Cropland abandonment during the postsocialist transition in

Southern RomaniaDaniel Müller 1,2

Tobias Kuemmerle 2,3

1 Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe (IAMO)2 Geomatics Lab, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

3 Department of Forest and Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison

NEESPI Regional Non-boreal Europe MeetingOdessa: 23 – 27 October 2008

Outline1. Background2. Remote sensing analysis3. Land use change4. Statistical setup5. Determinants of abandonment6. Conclusions

Outline1. Background2. Remote sensing analysis3. Cropland abandonment4. Statistical setup5. Determinants of abandonment6. Conclusions

The transition in Eastern Europe- Drastic political

institutional, and socioeconomic changes

- Individualization of land ownership and land use

- Competitiveness of agriculture decreased

- Income strategies shifted during transition period

The transition in Eastern Europe=> Collapse of socialism led to fundamental

changes in land management and land use

practices.

From collective ownership …1988 2005

Sources: Landsat TM (p183r29, Southern Romania)

1988 2005

Sources: Landsat TM (p183r29, Southern Romania)

… to individual ownership

Cropland abandonment- Arguably the largest land use change in postsocialist

Eastern Europe

- Change from cultivation to other use

- Concentrated on marginal lands in Western Europe

- Anticipated to be the largest change in EU

- Followed by successional vegetation

Motivation1. Cropland abandonment affects ecosystems services:

* food production and quality * carbon sequestration and storage* soil stability* water quality* aesthetic value / cultural landscapes

Motivation1. Cropland abandonment affects ecosystems services:

* food production and quality * carbon sequestration and storage* soil stability* water quality* aesthetic value / cultural landscapes

2. Cropland abandonment affects biodiversity:* loss of farmland biodiversity* positive effects for forest species and megafauna

Motivation1. Cropland abandonment affects ecosystems services:

* food production and quality * carbon sequestration and storage* soil stability* water quality* aesthetic value / cultural landscapes

2. Cropland abandonment affects biodiversity:* loss of farmland biodiversity* positive effects for forest species and megafauna

=> Monitoring the extent of cropland abandonmentand understanding its causes is important

Romania- 2nd largest new member state of the EU

- Largest share of farmland (65%) and labor force employed in agriculture (32%) among new member states

- Land reform combining restitution and distribution

- Biodiversity hotspot (many endemic and charismatic species – e.g., Europe’s largest populations of brown bear, wolf, and lynx)

0

5

10

15

20

Milli

on

19901991

19921993

19941995

19961997

19981999

20002001

20022003

20042005

Source: World Development Indicators 2007

Rural Urban

Rural population virtually stable

3.2 3.3 3.7 4.1 4.6 4.9 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.8 5.0 4.83.8 3.7 3.3 3.3

3

6

9

12

Labo

r for

ce (m

illio

n)

19901991

19921993

19941995

19961997

19981999

20002001

20022003

20042005

Source: World Development Indicators 2007

Agriculture Industry Services

Large agricultural labor force

Romania is a little special- Large amount of employment in agriculture

- Low emigration from rural areas

- Smallest farms sizes in EU

- Farming dominated by subsistence production

Study area- Argeş county- 6,826 km2

- 650,000 inh.- southern foothill

of the Carpathians

1. What is the extent and spatial pattern of postsocialist cropland abandonment in Argeş?=> What happened?

2. What are the determinants of postsocialist cropland abandonment?=> Why did it happened?

Research Questions

1. What is the extent and spatial pattern of postsocialist cropland abandonment in Argeş?=> What happened?

2. What are the determinants of postsocialist cropland abandonment?=> Why did it happened?

Research Questions

Outline1. Background2. Remote sensing analysis3. Land use change4. Statistical setup5. Determinants of abandonment6. Conclusions

Remote sensing analysisLandsat

TM/ETM+:1990, 1995, 2000, 2005

ISODATA

Forest/non-forest mask

Forest classification

Non-forest classification

Final LC-maps

Post-classification

Land cover (2005)

Forest

CroplandGrass & shrublandOther

Outline1. Background2. Remote sensing analysis3. Land use change4. Statistical setup5. Determinants of abandonment6. Conclusions

2,400

786

2,609

1,983

1,143

2,603

1,904

1,294

2,560

1,885

1,247

2,643

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

km²

1990 1995 2000 2005

Note: settlements, mountain pastures, and water bodies excluded

Cropland Grass and shrubland Forest

Land use change: 1990 – 2005

Cropland declined by 21%

2,400

786

2,609

1,983

1,143

2,603

1,904

1,294

2,560

1,885

1,247

2,643

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

km²

1990 1995 2000 2005

Note: settlements, mountain pastures, and water bodies excluded

Cropland Grass and shrubland Forest

Cropland abandonment, 1990 – 2005

(two periods)

Cropland abandonment, 1990 – 2005

(two periods)

Mountainous

Hilly

Plains

Cropland change varies by elevation

1,754

555

88

1,633

328

20

1,584

260

40

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

km²

1990 1995 2005

MountainHillyPlain

1. What is the extent and spatial pattern of postsocialist cropland abandonment in Argeş?=> What happened?

2. What are the determinants of postsocialist cropland abandonment?=> Why did it happened?

Research Questions

Outline1. Background2. Remote sensing analysis3. Land use change4. Statistical setup5. Determinants of abandonment6. Conclusions

Statistical analysis- Data from RS, GIS, and socioeconomic census- Spatially explicit logistic regressions- Two time periods:

a) 1990 – 1995: immediate reaction of farmers to the collapse of socialism

b) 1995 – 2005: gradual adaptations to socioeconomic developments

CovariatesVariable Level

Terrain roughness PixelCropland in neighborhood PixelDistances to three roads categories PixelDistance from northern edge PixelPopulation (interpolated) Pixel Household density CommuneTemporary and permanent emigration Commune Livestock unit density CommuneTractor density CommuneParcels per farm Commune

Covariates

Outline1. Background2. Remote sensing analysis3. Land use change4. Statistical setup5. Determinants of abandonment6. Conclusions

-.3

-.2

-.1

0

.1

% c

hang

e

Y coord

inate

(km fro

m north

)

Rough

ness

(slop

e curv

ature)

Distan

ce to

Euro

pean

road

(km)

Distan

ce to

main

road

(km)

Croplan

d in n

eighb

orhoo

d (pix

el)

House

hold

dens

ity (h

h/km2)

Emigrati

on (h

h)

Lives

tock u

nit de

nsity

Croplan

d use

d ind

ividua

lly (%

)

(Note: Results not significant at the 10% level are omitted)

1990 - 1995 1995 - 2005

Key drivers cropland of abandonment

-.3

-.2

-.1

0

.1

% c

hang

e

Y coord

inate

(km fro

m north

)

Rough

ness

(slop

e curv

ature)

Distan

ce to

Euro

pean

road

(km)

Distan

ce to

main

road

(km)

Croplan

d in n

eighb

orhoo

d (pix

el)

House

hold

dens

ity (h

h/km2)

Emigrati

on (h

h)

Lives

tock u

nit de

nsity

Croplan

d owne

d ind

ividu

ally (

%)

(Note: Results not significant at the 10% level are omitted)

1990 - 1995 1995 - 2005

Key drivers cropland of abandonment

-.3

-.2

-.1

0

.1

% c

hang

e

Y coord

inate

(km fro

m north

)

Rough

ness

(slop

e curv

ature)

Distan

ce to

Euro

pean

road

(km)

Distan

ce to

main

road

(km)

Croplan

d in n

eighb

orhoo

d (pix

el)

House

hold

dens

ity (h

h/km2)

Emigrati

on (h

h)

Lives

tock u

nit de

nsity

Croplan

d owne

d ind

ividu

ally (

%)

(Note: Results not significant at the 10% level are omitted)

1990 - 1995 1995 - 2005

Key drivers cropland of abandonment

1. Positive and increasing influence of undulating terrain on abandonment

2. Adverse road access fosters abandonment after 1995; not before

3. Homogenous cropland structure increasingly important for stabilizing cropland use

4. Influence of household density changes sign

6. Livestock density and ownership structure significant after 1995

5. Emigration has negligible effect

Regression results, in a nutshell- Coefficients vary substantially in significance, strength, and sign; both over space and time

- Scattered cropland and undulating terrain foster abandonment (more important in later stages of transition)

- Adverse market access emerges as driver for abandonment in later stages of the transition period

Outline1. Background2. Remote sensing analysis3. Land use change4. Statistical setup5. Determinants of abandonment6. Conclusions

Conclusions- Large decrease of cropland since start of transition- Highest rate of abandonment in mountains; highest amount in hilly areas

- Factors affecting the profitability of agriculture gain in importance (natural suitability, road access, land ownership and structure)

- Lowest profitability in mountains and hilly areas - Demographic changes have little bearing on the amount of cultivated land (but they arguably affect intensity!)

- Significant share of low intensity cultivation; these lands may fall out of production

Thank you.Funding:

Emmy Noether Programmeof the German Research Foundation

(Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG),

Contact:mueller@iamo.de

www.iamo.dewww.hu-geomatics.de

www.hu-berlin.de/~muelleda

Statistical peculiarities- Causality: Exogenous, temporally lagged variables

- Temporal dependence: only cropland pixels in t0- Spatial dependence: corrections for spatial effects

- Scale effects: multilevel interactions

- Spatial patterns: inclusion of neighborhood effects

- Validation: Various goodness-of-fit statistics

Limitations of study1. Input intensity vs land use2. Livestock, meadows, and pastures3. Commune level aggregates4. Parcel-pixel mismatch5. Interactions and feedbacks missing