal demand or social utility curve. Balancing the
joint production options for the biotic integrity NCO
and the CO may support the decision of:
- th
e choice of nature protection measures within onesingle (given) landscape,
g. 6. Production possibility curves of one particular NCO in different land
pend on the varying landscape potentials. The curves describe exemplary
nting, plant species of arid grasslands, plant species of wetlands in in
- th
e selection of priority sites (regions) for aparticular biotic target (as NCO).
Production possibility curves can, thus, improve the
cost efficiency of nature protection measures.
Fig. 5 illustrates, that even when the production
possibility curve for particular non-commodity targets
and the commodity output will have the same shape (for
general curve types see Fig. 2), the starting point of the
particular curves on they-axis, the slopes and the peak of
curves for different NCOs may vary in a given
landscape. The starting point on y-axis expresses the
particular NCO output of a landscape without any
commodityoutputand ismoreor lessa theoreticalvalue.
Current landscapesmostly aremixtures ofvariousbiotic
components, which are dependent on land use and
therefore related toanycommodityoutput.Onlya fewof
the biotic landscape components are remaining from
times before intensive human landscape shaping. These
remnants stay in a permanent area competitionwith land
use, which will be shown in an almost linear, declining
curve (see curve for reeds in Fig. 6).
scapes. The maxima and optima which can be achieved for the NCO
the possibilities for the preservation of, e.g., Hares, Sky Lark, Corn
tensively used agricultural landscapes.
H. Wiggering et al. / Ecological Indicators 6 (2006) 238–249248
The sensitivity of indicators for biodiversity
related to agrarian production (CO) will be char-
acterised by the slopes of the joint production curves.
Segments of relatively low sensitivity will alternate
with segments of higher sensitivity on the joint
production curve. That means, that there are a couple
of production systems, which will modify the
indicators only marginally and a range of others,
where already small modifications in the production
system will have deep impacts on the NCO output.
The joint production curves may also contribute to
improve the understanding of the circumstance, that
the preservation of low frequent (rare) elements of
biodiversity, with specific requirements on site and
land use, requires strong restrictions in CO output
which should be re-financed by the society. For a
given spatial area, which can be a natural or a
administrative unit, the concept of the joint produc-
tion curves allows to balance the cost–benefit-relation
for different targets against each other and can support
the decision making by making cost–benefit-relations
transparent and comparable.
While the potentials for producing a particular
NCO vary between different landscapes, the same land
use may have different effects on particular NCOs in
different landscapes. Fig. 6 shows the theoretical joint
production curve for one single NCO in three different
landscapes. When we assume the same relationship
type between the NCO and the CO output in general,
the shape of the joint production curves will be the
same under different landscape attributes (see above).2
Differences in basic potentials for a particular NCO
between landscapes will be reflected in different
maxima and welfare optima of the production
possibility curves (see Fig. 6). According to this
graph, meeting the societal utilities in landscapes with
lower NCO potential will require harder restrictions in
the CO output than in landscapes with higher NCO
potentials. Furthermore, the costs to achieve similar
qualities through applying different protection mea-
sures or supporting special management will differ
also from landscape to landscape. Comparing the
production possibility curves of different landscapes
allows to compare the efficiency of special manage-
2 This assumption is made with regard to simplify the relationship
and needs to be verified at least for the extrapolation over larger
regions.
ment or measures and to find out priority regions for
most efficient NCO gains.
6. Conclusion
The presented concept for the aggregated indicator
termed SUMLU (social utility) firstly merges com-
modity outputs (CO) and non-commodity outputs
(NCO) of land use and management in trade-offs
visualised by production possibility curves, as shown
by examples on nitrogen leaching and biotic integrity
versus CO. Subsequently, by adding the dimension of
social utility (via social indifference curves), the CO/
NCO trade-off combination of maximum social utility
(welfare optimum) is identified.
Within this approach, the integrated indicator
concept SUMLU incorporates the approaches of both
sustainablility and multifunctionality in land use and
management. Applying SUMLU for substantial COs
and NCOs of specific landscapes opens a promising
path towards decision support linking socio-economic
requirements with landscape potentials.
References
Barkmann, J., Helming, K., Muller, K., Wiggering, H., 2004. Multi-
Land. Multifunctional landscapes: towards an analytical frame-
work for sustainability assessment of agriculture and forestry in
Europe. Fifth Framework Programme 1998–2002. Thematic
Programme: Environment and Sustainable Development.
FINAL Report, Sections 1–5, T.I.P. EVK2-CT-2002-
80023.
Boadway, R.W., Bruce, N., 1984. Welfare Economics. Oxford.
Boisvert, R.N., 2001a. A note of the concept of jointness in
production. In: OECD (Eds.), Multifunctionality. Towards an
Analytical Framework. OECD, Paris, pp. 105–124.
Boisvert, R.N., 2001b. Joint production in four outputs: two agri-
cultural commodities and positive and negative externalities. In:
OECD (Eds.), Multifunctionality. Towards an Analytical Frame-
work. OECD, Paris, pp. 125–132.
COM, 2002. 182 final, http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/
2002/com2002_0394en01.pdf.
COM, 2003. 23 final, http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/capre-
form/memo_en.pdf.
Daly, H., 1990. Toward some operational principles of sustainable
development. Ecol. Econ. 2, 1–6.
Daly, H., 1992. Allocation, distribution and scale: towards an
economics that is efficient, just and sustainable. Ecol. Econ.
6, 185–193.
H. Wiggering et al. / Ecological Indicators 6 (2006) 238–249 249
Maier, L., Shobayashi, M., 2001. Multifunctionality: Towards an
Analytical Framework (Agriculture and Food). OECD, Paris.
Maslow, A., 1970. Motivation and Personality, second ed. Harper &
Row, New York.
Muller, F., Wiggering, H., 2003. Umweltziele als Grundlagen fur
umweltpolitische Prioritatensetzungen. In: Wiggering, H., Mul-
ler, F. (Eds.), Umweltziele und Indikatoren: Wissenschaftliche
Anforderungen an ihre Festlegung und Fallbeispiele. Springer
Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, pp. 19–27.
OECD, 2001. Multifunctionality: Applying the OECD Analytical
Framework Guiding Policy Design. (Workshop 2–3 July 2001).
OECD, Paris, http://www1.oecd.org/agr/mf/index.htm (July
2001).
Opschoor, H., Reijnders, L., 1991. Towards sustainable develop-
ment. In: Kuik, O., Verbruggen, H. (Eds.), In Search of Indica-
tors of Sustainable Development. Kluwer Academic
Publications, Dordrecht/Boston/London, pp. 7–28.
Pearce, D., Turner, R.K., 1990. Economics of Natural Resources and
the Environment. Harvester Wheatsheaf, New York.
Rennings, K., Wiggering, H., 1997. Steps towards indicators of
sustainable development: linking economic and ecological con-
cepts. Ecol. Econ. 20, 25 ff.
Tilman, D., Knops, J., Wedin, D., Reich, P., Ritchie, M., Siemann,
E., 1997. The influence of functional diversity and composition
on ecosystem processes. Science 277, 1300–1302.
WCED (The World Commission on Environment and Develop-
ment), 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, UK.
Zander, P., 2003. Agricultural Land Use and Conservation
Options—A Modelling Approach. Wageningen University, Dis-
sertation, pp. 240.
Zander, P., Kachele, H., 1999. Modelling multiple objectives of land
use for sustainable development. Agric. Syst. 59 (3), 311–
325.