1 Pdfsam Teksts Ainavu Ekologija

401 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
401
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

1 Pdfsam Teksts Ainavu Ekologija

  1. 1. Landscape changes in agrarian landscapes in the 1990s: the interaction between farmers and the farmed landscape. A case study from Jutland, Denmark Lone Søderkvist Kristensena,*, Claudine Thenailb , Søren Pilgaard Kristensenc a Danish Centre for Forest, Landscape and Planning, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Rolighedsvej 23, DK-1958 Frederiksberg C, Denmark b INRA-SAD armorique, 65 Rue de Saint-Brieuc, F-35042 Rennes Cedex, France c Institute of Geography, University of Copenhagen, Østervoldgade 10, DK-1350 Copenhagen K, Denmark Received 29 August 2002; revised 3 March 2004; accepted 3 March 2004 Abstract Recent landscape changes in a farmed landscape are analysed and related to farm and farmer characteristics. It is assumed that farm and farmer characteristics serve as mediators of large scale or macro driving forces of change—in the present case, a changing farming context including demands for a more environmentally friendly farming practise and a reduced output. The results are based on multivariate analyses of data collected from structured interviews of 160 farmers in a case study area, in central Jutland, measuring 5000 ha. The analysis shows that farmers are highly involved in landscape changes. The investigated landscape changes include creation and removal of landscape elements as well as certain management changes. The most common activity was creation of elements: hedgerows, small woodlands and conversion of rotational arable land to permanent grassland, whereas removal of elements, mainly hedgerows and semi-natural grasslands, were seen less frequently. Management changes like abandonment of permanent grassland were widespread. The results indicate a general extensification of the land use and the authors interpret the results partly as an indication of a change from productivism to a more multifunctional agricultural regime. The observed landscape changes at the farm level show a low, but structured relationship with the current farm and farmer characteristics, meaning that landscape changes were undertaken by various farmers and on various farms. On a general level, however, the age of the farmer and the duration of farm ownership seem to have a major influence on the landscape changes. q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Agricultural landscapes; Landscape changes; Driving forces; Factors influencing behaviour; Productivism; Post-productivism; Multiple correspondence analysis 1. Introduction It is widely agreed that agriculture in Western Europe since the mid 1980s has undergone a complex restructuring. The main driving forces of this restructuring are linked to the reform of Common Agricultural Policy, the WTO negotiations, and the increasing environmental regulation of agriculture in the EU (Bowler and Ilbery, 1999). These initiatives are well known and imply that agriculture must: (1) produce within a context of an increasingly competitive international market, (2) provide environmental goods and (3) reduce farm output (Ilbery et al., 1997). The new farming context has been conceptualised by a number of researchers including Bowler, 1992, Ilbery and Bowler, 1998, Marsden et al., 1993, Marsden, 1995, Marsden, 1998 and Shucksmith, 1993 who suggest that agriculture is in a transition from ‘productivism’ to ‘post- productivism’. According to Ilbery and Bowler (1998) this transition implies that agriculture, on a general level, will orient away from intensification, specialisation and concen- tration, which are characteristics of the productivist farming period, towards extensification, diversification and disper- sal, indicators of the post-productivist farming period. The authors question a complete reorientation of the three polarities; rather, they envision a co-existence of both productivist and post-productivist farming systems. Recently Wilson (2001) has suggested that “the notion of ‘multifunctional agricultural regime’ better (than the notion of post-productivism) encapsulates the diversity, nonlinear- ity and spatial heterogeneity that can currently be observed 0301-4797/$ - see front matter q 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2004.03.003 Journal of Environmental Management 71 (2004) 231–244 www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ45-3528-2213; fax: þ45-3528-2205. E-mail address: lokr@kvl.dk (L.S. Kristensen).
  2. 2. in modern agriculture and rural society”. With this notion, the author stresses that the new farming context is not linked to one specific goal, which all actors try to reach, but includes a variety of goals, actions, and thoughts linked to both productivism and post-productivism. The consequences of productivism in terms of landscape impacts are well known and include the intensification of land use and removal and abandonment of landscape elements (Adams, 1996; Agger and Brandt, 1988; Baldock et al., 1996; Barr et al., 1993; Baudry, 1991; Ihse, 1995). Consequences of post-productivism seem, however, to be more ambiguous. On one hand it has been seen as offering new opportunities for nature development and nature enhancement (Ilbery, 1990; Gasson and Potter, 1988; Potter et al., 1991), but on the other hand it has been pointed out that extensification and diversification do not necessarily lead to an improvement of the values of landscape (Wilson, 2001). The more unknown consequences of the post-producti- vism and the aforementioned ambiguity in development of the contemporary agricultural and resulting diversity in the pattern of landscape changes call for new research into landscape development, not only on a general level, but also in a local context allowing for an examination of the multifaceted actions of farmers and the impact of these actions on the landscape. Recent landscape research in Western Europe has mostly focused on agri-environmental policies, their possibilities in providing environmental benefits and scheme up-take (Wilson, 1996, 1997; Rønnin- gen, 1993, 1999; Buller et al., 2000). However, fewer studies have focused on landscape development in general in modern farmed landscapes in the 1990s (Battershill and Gilg, 1996; Brandt et al., 2001; Kristensen et al., 2001; Primdahl, 1999). On this background, the purpose of this paper is two-fold: (1) to investigate recent landscape changes in a farmed landscape in order to examine the landscape consequence of the multifunctional agricultural regime recently developed and (2) to explore the relationship between characteristics of farms and farmers and patterns of landscape change in order to obtain an understanding of how the diversity of these farm level characteristics influence landscape changes. Landscape changes include in the present study creation and removal of landscape elements such as hedgerows and ponds and conversion of arable land to permanent grassland. However, changes in management of landscape elements, e.g. abandonment of permanent grassland, are also included. These types of changes are often referred to as land- use/land-cover changes (Lambin et al., 2000), but will in the following text just be named ‘landscape changes’. Literature on the influence of farm level characteristics on the farmers’ decision making often emphasises length of residency, age of the farmer, dependency of income from agriculture (in the following called farmer occupation), farm size(FS),andamount ofunusedareasonthe farmasimportant factors(Adamsetal.,1994;Brandtetal.,1999;McDowelland Sparks, 1989; Potter, 1994; Potter and Lobley, 1992, 1996; Wilson, 1992, 1997). In addition Battershill and Gilg (1996) report that farmers’ behaviour seem to be influenced by farm production types, e.g. mixed dairy farming, mixed stock or simple dairy farming. Similar farm level characteristics have been investigated in the present study. The patterns of landscape change and the relationship between these patterns and the farm level characteristics have been analysed by the use of multivariate analysis techniques. Experiences with use of these techniques are discussed in the end of the paper. 2. Presentation of the study area The study area, Sønder Omme parish (SOP) located in central Jutland within the West Jutland natural-geographical region (Fig. 1), is an old moraine landscape dissected by glacio-fluvial plains and valleys and dominated by sandy soils (podsols) (Jacobsen, 1975). The total size of the parish is approximately 8500 ha, of which about 5000 ha is agricultural land; the remainder is predominately forest (spruce). An extensive network of hedgerows exists (shelterbelts), originally planted as one row of mainly white spruce (Picea glauca). Due to fungus-related problems, the white spruce hedgerows are increasingly being replaced by deciduous hedgerows, mostly in three rows or broader. The hedgerows have been planted mainly in order to protect against wind erosion. The hedgerow density as well as the area of forest has increased since the 1900. In contrast, the number and area of semi-natural landscape elements, such as meadows and heathlands, have been reduced due to ploughing and abandonment (Working group SCOPE, 1997). Fig. 1. The location of Sønder Omme parish in central Jutland, Denmark. L.S Kristensen et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 71 (2004) 231–244232
  3. 3. The farms of SOP were in 1995 partly husbandry farms (mainly dairy) and partly crop farms (50%). Compared to national averages, the animal density was low (65 cattle/ha compared to 77 cattle/ha and 72 pigs/ha compared to 399 pigs/ha). Sixty percent of the total agricultural area was arable land; the remainder was permanent grassland, set- aside land, woodlands, Christmas tree plantations and uncultivated areas (Fig. 2). The latter includes heathlands, bogs, ponds, hedgerows, etc. as well as gardens, build-up areas and roads, with semi-natural areas making up the largest proportion. The proportion of uncultivated areas and woods (including Christmas tree plantations) was high (20%) compared to national average (10%) (Danmarks Statistik, 1996). This may be ascribed to the poor soil condition of the area, which makes it less suitable for arable crop-production than for example the more fertile areas in eastern Denmark. The average property size was 31 ha (defined as the total amount of land owned by the farmer), and the farm average size was 36 ha (the total amount of land owned by the farmer plus the amount of land rented or minus the land leased out), indicating that a significant amount of land was under leasehold; these were mainly short-term contracts. Thirty percent of the farmers were full-time farmers, 50% were part-time/hobby farmers or other persons with no or little relation to agriculture and 20% were pensioners. The farmer occupation was defined on the basis of the farmers’ personal income from farming (not the household income): full-time farmers having more than 80% of their income from farming, part-time farmers 50–80% and hobby farmers having less than 50% of their income from farming. All farmers receiving a pension (early retirement or real retirement) have been classified as pensioners regardless of the income derived from farming. 3. Methods 3.1. Data sources All farmers in the parish owning at least 2 ha of agricultural land were contacted for a structured personal interview. Responses were obtained from 95% of all eligible farmers. A total of 160 farmers owning 168 farms were interviewed. The survey included questions about the socio- economic SE situation of the individual farmer, details about the farm production system and land use, along with questions concerning landscape changes during 1990–1995 (a five year period). All landscape changes were mapped in order to increase the reliability of the information. If data were missing for the farm/farmer characteristics or the landscape change variables, the observation was excluded. This filtering of observations reduced the dataset to a total of 138 farmers owning 4343 ha. Farmers excluded from the analysis were mainly older farmers leasing out nearly all their land, because production and land use information were not recorded for farmers cultivating less than 2 ha of land. The landscape changes investigated in the survey include changes of both patch and linear elements, e.g. conversion of arable land to permanent grassland and the reverse, and removal and planting of hedgerows. The full range of landscape changes included in the survey is shown in Table 1. In the analysis of the relationship between landscape changes and farmer/farm characteristics, the latter have been separated into socio-economic features and farm production/land-use features (Table 1) in order to test the influence of these features individually. In addition, a farm size variable (with six classes) has been included, to describe the farm structure. 3.2. Multivariate analyses Multiple Correspondence Analyses (MCA) and Hierarch- ical Cluster Analyses (HCA) were used to produce the typologies of farm and farmer characteristics and landscape changes as well as to analyse their relationship. The typology of landscape changes was produced by a HCA following a MCA on the landscape change data. From a similar procedure two distinct typologies, one on the production characteristics and one on the SE characteristics, were produced. Finally, the relationship between the farm and farmer characteristics and the landscape changes was investigated by the use of the produced factorial planes and typologies. MCA allow the use of both quantitative and qualitative variables and were in the present study used in order to investigate gradients of relationships between farm/farmer characteristics and the landscape changes (Legendre and Legendre, 1998). The type of HCA is an agglomerative clustering, i.e. a procedure that successively groups the closest objects into clusters, which then are grouped into larger clusters of higher rank (Legendre and Legendre, 1998). The descriptors of the objects used in the clustering were their factorial co-ordinates on the plane of the MCA. The metric used in the MCA is based on the x2 : This was also the metric used in the following HCA. At each step the procedure of HCA tends to minimise the inner-cluster variance and jointly maximises the between-cluster vari- ance (Lebart et al., 1995). The algorithm is based on Fig. 2. The land use in Sønder Omme in 1995, in percentages of the total agricultural area. L.S Kristensen et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 71 (2004) 231–244 233
  4. 4. the principle of reciprocal pairs (McQuitty, 1966, cited by Lebart et al., 1995), which aggregated the closest objects at the same time at each step. All analyses were performed with Addad software (Lebeaux, 1985). The investigation of the relationships between the different sets of variables was made by adding the typology of one set of variables (e.g. landscape changes), as supplementary variables on the factorial plane of a second set of variables (e.g. the gradient of SE characteristics). Supplementary variables do not participate to the building of the factorial plane. The location of these supplementary variables along the factorial axes expresses their linkage with the pattern of active variables displayed by these factorial axes (Lebart et al., 1995). 4. Results 4.1. Trend in landscape changes and combination of landscape changes at farm level In total, 95 farmers corresponding to 69% of all interviewed farmers were involved in one or more landscape changes. The most common activities were hedgerow removal/planting, conversion of arable land to permanent grassland, planting of woods and small woodlands, and abandonment of permanent grassland (Fig. 3). In terms of size, the largest single type of patch change was planting of Christmas tree plantations (106 ha), followed by establishment of permanent grassland (80 ha), planting of woods and small woodlands (60 ha) and abandonment of permanent grassland (57 ha). Also arable land was abandoned to a certain degree (26 ha). Except for the abandonment of permanent grassland, the above- mentioned changes (272 ha) imply a conversion of arable land to permanent land uses (Christmas tree plantations, woods, small woodlands, permanent grasslands and areas for ‘free‘ succession). In contrast, only 27 ha of permanent grasslands were converted into arable land. The remaining patch element changes concern changes within the perma- nent land uses. These changes included re-grassing of abandoned grassland (permanent grassland which had been out of agricultural use for a longer period; 42 ha) and abandonment of Christmas tree plantations after they have been harvested. The total area of 8.4% (365 ha) has changed to a different land-use/land-cover in the investigated period. In addition, 20.8 km of hedgerows were planted, 14.3 km of hedgerows were removed, and 13 ponds were established or cleaned. No ponds were removed. More than half of the hedgerows were removed in order to replant the hedgerows in the area. The results of the MCA performed on the landscape changes (the typology building) show that the first axis corresponds to an eigenvalue of 0.20, which accounts for Table 1 Variables of landscape changes and farm level characteristics: socio-economic variables, production and land-use variables and farm size, used in the analyses Variables Description of variables: classes and categories Farmer characteristics: socio-economic variables (SE) Age of the farmer, year #40, ]40–50], ]50–60], .60 Duration of farm ownership, year #5, ]5–10], ]10–20], .20 Owner occupation Full-time, part-time, hobby, pensioners and others Number of people living on the farm 1, 2, .2 Place of growing up City or countryside Farm characteristics: production and land-use variables (PLU) Arable land, percentage Eight classes Land use, percentage Fourteen land use types with eight classes Animal production, number Nine types of animal and 3–5 classes depending on the type of animal Farm structure: farm size (FS) The farm size is based on the total amount of land owned by the farmer plus the amount of land rented or minus the land leased out, ha ]0–10], ]10–20], ]20–30], ]30–50], ]50–100], .100 Landscape change variables (PC) Conversion of arable land to permanent grassland, ha 0, ]0–5], .5 Cultivation of permanent grassland (ploughing up), ha 0, ]0–5], .5 Re-grassing of abandoned permanent grassland, ha 0, ]0–5], .5 Planting and removal of forest and small woodlands, ha 0, ]0–5], .5 Planting and removal of hedgerows, m 0, ]0–500], .500 Type of hedgerows, number of rows 1, [2–3], [4–6], .6 Creation and removal of Christmas tree plantations, ha 0, ]0–5], .5 Establishment, cleaning and removal of ponds Yes or no, established or cleaned Abandonment of land (arable, permanent grassland and Christmas tree plantings), ha 0, ]0–5], .5 L.S Kristensen et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 71 (2004) 231–244234
  5. 5. 10.40% of the total inertia, and the second axis corresponds to an eigenvalue of 0.16, which accounts for 8.30% of the total inertia (cumulated value: 18.7%). These values are low compared to values obtained in the case of farm and farmer characteristics (see Section 4.2); however, they still indicate that a certain structure of landscape changes at the farm level can be identified. Six landscape change types appeared from the combined analyses of the MCA and the HCA (Table 2). The landscape change types PC3 and PC4 are the most common; they contain 35 and 26 farmers, respectively. The PC1 and PC3 are characterised by planting and removal of hedgerows, which appear to be associated processes. PC1 corresponds to farms with a high rate of hedgerow planting (600–900 m) and removal (100– 600 m), whereas PC3 corresponds to farms with a medium rate of hedgerow planting (100–300 m) and removal (50– 200 m). Both types include several other changes: conver- sion of arable land to permanent grassland, planting of woods and small woodlands and creation of ponds; however, PC1 alone includes re-grazing of abandoned grassland and PC3 alone includes the ploughing up of permanent grassland. Among farms belonging to type PC1 and PC3, respectively, 67 and 43% have undertaken more than one type of landscape change (when planting and removal of hedgerows are seen as one activity). PC4 represents farms with diverse patch changes, notably conversion of arable to permanent grassland (about half) and planting of woods and small woodlands. The majority of farmers in PC4 have undertaken only one landscape change. All farmers in the groups PC5 and PC6 have abandoned land. PC5 represents farms with 1–8 ha of abandoned land, which includes both permanent grassland and arable land. Forty-three percent have undertaken more than one change. The type PC6 represents farms with land abandon- ment (2–5 ha), mainly of grassland, and hedgerow planting (150–300 m) and removal (0–200 m). All farmers in this group have undertaken more than one change. Finally, PC2 contains a single farmer, which has converted arable land to permanent grassland and made Christmas tree plantations. This farmer has specialised in nursery plants and Christmas trees and has undertaken the majority of Christmas tree planting in the area. 4.2. Farm typologies A typology of production/land use variables (PLU) and socio-economic variables (SE) were made from their co-ordinates in the MCA ‘PLU’ and ‘SE’, respectively. For the set of variables describing the production and land use system (PLU),1 the first axis segregates farms with less than 40% of arable land and no animals on the positive side, from mixed crop/livestock farms with more than 40% of arable land on the negative side. For the set of variables describing the SE characteristics of farms,2 the first axis expresses a gradient of increasing age of the farmers, Fig. 3. The number of farmers in Sønder Omme involved in landscape changes. The size of the different landscape changes is given in the left column. Changes in ponds are given in numbers. 1 MCA ‘PLU’: the first axis corresponds to an eigenvalue of 0.69, which accounts for 14.60% of the total inertia, and the second axis corresponds to an eigenvalue of 0.53, which accounts for 11.25% of the total inertia (cumulated value: 25.85%). 2 MCA ‘SE’: the first axis corresponds to an eigenvalue of 0.50, which accounts for 20.2% of the total inertia, and the second axis corresponds to an eigenvalue of 0.33, which accounts for 13.5% of the total inertia (cumulated value: 33.7%). L.S Kristensen et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 71 (2004) 231–244 235
  6. 6. Table 2 The six ‘landscape change types’ based on the combination of landscape changes Landscape changes PC1 (12 farmers) PC2 (1 farmers) PC3 (35 farmers) PC4 (26 farmers) PC5 (14 farmers) PC6 (7 farmers) Arable land to permanent grassland 0 ha (10), .5 ha (2) .5 ha (1) 0 ha (30), 1–5 ha (5) 0 ha (14), 1–5 ha (12) 0 ha (13), 1–5 ha (1) 0 ha (7) Permanent grassland to arable land 0 ha (12) 0 ha (1) 0 ha (32), 1–5 ha (2), 0 ha (21), 1–5 ha (4), NI (1) 0 ha (14) 0 ha (7) Started re-grassing 0 ha (9), 1–5 ha (1), .5 ha (2) 0–5 ha (1) 0 ha (35) 0 ha (24), 1–5 ha (1), .5 ha (1) 0 ha (14) 0 ha (6), 1–5 ha (1) New woods and small woodlands 0 ha (9), 1–5 ha (2), NI (1) 0 ha (1) 0 ha (29), 1–5 ha (5) 0 ha (18), 1–5 ha (5), .5 ha (2), NI (1) 0 ha (11), 1–5 ha (2), NI (1) 0 ha (5), 1–5 ha (2) New Christmas trees 0 ha (11), NI (1) .5 ha (1) 0 ha (30), 1–5 ha (4) 0 ha (24), .5 ha (2) 0 ha (14) 0 ha (7) New hedgerows .500 m (10), 1–500 m (2) NI (1) 1–500 m (27), 0 m (6) 1–500 m (1), 0 m (25) 1–500 m (1), 0 m (13) 1–500 m (6), . 500 m (1) Type of hedgerow planted 3 Rows (9), diverse rows (3) NI (1) 1–2 rows (2), 3 rows (19), .3 rows (4), diverse (2) .3 rows (1), none (25) .3 rows (1), none (13), 1–2 rows (2), 3 row (4), none (1) Removed woods 0 ha (12) 0 ha (1) 0 ha (34), 1–5 ha (1) 0 ha (26) 0 ha (14) 0 ha (7) Removed hedgerows 1–500 m (5), .500 m (4), 0 m (3) 0 m (1) 1–500 m (26), 0 m (9) 0 m (26) 1–500 m (2), 0 m (12), 1–500 m (3), .500 m (1), 0 m (3) Removed Christmas trees 0 ha (11), 1–5 ha (1) 0 ha (1) 0 ha (35) 0 ha (26) 0 ha (13), 1–5 ha (1) 0 ha (7) Established and cleaned ponds Established (2), none (10) Established (1) Cleaned (2), established (1), none (32) Established (4), cleaned (3), none (19) None (14) None (7) Removed ponds None None None None None None Abandonment of use None (12) None (1) No (35) Ab. of, arable land, (1), none (25) Ab. of perm. grassland (9), Ab. of arable land (5) Ab. of perm. grassland (6), Ab. of arable land (1) Amount of abandoned land 0 ha (12) 0 ha (1) 0 ha (35/35) 0 ha (25) 1–5 ha (9), .5 ha (3), NI (2) 1–5 ha (6), .5 ha (1) Descriptiona Hedgerows planted: 600–900 m Arable ! permanent grassland Hedgerows planted: 100–300 m Diverse patch changes Abandonment: 1–8 ha Abandonment: 2–5 ha Hedgerows removed: 100–600 m New Christmas trees Hedgerows removed: 50–200 m Hedgerows planted: 150–300 m Hedgerows removed: 0–200 m The 43 farms without any changes (PC0) are not mentioned in the table. Figures in bracket indicate the number of farmers involved in each landscape change. NI ¼ no information. The most characteristic of the individual landscape types are indicated by a grey colour. a The description is supplemented by more detailed information on the amount of changes from the individual observations of the cluster types. L.SKristensenetal./JournalofEnvironmentalManagement71(2004)231–244236

×