Table S2), Which 23 156 We Used for Our Analysis
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Originally published as: Verkerk, P. J., Lindner, M., Pérez-Soba, M., Paterson, J. S., Helming, J., Verburg, P. H., Kuemmerle, T., Lotze-Campen, H., Moiseyev, A., Müller, D., Popp, A., Schulp, C. J. E., Stürck, J., Tabeau, A., Wolfslehner, B., Zanden, E. H. van der (2018): Identifying pathways to visions of future land use in Europe. - Regional Environmental Change, 18, 3, 817-830 10.1007/s10113-016-1055-7 [Please note: This is the submitted version of the paper before peer-review] Manuscript Click here to view linked References 1 Identifying pathways to visions of future land use in Europe 1 2 2 3 Pieter J. Verkerka*, Marcus Lindnera, Marta Pérez-Sobab, James S. Patersonc, John Helmingd, 3 e f g a 4 4 Peter H. Verburg , Tobias Kuemmerle , Hermann Lotze-Campen , Alexander Moiseyev , 5 5 Daniel Müllerh, Alexander Poppg, Catharina J. E. Schulpe, Julia Stürcke, Andrzej Tabeaud, 6 6 Bernhard Wolfslehneri, Emma H. van der Zandene 7 7 8 a 9 8 European Forest Institute, Sustainability and Climate change programme, Yliopistokatu 6, 10 9 80100 Joensuu, Finland 11 10 bALTERRA, Wageningen University & Research centre, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA 12 13 11 Wageningen, the Netherlands 14 12 cLand Use Research Group, School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, UK 15 13 dLEI, Wageningen University and Research centre, PO Box 29703, 2502 LS The Hague, the 16 14 Netherlands 17 e 18 15 Department of Earth Sciences, VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1087, 1081 HV 19 16 Amsterdam, the Netherlands 20 17 fGeography Department, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, 21 22 18 Germany 23 19 gPotsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Telegrafenberg A 31, 14473, Potsdam, 24 20 Germany 25 21 hLeibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO), Theodor- 26 27 22 Lieser-Strasse 2, 06120 Halle (Saale), Germany 28 23 iEuropean Forest Institute, Central-East and South-East European Regional Office, c/o 29 24 University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Feistmantelstr. 4, A-1180 Vienna, Austria 30 31 25 32 26 *corresponding author; tel.: +34663625875; e-mail: [email protected] 33 27 34 28 E-mail addresses of co-authors 35 36 29 ML: [email protected] 37 30 MPS: [email protected] 38 31 JP: [email protected] 39 40 32 JH: [email protected] 41 33 PV: [email protected] 42 34 TK: [email protected] 43 35 HLC: [email protected] 44 45 36 AM: [email protected] 46 37 DM: [email protected] 47 38 AP: [email protected] 48 49 39 CJES: [email protected] 50 40 JS: [email protected] 51 41 AT: [email protected] 52 42 BW: [email protected] 53 54 43 EHZ: [email protected] 55 44 56 45 Word count (excl. references): 5879 words 57 58 46 Number of figures and tables: 6 59 47 60 61 62 63 64 65 48 Abstract 1 49 Plausible scenarios of future land use derived for model projections may differ substantially 2 3 50 from what is actually desired by society and identifying such mismatches is important for 4 51 identifying policies to resolve them. This paper presents an approach to link explorative 5 6 52 projections of future land use for the European Union (EU) to normative visions of desired 7 8 53 land use futures. We used the results of 24 scenario projections obtained from seven linked 9 54 simulation models to explore uncertainty in future land-use developments. Land use 10 11 55 projections are linked to statements made by stakeholders for three normative visions of 12 13 56 desired, future land use. The visions differed in the scale of multifunctionality of land use: at 14 57 European (Best Land in Europe), regional (Regional Connected) or local (Local 15 16 58 Multifunctional) level. To identify pathways to these visions, we analysed in which cases 17 18 59 projected land-use changes matched with the land use changes desired in the visions. We 19 identified five pathways to the vision Regional Connected, two pathways to the vision Best 20 60 21 61 Land in Europe, but no pathway to the vision Local Multifunctional. Our results suggest that 22 23 62 policies have the ability to change the development of land use such that it is more in line 24 25 63 with land-use futures desired by society. We believe our approach represents an interesting 26 64 avenue for foresight studies on land use, as it combines the credibility from explorative 27 28 65 scenarios with legitimacy and saliency of normative visions. 29 30 66 31 67 Keywords: explorative scenarios, land use, normative visions, pathways 32 33 68 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 2 63 64 65 69 1 Introduction 1 70 Land use provides multiple goods and services to society and is therefore of critical 2 3 71 importance to humans (Foley et al. 2005). However, the unsustainable use of the land 4 5 72 significantly contributes to climate change through greenhouse gas emissions (Smith et al. 6 73 2014), to biodiversity loss (Newbold et al. 2015), and to the degradation of ecosystem 7 8 74 services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Over the next decades, human population 9 10 75 is expected to increase strongly (United Nations 2015) and the demands to produce food, 11 12 76 feed, fibre and fuel from land are likely to continue to increase. Meeting simultaneously the 13 77 future needs of a rising population while conserving natural areas, halting biodiversity loss, 14 15 78 and switching to larger shares of renewable energy, will further exacerbate the competition 16 17 79 for land (Lambin and Meyfroidt 2011; Kraxner et al. 2013). To deal with such potential 18 80 conflicts, strategies for future land use are needed (e.g. Godfray and Garnett 2014; Fares et al. 19 20 81 2015). 21 22 82 23 83 Scenario analysis is considered an important foresight technique to support strategic decision 24 25 84 making while dealing with uncertainty (van de Heijden 2005; Pérez-Soba and Maas, 2015). 26 27 85 Scenario analysis helps to characterize the future in a structured way that allows imaginative 28 86 thinking (Rounsevell and Metzger 2010). Explorative scenarios are frequently used to 29 30 87 describe the uncertainty in developments and answer questions on what could happen. There 31 32 88 is however another group of scenarios that aims to answer the question what should happen 33 89 (Rounsevell and Metzger 2010; Vergragt and Quist 2011). This group of scenarios has a 34 35 90 normative focus and addresses a desirable endpoint or vision on what is wanted and where 36 37 91 one would like to be in the future. Combining these different scenario techniques has received 38 92 little attention (Seppelt et al., 2013; Castella et al., 2007). 39 40 93 41 94 To identify pathways on how one can reach a desirable future, a number of backcasting 42 43 95 approaches have been developed (Robinson 1982; Dreborg 1996). The starting point of this 44 45 96 foresight technique is a desirable future, from which the analysis goes backwards to the 46 97 present in order to determine the feasibility of that future, as well as to search for decisions 47 48 98 (e.g. policy measures) and conditions that would be required to reach the desired endpoint. 49 50 99 Recent backcasting efforts do not only rely on simulation modeling, but often include 51 100 participatory feedback by stakeholders to define the desired visions, to identify possible 52 53 101 obstacles to reach the vision, or to refine the proposed policy or management choices 54 55 102 necessary to reach the vision (Robinson et al. 2011; Kok et al. 2011). Backcasting has been 56 103 applied, for example, in studies on sustainable development (e.g. Robinson et al. 2011), water 57 58 104 management (van Vliet and Kok 2015), waste management (van der Pluijm et al. 2010) and 59 60 61 62 3 63 64 65 105 recently also land use planning (Haslauer 2015). Yet, backcasting has not been used in large- 1 106 scale land-use foresight studies, presumably because of the complexity of land-use dynamics. 2 3 107 4 5 108 Combining explorative scenarios with normative visions is an interesting approach for land 6 109 system science (Castella et al., 2007; Rounsevell et al. 2012; Seppelt et al. 2013) as the 7 8 110 credibility of explorative scenarios, as perceived by stakeholders, is combined with the 9 10 111 perceived legitimacy and saliency of normative visions (Rounsevell and Metzger 2010; Pérez- 11 12 112 Soba and Maas, 2015). Recently, Pérez-Soba et al. (2015) elicited normative visions of future 13 113 land use in the European Union (EU) for the year 2040 in a participatory stakeholder process. 14 15 114 This process resulted in three distinct land use visions, all having multifunctionality at their 16 17 115 core, but differing in the spatial scale at which multifunctionality should occur, i.e. European, 18 116 regional or local. Best Land in Europe is a vision in which optimal use of land is crucial to 19 20 117 ensure maximum production of food and other natural products. Regional Connected is a 21 22 118 vision in which societal needs are met regionally, in a coherent relationship between people 23 119 and their resources.