Indicators for multifunctional land use— Linking socio...

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


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.


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.


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.


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-


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.


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 selected
biotic components, e.g., plant and animal species

(species diversity),

- d
evelopment potentials of landscapes (dynamic
properties).

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.


- 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 one
single (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 a
particular 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.


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.

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2002/com2002_0394en01.pdf

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/com/cnc/2002/com2002_0394en01.pdf

http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/capreform/memo_en.pdf

http://europa.eu.int/comm/agriculture/capreform/memo_en.pdf


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.

http://www1.oecd.org/agr/mf/index.htm

Indicators for multifunctional land use— Linking socio...

Documents

Transcript of Indicators for multifunctional land use— Linking socio...