Land managers’ behaviours modulate pathways to visions of future land systems

Abstract

Attempts to influence the development of land systems are often based on detailed scenarios that constrain relevant factors, describe a range of divergent but plausible futures and identify potential pathways to visions of desirable conditions. However, a number of assumptions are usually made during this process, and one of the most substantial is that land managers display homogeneous, economically rational behaviour across space, time and scenarios. This assumption precludes the consideration of important behavioural effects and limits understanding of the feasibility of scenario-based pathways towards visions. We use an agent-based land use model to examine broad forms of behavioural variation within defined scenarios in theoretical contexts. We relate model results to stakeholder-developed visions of desired future land systems in Europe and so assess the scope for behavioural pathways towards these normative futures. We find that the achievability of visions is determined by internal inconsistencies, scenario conditions and the multifunctional potential of land uses, with a fundamental tension between large-scale land use productivity and small-scale diversity (i.e. land sparing and land sharing). Trading conditions affect this balance most strongly and represent an obvious target for governance strategies concerned with achieving multifunctional land use. However, within specific circumstances behavioural effects are strong and diverse, and can accelerate, counteract or mitigate the impacts of other drivers. This suggests that visions for the land system should focus on trade-offs, identifying those that are least strong, most acceptable and most susceptible to adjustment through behavioural or other influences.

How do Europeans want to live in 2040? Citizen visions and their consequences for European land use

“…It is nevertheless salient to consider that scenario modelling suggests the localist aspirations expressed by many of the respondents are extremely difficult to realize Brown et al 2016). Current policies promote efficiency, specialization and competition, which generally drive large-scale food production in the most favourable locations.…”

Behavioral models of climate change adaptation and mitigation in land‐based sectors

“…Certainly, the use of behavioral models to understand effects beyond the scope of economic models is well supported and relatively common across land system science 3,10,41,96,116 . This often involves simple models that can illuminate areas of uncertainty or potential developments that were previously unrecognized 11,22,51,86,117 . Obvious and achievable contributions here include assessments of the role of diffusion in attitudes, knowledge, or uptake of novel practices, 46,98 the potential for particular aspects of local knowledge to alter the impacts of global drivers of change, 58,79,118,119 and the effects of changes in ecosystem service provision on societal and individual decision‐making 56,58,117 …”

Coupled land use and ecological models reveal emergence and feedbacks in socio‐ecological systems

“…The rate of cluster formation in our study may be affected by the initialisation of the models with spatially uncorrelated land uses. Such effects are also strongly modulated by the knowledge and attitudes of land managers, which we did not consider here, but which can be varied in the model framework we used (Brown et al 2016, Pe'er et al 2017. Similarly, we do not simulate ecological interactions beyond those implicit in the ecological parameters used above.…”