Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

European agricultural landscapes, common agricultural policy and ecosystem services: a review

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Agronomy for Sustainable Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Since the 1950s, intensification and scale enlargement of agriculture have changed agricultural landscapes across Europe. The intensification and scale enlargement of farming was initially driven by the large-scale application of synthetic fertilizers, mechanization and subsidies of the European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Then, after the 1990s, a further intensification and scale enlargement, and land abandonment in less favored areas was caused by globalization of commodity markets and CAP reforms. The landscape changes during the past six decades have changed the flows and values of ecosystem services. Here, we have reviewed the literature on agricultural policies and management, landscape structure and composition, and the contribution of ecosystem services to regional competitiveness. The objective was to define an analytical framework to determine and assess ecosystem services at the landscape scale. In contrast to natural ecosystems, ecosystem service flows and values in agricultural landscapes are often a result of interactions between agricultural management and ecological structures. We describe how land management by farmers and other land managers relates to landscape structure and composition. We also examine the influence of commodity markets and policies on the behavior of land managers. Additionally, we studied the influence of consumer demand on flows and values of the ecosystem services that originate from the agricultural landscape.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agnoletti M (2007) The degradation of traditional landscape in a mountain area of Tuscany during the 19th and 20th centuries: implications for biodiversity and sustainable management. For Ecol Manag 249:5–17. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.05.032

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnberger A, Eder R (2011) Exploring the heterogeneity of rural landscape preferences: an image-based latent class approach. Landsc Res 36:19–40. doi:10.1080/01426397.2010.536204

    Google Scholar 

  • Bauer N, Wallner A, Hunziker M (2009) The change of European landscapes: human-nature relationships, public attitudes towards rewilding, and the implications for landscape management in Switzerland. J Environ Manag 90:2910–2920. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.01.021

    Google Scholar 

  • Barroso FL, Pinto-Correia T, Ramos IL et al. (2012) Dealing with landscape fuzziness in user preference studies: photo-based questionnaires in the Mediterranean context. Landsc Urban Plan 104:329–342. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.11.005

  • Benoît M, Rizzo D, Marraccini E et al (2012) Landscape agronomy: a new field for addressing agricultural landscape dynamics. Landsc Ecol 27:1385–1394. doi:10.1007/s10980-012-9802-8

    Google Scholar 

  • Brander LM (2011) Economic valuation of landscape fragmentation. 183

  • Bryan B, Raymond CM, Crossman ND, Macdonald DH (2010) Targeting the management of ecosystem services based on social values: where, what, and how? Landsc Urban Plan 97:111–122. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.05.002

    Google Scholar 

  • Burel F (1995) Social, aesthetic and ecological aspects of hedgerows in rural landscapes as a framework for greenways. Landsc Urban Plan 33:327–340

    Google Scholar 

  • Burkhard B, Kroll F, Müller F (2010) Landscapes’ capacities to provide ecosystem services – a concept for land-cover based assessments. Landscape Online 1–22. doi:10.3097/LO.200915

  • Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, Müller F (2012) Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecol Indic 21:17–29. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.019

    Google Scholar 

  • Burton RJF, Kuczera C, Schwarz G (2008) Exploring farmers’ cultural resistance to voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Sociol Rural 48:16–37. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9523.2008.00452.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell D (2007) Willingness to pay for rural landscape improvements: combining mixed logit and random-effects models. J Agric Econ 58:467–483. doi:10.1111/j.1477-9552.2007.00117.x

    Google Scholar 

  • CBS (2011) Number of employees per sector in Winterswijk. http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=81402ned&D1=a&D2=a&D3=509&D4=a&VW=T. Accessed 4 Mar 2013

  • CBS (2012) Hobby-farmers in the Netherlands per municipality. http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?DM=SLNL&PA=80786NED&D1=a&D2=0-1&D3=a&D4=0,5-16&D5=l&HDR=T,G3,G4&STB=G2,G1&VW=T. Accessed 3 Apr 2013

  • Chan KMA, Guerry AD, Balvanera P et al (2012) Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience 62:744–756. doi:10.1525/bio.2012.62.8.7

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark J (2006) The institutional limits to multifunctional agriculture: subnational governance and regional systems of innovation. Environ Plan C: Gov Policy 24:331–349. doi:10.1068/c053

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper T, Hart K, Baldock D (2009) Provision of public goods through agriculture in the European Union. 351

  • Costanza R, d’Arge R, De Groot R et al (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260. doi:10.1038/387253a0

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dachary-Bernard J, Rambonilaza T (2012) Choice experiment, multiple programmes contingent valuation and landscape preferences: how can we support the land use decision making process? Land Use Policy 29:846–854. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.01.002

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J et al (2009) Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ 7:21–28. doi:10.1890/080025

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniel TC, Muhar A, Arnberger A et al (2012) Contributions of cultural services to the ecosystem services agenda. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:8812–8819. doi:10.1073/pnas.1114773109

    PubMed Central  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • De Groot R (2002) A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecol Econ 41:393–408

    Google Scholar 

  • De Groot R (2006) Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 75:175–186. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.02.016

    Google Scholar 

  • De Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L et al (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7:260–272. doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006

    Google Scholar 

  • Dendoncker N, van Wesemael B, Rounsevell MD et al (2004) Belgium’s CO2 mitigation potential under improved cropland management. Agric Ecosyst Environ 103:101–116. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2003.10.010

    Google Scholar 

  • Drake L (1999) The Swedish agricultural landscape—economic characteristics, valuations and policy options. Int J Soc Econ 26:1042–1062. doi:10.1108/03068299910245813

    Google Scholar 

  • Dramstad WE, Tveit MS, Fjellstad WJ, Fry GL a. (2006) Relationships between visual landscape preferences and map-based indicators of landscape structure. Landsc Urban Plan 78:465–474. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.12.006

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (1999) Sixth periodic report on the social and economic situation and development of the regions of the European Union commission of the European communities. Brussels

  • Eurostat (2006) Eurostat regional statistics—value added per sector in NUTS 3 area NL225. http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/region_cities/regional_statistics/data/database. Accessed 3 Apr 2013

  • Freibauer A, Rounsevell MD, Smith P, Verhagen J (2004) Carbon sequestration in the agricultural soils of Europe. Geoderma 122:1–23. doi:10.1016/j.geoderma.2004.01.021

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fry G, Sarlöv-Herlin I (1997) The ecological and amenity functions of woodland edges in the agricultural landscape; a basis for design and management. Landsc Urban Plan 31:45–55

    Google Scholar 

  • García-Llorente M, Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I et al (2012) The role of multi-functionality in social preferences toward semi-arid rural landscapes: an ecosystem service approach. Environ Sci Pol 19–20:136–146. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.01.006

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrod G, Ruto E, Willis K, Powe N (2012) Heterogeneity of preferences for the benefits of environmental stewardship: a latent-class approach. Ecol Econ 76:104–111. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.011

    Google Scholar 

  • Gobster PH, Nassauer JI, Daniel TC, Fry G (2007) The shared landscape: what does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landsc Ecol 22:959–972. doi:10.1007/s10980-007-9110-x

    Google Scholar 

  • Grammatikopoulou I, Pouta E, Salmiovirta M, Soini K (2012) Heterogeneous preferences for agricultural landscape improvements in southern Finland. Landsc Urban Plan 107:181–191. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.06.001

  • Haines-Young RH, Potschin MB (2010) The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. In: Raffaelli DG, Frid CLJ (eds) Ecosystem ecology: a new synthesis. Cambridge University Press, pp 110–139

  • Haines-Young R, Potschin M, Kienast F (2012) Indicators of ecosystem service potential at European scales: mapping marginal changes and trade-offs. Ecol Indic 21:39–53. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.09.004

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, Macmillan D, Wright RE et al (1998) Contingent valuation versus choice experiments: estimating the benefits of environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland. J Agric Econ 49:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasund KP, Kataria M, Lagerkvist CJ (2011) Valuing public goods of the agricultural landscape: a choice experiment using reference points to capture observable heterogeneity. J Environ Plan Manag 54:31–53. doi:10.1080/09640568.2010.502753

    Google Scholar 

  • Hein L (2010) Economics and ecosystems; efficiency, sustainability and equity in ecosystem management. 203

  • Hein L, Vankoppen K, de Groot RS, van Ierland E (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 57:209–228. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.005

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber R, Hunziker M, Lehmann B (2011) Valuation of agricultural land-use scenarios with choice experiments: a political market share approach. J Environ Plan Manag 54:93–113. doi:10.1080/09640568.2010.502761

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunziker M, Buchecker M, Hartig T (2007) Space and place—two aspects of the human–landscape relationship. Landscape. pp 47–62

  • Hunziker M, Kienast F (1999) Potential impacts of changing agricultural activities on scenic beauty – a prototypical technique for automated rapid assessment. Landsc Ecol 161–176

  • Hynes S, Campbell D (2011) Estimating the welfare impacts of agricultural landscape change in Ireland: a choice experiment approach. J Environ Plan Manag 54:1019–1039. doi:10.1080/09640568.2010.547691

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins M (2004) Markets for biodiversity services. Environment 46:32–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Johns H (2008) Economic valuation of environmental impacts in the severely disadvantaged areas final report

  • Jongeneel RA, Polman NBP, Slangen LHG (2008) Why are Dutch farmers going multifunctional? Land Use Policy 25:81–94. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.03.001

    Google Scholar 

  • Jongman RHG (2002) Homogenisation and fragmentation of the European landscape: ecological consequences and solutions. Landsc Urban Plan 58:211–221. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00222-5

    Google Scholar 

  • Jose S (2009) Agroforestry for ecosystem services and environmental benefits: an overview. Agrofor Syst 76:1–10. doi:10.1007/s10457-009-9229-7

    Google Scholar 

  • Junge X, Jacot K a., Bosshard A, Lindemann-Matthies P (2009) Swiss people’s attitudes towards field margins for biodiversity conservation. J Nat Conserv 17:150–159. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2008.12.004

    Google Scholar 

  • Junge X, Lindemann-Matthies P, Hunziker M, Schüpbach B (2011) Aesthetic preferences of non-farmers and farmers for different land-use types and proportions of ecological compensation areas in the Swiss lowlands. Biol Conserv 144:1430–1440. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2011.01.012

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan R, Kaplan S (1989) The experience of nature: a psychological perspective. 340

  • Kienast F, Bolliger J, Potschin M et al (2009) Assessing landscape functions with broad-scale environmental data: insights gained from a prototype development for Europe. Environ Manag 44:1099–120. doi:10.1007/s00267-009-9384-7

    Google Scholar 

  • Klijn JA (2004) Driving forces behind landscape transformation in Europe, from a conceptual approach to policy options. The new dimensions of the European landscape. pp 201–218

  • Kremen C, Williams NM, Aizen MA et al (2007) Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile organisms: a conceptual framework for the effects of land-use change. Ecol Lett 10:299–314. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01018.x

    Google Scholar 

  • Krugman P (1994) Competitiveness: a dangerous obsession. Foreign Aff 73:28–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuemmerle T, Hostert P, Radeloff VC et al (2008) Cross-border comparison of post-socialist farmland abandonment in the Carpathians. Ecosystems 11:614–628. doi:10.1007/s10021-008-9146-z

    Google Scholar 

  • Laterra P, Orúe ME, Booman GC (2011) Spatial complexity and ecosystem services in rural landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2011.05.013

  • Le Cœur D, Baudry J, Burel F, Thenail C (2002) Why and how we should study field boundary biodiversity in an agrarian landscape context. Agric Ecosyst Environ 89:23–40. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00316-4

  • Lefebvre M, Espinosa M, Paloma Sy (2012) The influence of the common agricultural policy on agricultural landscapes. doi:10.2791/94269

  • Leip A, Marchi G, Koeble R (2008) Linking an economic model for European agriculture with a mechanistic model to estimate nitrogen and carbon losses from arable soils in Europe. Biogeosciences 5:73–94. doi:10.5194/bg-5-73-2008

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter SR et al (2007) Coupled human and natural systems. Ambio 36:639–649

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lothian A (1999) Landscape and the philosophy of aesthetics: is landscape quality inherent in the landscape or in the eye of the beholder? Landsc Urban Plan 44:177–198. doi:10.1016/S0169-2046(99)00019-5

    Google Scholar 

  • Louhichi K, Kanellopoulos A, Janssen S et al (2010) FSSIM, a bio-economic farm model for simulating the response of EU farming systems to agricultural and environmental policies. Agric Syst 103:585–597. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2010.06.006

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowe P, Buller H, Ward N (2002) Setting the next agenda? British and French approaches to the second pillar of the common agricultural policy. J Rural Stud 18:1–17. doi:10.1016/S0743-0167(01)00025-0

    Google Scholar 

  • Mace GM, Norris K, Fitter AH (2012) Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol Evol 27:19–26. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2011.08.006

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Maes J, Paracchini ML, Zulian G et al (2012) Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem service supply, biodiversity, and habitat conservation status in Europe. Biol Conserv 155:1–12. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2012.06.016

    Google Scholar 

  • Maestre Andrés S, Calvet Mir L, van den Bergh JCJM et al (2012) Ineffective biodiversity policy due to five rebound effects. Ecosyst Serv 1:101–110. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.003

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall EJ, Moonen A (2002) Field margins in northern Europe: their functions and interactions with agriculture. Agric Ecosyst Environ 89:5–21. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00315-2

  • Martín-López B, Gómez-Baggethun E, Lomas PL, Montes C (2009) Effects of spatial and temporal scales on cultural services valuation. J Environ Manag 90:1050–1059. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.03.013

    Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Moonen A, Barberi P (2008) Functional biodiversity: an agroecosystem approach. Agric Ecosyst Environ 127:7–21. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2008.02.013

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran D, McVittie A, Allcroft DJ, Elston D (2007) Quantifying public preferences for agri-environmental policy in Scotland: a comparison of methods. Ecol Econ 63:42–53. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.09.018

    Google Scholar 

  • Nedkov S, Burkhard B (2012) Flood regulating ecosystem services—mapping supply and demand, in the Etropole municipality, Bulgaria. Ecol Indic 21:67–79. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.022

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortolani L, Mcroberts N, Dendoncker N, Rounsevell M (2010) Analysis of farmers’ concepts of environmental management measures: an application of cognitive maps and cluster analysis in pursuit of modelling agents’ behaviour. Stud Fuzziness Soft Comput 247:363–381

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2009) A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social–ecological systems. Science 325:419–422. doi:10.1126/science.1172133

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Paracchini ML, Capitani C (2011) Implementation of a EU wide indicator for the rural–agrarian landscape. Water. doi:10.2788/25137

    Google Scholar 

  • Paracchini ML, Capitani C, Schmidt AM, et al. (2012) Measuring societal awareness of the rural agrarian landscape: Indicators and scale issues. 130. doi:10.2788/81539

  • Pearce DW, Turner RK (1990) Economics of natural resources. Harvester Wheatsheaf, Hertfordshire

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrosillo I, Costanza R, Aretano R et al (2013) The use of subjective indicators to assess how natural and social capital support residents’ quality of life in a small volcanic island. Ecol Indic 24:609–620. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.08.021

    Google Scholar 

  • Piorr A, Ungaro F, Ciancaglini A et al (2009) Integrated assessment of future CAP policies: land use changes, spatial patterns and targeting. Environ Sci Pol 12:1122–1136. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2009.01.001

    Google Scholar 

  • Plieninger T, Dijks S, Oteros-rozas E, Bieling C (2013) Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33:118–129. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.013

    Google Scholar 

  • Polman N, Slangen LHG (2008) Meervoudig Landgebruik in Winterswijk; Zelforganisatie in een aantrekkelijk landschap. 35

  • Porter M (1985) Competitive advantage: creating and sustaining superior performance. 40

  • Porter M, Ketals C (2003) UK Competitiveness: moving to the next stage, DTI Economics Paper No. 3. 11

  • Power AG (2010) Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philos Trans Royal Soc Lond B Biol Sci 365:2959–2971. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0143

    Google Scholar 

  • Prager K, Freese J (2009) Stakeholder involvement in agri-environmental policy making–learning from a local- and a state-level approach in Germany. J Environ Manag 90:1154–1167. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2008.05.005

    Google Scholar 

  • Prager K, Reed M, Scott A (2012) Encouraging collaboration for the provision of ecosystem services at a landscape scale—rethinking agri-environmental payments. Land Use Policy 29:244–249. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.06.012

    Google Scholar 

  • Rambonilaza M, Dachary-Bernard J (2007) Land-use planning and public preferences: what can we learn from choice experiment method? Landsc Urban Plan 83:318–326. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2007.05.013

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N et al (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manag 90:1933–1949. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001

    Google Scholar 

  • Reger B, Sheridan P, Simmering D et al (2009) Potential effects of direct transfer payments on farmland habitat diversity in a marginal European landscape. Environ Manag 43:1026–1038. doi:10.1007/s00267-008-9270-8

    Google Scholar 

  • Renwick A, Jansson T, Verburg PH et al (2013) Policy reform and agricultural land abandonment in the EU. Land Use Policy 30:446–457. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.04.005

    Google Scholar 

  • Rey Benayas JM, Bullock JM (2012) Restoration of biodiversity and ecosystem services on agricultural land. Ecosystems. doi:10.1007/s10021-012-9552-0

    Google Scholar 

  • Ring I, Schröter-schlaack C (2011) Instrument mixes for biodiversity policies

  • Sayadi S, González-Roa MC, Calatrava-Requena J (2009) Public preferences for landscape features: the case of agricultural landscape in mountainous Mediterranean areas. Land Use Policy 26:334–344. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.04.003

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitzberger I, Wrbka T, Steurer B et al (2005) How farming styles influence biodiversity maintenance in Austrian agricultural landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ 108:274–290. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2005.02.009

    Google Scholar 

  • Schouten M, Opdam P, Polman N, Westerhof E (2013) Resilience-based governance in rural landscapes: experiments with agri-environment schemes using a spatially explicit agent-based model. Land Use Policy 30:934–943. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.06.008

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulp CJE, Alkemade R (2011) Consequences of uncertainty in global-scale land cover maps for mapping ecosystem functions: an analysis of pollination efficiency. Remote Sens 3:2057–2075. doi:10.3390/rs3092057

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulp CJE, Nabuurs G-J, Verburg PH (2008) Future carbon sequestration in Europe—effects of land use change. Agric Ecosyst Environ 127:251–264. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2008.04.010

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Schulp CJE, Alkemade R, Goldewijk KK, Petz K (2012) Mapping ecosystem functions and services in Eastern Europe using global-scale data sets. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag 8:37–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulp CJE, Lautenbach S, Verburg PH (2014) Quantifying and mapping ecosystem services: demand and supply of pollination in the European Union. Ecol Indic 36:131–141. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2013.07.014

    Google Scholar 

  • Seppelt R, Fath B, Burkhard B et al (2012) Form follows function? Proposing a blueprint for ecosystem service assessments based on reviews and case studies. Ecol Indic 21:145–154. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.09.003

    Google Scholar 

  • Seto KC, Reenberg A, Boone CG et al (2012) Urban land teleconnections and sustainability. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109:7687–7692. doi:10.1073/pnas.1117622109

    PubMed Central  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sevenant M, Antrop M (2009) Cognitive attributes and aesthetic preferences in assessment and differentiation of landscapes. J Environ Manag 90:2889–2899. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.016

    Google Scholar 

  • Soini K, Vaarala H, Pouta E (2012) Residents’ sense of place and landscape perceptions at the rural–urban interface. Landsc Urban Plan 104:124–134. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.10.002

    Google Scholar 

  • Soliva R, Bolliger J, Hunziker M (2010) Differences in preferences towards potential future landscapes in the Swiss Alps. Landsc Res 35:671–696. doi:10.1080/01426397.2010.519436

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoate C (2001) Ecological impacts of arable intensification in Europe. J Environ Manag 63:337–365. doi:10.1006/jema.2001.0473

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Strumse E (1994) Environmental attributes and the prediction of visual preferences for agrarian landscapes in Western Norway. J Environ Psychol 293–303

  • Swanwick C, Hanley N (2007) Scoping study on agricultural landscape valuation

  • Syrbe R-U, Walz U (2012) Spatial indicators for the assessment of ecosystem services: providing, benefiting and connecting areas and landscape metrics. Ecol Indic 21:80–88. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.02.013

    Google Scholar 

  • TEEB (2010a) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: mainstreaming the economics of nature: a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB

  • TEEB (2010b) A quick guide to the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for local and regional policy makers

  • Tempesta T (2010) The perception of agrarian historical landscapes: a study of the Veneto plain in Italy. Landsc Urban Plan 97:258–272. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.06.010

  • Termorshuizen JW, Opdam ÆP, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landsc Ecol 24:1037–1052. doi:10.1007/s10980-008-9314-8

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomson N, Ward N (2005) Rural areas and regional competitiveness. 34

  • Tscharntke T, Klein AM, Kruess A et al (2005) Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity—ecosystem service management. Ecol Lett 8:857–874. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00782.x

    Google Scholar 

  • UK National Ecosystem Assessment (2011) UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the key findings

  • Valbuena D, Verburg PH, Bregt AK (2008) A method to define a typology for agent-based analysis in regional land-use research. Agric Ecosyst Environ 128:27–36. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2008.04.015

    Google Scholar 

  • Valbuena D, Verburg PH, Veldkamp A et al (2010) Effects of farmers’ decisions on the landscape structure of a Dutch rural region: an agent-based approach. Landsc Urban Plan 97:98–110. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.05.001

    Google Scholar 

  • van Berkel DB, Verburg PH (2011) Sensitising rural policy: assessing spatial variation in rural development options for Europe. Land Use Policy 28:447–459. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.09.002

    Google Scholar 

  • van Berkel DB, Verburg PH (2012) Combining exploratory scenarios and participatory backcasting: using an agent-based model in participatory policy design for a multi-functional landscape. Landsc Ecol 27:641–658. doi:10.1007/s10980-012-9730-7

    Google Scholar 

  • van Berkel DB, Verburg PH (2013) Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecol Indic. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.06.025

    Google Scholar 

  • van den Berg AE, Koole SL (2006) New wilderness in the Netherlands: an investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 78:362–372. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.11.006

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Zanden EH, Verburg PH, Mücher CA (2013) Modelling the spatial distribution of linear landscape elements in Europe. Ecol Indic 27:125–136. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.12.002

    Google Scholar 

  • van Oudenhoven APE, Petz K, Alkemade R et al (2012) Framework for systematic indicator selection to assess effects of land management on ecosystem services. Ecol Indic 21:110–122. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.01.012

    Google Scholar 

  • Vandermeulen V, Verspecht A, van Huylenbroeck G et al (2006) The importance of the institutional environment on multifunctional farming systems in the peri-urban area of Brussels. Land Use Policy 23:486–501. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.06.002

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanslembrouck I, van Huylenbroeck G (2005) Impact of agriculture on rural tourism: a hedonic pricing approach. J Agric Econ 56:17–30

    Google Scholar 

  • Vedung E (1998) Policy instruments: typologies and theories. In: Bemelmans-Videc ML, Rist RC, Vedung E (eds) Carrots, sticks, and sermons: policy instruments and their evaluation. Transaction, New Brunswick, pp 21–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Verburg PH, van Berkel DB, Doorn AM et al (2009) Trajectories of land use change in Europe: a model-based exploration of rural futures. Landsc Ecol 25:217–232. doi:10.1007/s10980-009-9347-7

    Google Scholar 

  • Verburg PH, Asselen S, Zanden EH, Stehfest E (2013) The representation of landscapes in global scale assessments of environmental change. Landsc Ecol 28:1067–1080. doi:10.1007/s10980-012-9745-0

    Google Scholar 

  • Wade MR, Gurr GM, Wratten SD (2008) Ecological restoration of farmland: progress and prospects. Philos Trans Royal Soc Lond B Biol Sci 363:831–847. doi:10.1098/rstb.2007.2186

    Google Scholar 

  • Waltert F, Schläpfer F (2010) Landscape amenities and local development: a review of migration, regional economic and hedonic pricing studies. Ecol Econ 70:141–152. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.031

    Google Scholar 

  • Willemen L, Verburg PH, Hein L, van Mensvoort MEF (2008) Spatial characterization of landscape functions. Landsc Urban Plan 88:34–43. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.08.004

    Google Scholar 

  • Willemen L, Hein L, Verburg PH (2010) Evaluating the impact of regional development policies on future landscape services. Ecol Econ 69:2244–2254. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.06.012

    Google Scholar 

  • Willis K, Garrod G (1993) Valuing landscape: a contingent valuation approach. J Environ Manag 1–22

  • Wilson GA (2008) From “weak” to “strong” multifunctionality: conceptualising farm-level multifunctional transitional pathways. J Rural Stud 24:367–383. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2007.12.010

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson GA, Hart K (2000) Financial imperative or conservation concern? EU farmers’ motivations for participation in voluntary agri-environmental schemes. Environ Plan A 32:2161–2185. doi:10.1068/a3311

    Google Scholar 

  • Wünscher T, Engel S, Wunder S (2008) Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: a tool for boosting conservation benefits. Ecol Econ 65:822–833. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.11.014

    Google Scholar 

  • Zasada I (2011) Multifunctional peri-urban agriculture—a review of societal demands and the provision of goods and services by farming. Land Use Policy 28:639–648. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.01.008

    Google Scholar 

  • Zasada I, Fertner C, Piorr A, Nielsen T (2011) Peri-urbanisation and multifunctional adaptation of agriculture around Copenhagen. Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish 111:59–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang W, Ricketts TH, Kremen C et al (2007) Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol Econ 64:253–260. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.024

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge funding from the European Commission, 7th Framework Programme through the project CLAIM (Supporting the role of the Common agricultural policy in Landscape valorisation: Improving the knowledge base of the contribution of landscape Management to the rural economy, www.claimproject.eu). This work does not necessarily reflect the view of the European Union and in no way anticipates the Commission’s future policy in this area. Furthermore, the authors like to thank the case study leaders in the CLAIM-project, Manuel Arriaza, Edward Majewski, Handan Giray, Dimitre Nikolov, and Jean Christophe Paoli, for their contributions to the paper during project meetings.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Environmental Studies, VU University, De Boelelaan 1087, 1081 HV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Boris T. van Zanten & Peter H. Verburg

  2. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, IPTS Seville, Edificio EXPO, C/ Inca Garcilaso 3, 41092, Seville, Spain

    Maria Espinosa, Sergio Gomez-y-Paloma & Marianne Lefebvre

  3. Department of Statistics, University of Bologna, Via delle Belle Arti, 41, 40126, Bologna, Italy

    Giuliano Galimberti & Meri Raggi

  4. Institute of Agricultural and Forestry Economics, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, University of Natural Resources and Life Sciences, Vienna, Feistmantelstr. 4, 1180, Vienna, Austria

    Jochen Kantelhardt, Martin Kapfer & Lena Schaller

  5. Department of Agricultural Science, University of Bologna, V.le Fanin, 50, 40127, Bologna, Italy

    Rosa Manrique, Stefano Targetti & Davide Viaggi

  6. Institute of Socio-Economics, Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF) e.V., Eberswalder Str. 84, 15374, Müncheberg, Germany

    Annette Piorr & Ingo Zasada

Authors
  1. Boris T. van Zanten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter H. Verburg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maria Espinosa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Sergio Gomez-y-Paloma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Giuliano Galimberti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jochen Kantelhardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Martin Kapfer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Marianne Lefebvre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Rosa Manrique
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Annette Piorr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Meri Raggi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Lena Schaller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Stefano Targetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Ingo Zasada
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Davide Viaggi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Boris T. van Zanten.

About this article

Cite this article

van Zanten, B.T., Verburg, P.H., Espinosa, M. et al. European agricultural landscapes, common agricultural policy and ecosystem services: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 34, 309–325 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0183-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-013-0183-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation