What mechanisms to valorise landscape? What mechanisms to valorise landscape Piorr.pdfCLAIM Final...

CLAIM Final Conference, Brussels, Nov 14, 2014

What mechanisms to valorise landscape? Annette Piorr, Ingo Zasada, Fabrizio Ungaro (ZALF)

Final Conference: Landscape management, rural economies and the CAP:

evidence and perspectives


Outline

• Understanding policy mechanisms

• Regional framework conditions and policy implementation

• Regional framework conditions and landscape valorisation

• Actors/stakeholders and policy implementation

• Actors/stakeholders and landscape valorisation


Understanding policy mechanisms

Starting point CLAIM framework


Regional Competitiveness

Landscape Management

Landscape Managers, Farmers, Consumers

Policies

Fra

me

wo

rk c

on

ditio

ns


What determines policy success?


Landscape Management

Landscape Managers, Farmers, Consumers

Policies Regional Competitiveness

Framework conditions




What mechanisms to valorise landscape?

• Exploration of the role of regional framework conditions (bio-physical, socio-economic, institutional) and actors and stakeholders on landscape policy implementation and valorisation

• 1. Role of regional framework on policy implementation effectiveness

• 2. Role of regional framework on landscape valorisation efficiency

• 3. Role of actors/stakeholders on policy implementation effectiveness

• 4. Role of actors/stakeholders on landscape valorisation efficiency


1 Framework Conditions –Role on Policy Effectiveness

Regional framework conditions refer to:

• bio-physical characteristics of the region, such as the given geography, nature and landscape

• socio-economic situation, such as the level of income and gross domestic product, population density and development or urban proximity

• institutional situation, referring to the existence of institutions and civil society or the local administrative and regulatory framework (e.g. political support, initiatives, etc.)



• Landscape policies can lead to different spatial effect s horizontal (e.g. regulations and GAEC) or targeted measures (e.g. nature protection, landscape planning)

• Farm location represents an important driver for landscape policy implementation (with voluntary measures)

• e.g. organic farming prevail in locations of less productive and low fertile conditions such as mountainous areas or areas with low soil fertility



Empirical evidence

• Limitations of agri-environmental scheme (AES) application in disadvantaged agricultural landscapes (mountainous or other less-favoured (LFA) areas) (AT, BG, FR)

• Spatial heterogeneity in AES implementation (different regions) (BG)

• AES measures implementation in areas of low productivity and with land degradation (BG)

• Specific CAP pillar II support schemes help conserving traditional mountain farms (AT)

• Negative effects of spatially untargeted measures (AES rather for grasslands not for mountain ranges) (FR)

• Ignoring of landscape heterogeneity (sub-landscapes) in the regional design for landscape policies (DE)


Exemplary Ad-hoc study

D. Nikolov et al. : Survey of vine growing holdings in the Pazardjik district, Bulgaria“All measures under axis 2 form weak second order effects only in certain spatial areas of region. Such effects are emerged in management of low productivity land, preservation of biodiversity and recreation of degraded land.”





F. Ungaro, I. Zasada, A. Piorr: Mapping landscape services, spatial synergies and trade-offs. A case study using variogram models and geostatistical simulations in an agrarian landscape in North-East Germany

“The differences in the spatial distribution of the potential supply of the single services can eventually be summarised and visualised for each of the six sub-landscapes, highlighting the differences in allocations of the selected services as depending upon landscape structure and composition.”

Rotes Luch

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

CUL

CYC

HAB

PROVIS

WAR

WAS

Lebus Plateau

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

CUL

CYC

HAB

PROVIS

WAR

WAS

Oder Valley

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

CUL

CYC

HAB

PROVIS

WAR

WAS

Buckow Valley

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

CUL

CYC

HAB

PROVIS

WAR

WAS

Barnim Plateau

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

CUL

CYC

HAB

PROVIS

WAR

WAS

Oberbarnim

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

CUL

CYC

HAB

PROVIS

WAR

WAS




L. Delattre, F. Guéniot, L. Leonelli, M. Mouléry, C. Napoléone, J.C. Paoli, P. Santucci:Breeders’ production choices in the area “Castagniccia” in Corsica (FR)

“Agricultural decline and low land scarcity, CAP (focussing on number of hectares and the livestock size) lead to hyper-extensive systems, i.e. ranching, with actual stocking rates lower than CAP required minimum threshold given the absence of competitive land use. Policy is unable to incentivise sufficient stocking rates to control biomass growth and to prevent from a closing over of landscape.

Agri-environmental schemes (AES) in Corsica designed in a way, that they focus on grasslands mistargeting for chestnut forests or rangelands, which are very common in the mountainous areas, whereas grasslands being concentrated in the lowlands and valleys”.

Modelling farmers’ decision to opt for beef cattle ranching: Beef production increases• With the loss of small farms • With the increase of population densityForest fire risk increases with increased beef production

Fire 1990-2001,

farming system sites (FSS) in 1990 Pigs (15ha) ewes (70 ha)

Goats (150ha)

Beef cattle (150ha)

Chesnuts (7 ha or real site)

Nb_fires 14 56 77 74 23

Medium size fire 13,64 19,97 12,73 19,59 22,10

Total area burnt/ total FSSs 190,98 1118,04 980,49 1449,77 508,24

Nb fires / FSS 0,19 2,24 2,20 1,76 0,43

Area burnt /nb FSSs 0,16 0,62 0,22 0,24 0,52

Feux 2001-2012,

FSS 2012 Pigs (15ha) ewes (70 ha) Goats

(150ha) Beef cattle

(150ha)

Chesnuts (7 ha or real site)

Nb_fires 17 20 64 36 3

Medium size fire 147,35 93,80 49,54 89,66 182,69

Total area burnt/ total FSSs 2505,00 1875,99 3170,56 3227,64 548,07

Nb fires / FSS 0,20 0,95 1,64 0,86 0,07

Area burnt /nb FSSs 1,84 1,20 0,55 0,47 0,66


2 Framework Conditions –Role on Efficiency of Landscape Valorisation

• Landscape valorisation for regional competitiveness and welfare strongly depends on the regional framework conditions

• Natural capital / amenities, i.e. relief energy (mountains), water courses or forests attracting visitors (bio-physical background)

• Proximity to urban areas with a high number of potential consumers, but also regional income level, etc. (socio-economic background)

• Active civil society, intermediate actors and networks for regional strategy making (institutional background)



Empirical evidence

• Focus on effects of natural and urban conditions as well as the insufficient effectiveness of the process of landscape valorisation

• First of all the given natural factors, less landscape management related ones, are decisive for the rural socio-economic development (AT)

• Landscape attributes are outvalued in preference studies by “grey” landscape elements, such as buildings (BG, PL)

• Ineffective exploitation of cultural ecosystem service by agricultural landscape management due to the absence of tourists (concentrated at natural amenity-rich sea-side locations) (FR, IT)

• Strong seasonality of visitors limits the landscape valorisation (TR). Also seasonality of visual landscape character is a relevant factor determining the value for visitors (NL, FR)

• Advantage urban proximity: Majority of visitors from nearby urban centre (DE); Closeness to urban/semi-urban areas relevant for rural competitiveness (AT)


Model region 1 Model region 2 Model region 3

Non-landscape-related factors r r r Tourism 0.14 *** - 0.24 *** Dist. next urban area - 0.34 *** - 0.17 -0.20 Value of land 0.42 *** 0.46 *** 0.48 ***

Landscape-related factors r r r Openness of landscape 0.17 *** -0.04 -0,05 Mountainous landscape 0.24 *** 0.10 ** 0.14 *** Characteristic landscape <0.01 -0.02 -0.04 Mountain pastures - 0.01 -0.01 t-test, significance levels: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ‘ 1



A. Reindl, L. Schaller, M. Kapfer, J. Kantelhardt: Measuring the influence of landscape on competitiveness of rural areas – an Austrian case study on municipality level

“[…], the municipalities for which our DEA model depicts the highest efficiencies, turn out to be located either in close proximity to cities (e.g. around Vienna, Graz, Linz or Innsbruck) or along major infra-structural routes, such as the important west-east connection between Salzburg and Vienna, or along the northwest – south connection throughout the Alps. In contrast, the municipalities with the lowest efficiencies are located in very remote areas, such as the high Alps.”


3 Local Actors & Stakeholders –Role on Policy Effectiveness

• Actors and stakeholder with their specific knowledge and information base as well as their values, interests and preferences influence implementation of landscape policies

• Participation (or non-participation) especially of farmers and other actors involved in landscape management and providers of landscape services determine the implementation success of landscape policies (policy efficiency)



Empirical evidence

• Farm differences in terms of size, business model, assets and perception represent relevant factors for the implementation of agricultural policy

• Farm business-related implementation constraints, such as management, co-financing and available farm assets (BG)

• Different farm capabilities to carry out the measure / reach the desired objective (FR)

• Importance of small farmers as carrier of traditional, landscape-adapted management practices and landscape structure (AT, BG, FR)(PL: opposite)

• Knowledge differences between local population and farmers about landscape management measures and influence on the landscape and CAP (PL)

• Conflicting interests of regional stakeholders (agriculture vs. nature conservation (BG, DE), agriculture vs. local community (FR)

• Importance of agricultural extension and consultancy services to improve implementation of landscape management measures (BG, TR)




• E. Majewski, A. Malak-Rawlikowska, P. Kobus, P. Wolski, B. Szulczewska, R. Giedych, G. Maksymiuk: Preferences, awareness and expectations towards agricultural landscape: the example of Chlapowski Landscape Park in Poland

• “The results of this study indicate that 79% of farmers are convinced that they have an influence on the landscape and 58% of them feels obligations relating to its protection. Almost all respondents agree that the shelterbelts have a positive impact on agriculture and landscape, however it is interesting that 95% of them would not allocate their own land for its establishing. This result may arise from the fact that although the farmers are aware of the beneficial effects of shelterbelts on agricultural activity and productivity of land, they are not able to estimate correctly magnitude of this impact (measurable benefits). Therefore, they are not willing to compromise on revenue (added value) generated by agricultural production in favour of uncertain (unrated) benefits from protecting the fields by shelterbelts.”


4 Local Actors & Stakeholders –Role on Efficiency of Landscape Valorisation

• Valorisation of landscape for regional welfare and competitiveness is influenced by the agents and stakeholders who are involved in this process

• Depending on their functional ties, roles and social practise these actors are determined by different perceptions, values and preferences.

• Differences occur in the perception and preferences between producers and consumers of the landscape, but also between different beneficiary groups

• Effective delivery of landscape and its appearance in terms of contribution to social welfare and competitiveness requires compliances with the demand side



Empirical evidence

• Focus on actor/stakeholder differences including consumer types and their preferences as well as the asymmetry of demand and supply of landscape services

• Farm-type differences:

• support of traditional small-scale agriculture was seen as a key to regional competitiveness (AT)

• outflow of financial support for landscape management from the region due to the effect of large-scale agri-businesses (DE)

• Intermediary agents and bottom-up initiatives as key agents for knowledge transfer, regional strategy-making, integration of different stakeholders (AT, ES)

• Landscape preferences with inter-group differences or commonalities (BG, DE, ES, NL, IT, PL):

• Visitor-resident similarities (DE) and differences (IT, PL)

• Inter-regional differences (DE, NL)

• Relevancy of socio-economic background of individuals for landscape preferences (DE, IT, NL)




• D. Viaggi, M. Raggi, G. Galimberti, R. Manrique, S. Targetti, M. Zavalloni: Report on WP4 case study activities: CSA1 The Eastern Ferrara lowlands

• “The main results evidenced by the survey analysis were that models obtained separately, for resident and tourists, highlighted a significant positive association between awareness of the relevance/importance attributed to promotional activities related to landscape, and awareness of the relevance/importance attributed to landscape features. […] In fact the results show that only 9% of the residents appreciate landscape elements associated to a high use of landscape services (both recreational activities and local product purchases). This percentage increases to 19% considering the tourist model. This opens the question on choosing the best strategy to exploit the agricultural landscape in order to improve local competiveness, which may involve increase the knowledge on positive landscape aspects, acting on landscape management in order to improve further landscape features, valorise local landscape services towards a wider population.”

Variables and states Change in belief (variation in %)

Agritourism - >0.04 11.1 (-25.5) 0.01 to 0.04 77.8 (+46.8) <0.01 11.1 (-21.3) Seats for eating - >0.8 41.4 (+2.2) 0.4 to 0.8 32.3 (-0.9) 0 to 0.4 17.1 (-0.9) None 9.19 (-0.4) Jobs number - >0.01 55.7 (+1.1) 0 to 0.10 31.7 (-0.5) None 12.6 (-0.6) Added value - >300 55.7 (+1.1) 0 to 300 31.7 (-0.5) None 12.6 (-0.6)

Elements very much

somewhat not very much

not at all don’t

Canals and bodies of water (lakes, ponds) 16.1 28.2 24.2 22.1

Herons, other fowl, aquatic animals 17.1 33.9 24.2 15.3

Woods and characteristic plants, hedges, wetlands and other uncultivated land

15.8 29.5 25.5 18.9

Rice paddies & related fauna (amphibians, insects, etc.) 5.3 13.7 35.5 35.0

Protected areas in the Po Delta Park 26.1 33.2 21.1 11.1

Networks of bicycle paths 15.8 28.2 25.3 21.8

Wine and flavour routes (‘Strade dei vini e dei sapori’) 12.1 29.2 25.0 21.3

Crops and quality local products (PGI, PDO, DOCG) 17.6 30.0 26.3 13.7

Beaches / Seaside infrastructures 48.9 30.8 8.4 6.1

Lower prices/cost 19.5 30.8 23.2 16.8

Celebrations and local countryside festivals 13.2 32.1 27.1 17.6

Knowledge of, and ties with, the territory 32.1 32.1 16.3 9.5


Conclusions

• The CLAIM theoretical framework applied proved feasible toexplain mechanisms under broad variety of regional conditions and problem situations

• Most empirical findings reflect aspects of geographical and landscape conditions on policy implementation

• We observe farm type behavioural differences as well as user preferences of a given landscape

• Both landscape policy implementation and the landscape valorisation occur highly variable depending on the regional context

• Landscape policies (CAP or else) require strong regional embedding , application and targeting

• Important to acknowledge user demands and the capability of regional community to make use of the managed landscape


Thank you!

What mechanisms to valorise landscape? What mechanisms to valorise landscape Piorr.pdfCLAIM Final...

Documents

Transcript of What mechanisms to valorise landscape? What mechanisms to valorise landscape Piorr.pdfCLAIM Final...