Archetypes in support of tailoring land-use policies

Oberlack, Christoph; Pedde, Simona; Piemontese, Luigi; Václavík, Tomáš; Sietz, Diana

doi:10.1088/1748-9326/acd802

Cited by 7 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The effectiveness of such policies is enhanced when they are specifically tailored to distinctive characteristics of individual land systems instead of homogeneously implemented (Oberlack et al 2023). The implementation and management of EI should avoid a one-size-fits-all approach and instead needs to account for regional heterogeneity of actors and landscapes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Leveraging these methods to read landscape patterns over time from satellite data may enhance our understanding of the underlying processes and lead to more specific support for management and decision-making processes. Such landscape patterns trajectories over time also show newly emerging risks and opportunities, which are crucial for the design and selection of management policies (Oberlack et al 2023) in the context of EI.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Archetypes are often conceptualized as representations of recurring land systems (Václavík et al 2013), which can be constructed based on either purely biophysical indicators or by combining the demands of the social system with environmental conditions, as exemplified in this study. Archetypes can be used for informing policies that are specifically tailored to the distinctive characteristics of individual land systems, which proves to be more effective compared to implementing measures in a homogeneous manner (Oberlack et al 2023). Archetype analysis has been used for mapping social-ecological systems to research poverty alleviation and food security issues (Rocha et al 2020); for identifying the human-nature connectedness in social-ecological systems to map areas that face sustainability challenges (Pacheco-Romero et al 2021); and provides a promising approach for facilitating transdisciplinary collaboration to plan and implement EI.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Archetypes of social-ecological-technological systems for managing ecological infrastructure

Wicki,

Black,

Kurmann

et al. 2023

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of ecological infrastructure (EI) as a lens for landscape management has the potential to address environmental challenges, such as biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation, by instrumentalizing Nature’s Contributions to People (NCP). NCPs stems from the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and refers to the various ways in which the natural world provides benefits, values, and services that directly and indirectly contribute to the well-being, livelihoods, and cultural aspects of human societies. This research explores this potential by proposing an archetype analysis of social-ecological-technological systems (SETS) to manage EI. We derived archetypes using machine learning and clustering on a data-driven SETS framework co-produced with experts in EI management. The archetype analysis was conducted by combining K-means with hierarchical clustering on spatial patterns to generate clusters with similar configurations of social, ecological, and technological subsystems. The approach is illustrated for the canton of Geneva, Switzerland, which experiences high urbanization and ecological pressures. The resulting spatially explicit archetypes of SETS facilitate policy recommendations tailored to multifunctional landscapes, which can be used to derive coherent management strategies for EI. In addition, the approach demonstrates that by taking an integrated landscape approach and engaging with diverse stakeholders, it is possible to develop effective landscape-based management recommendations for promoting the sustainable provision of NCPs and biodiversity within the concept of EI.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Archetypes of social-ecological-technological systems for managing ecological infrastructure

Wicki,

Black,

Kurmann

et al. 2023

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite reducing administration costs, the uniform implementation of these measures across different jurisdictions fails to consider local socio-economic and ecological characteristics, undermining their effectiveness (Candel et al 2021. Therefore, agri-environment policies that are tailored to specific properties of farming systems are likely to be more effective than one-size-fits-all policy measures (Oberlack et al 2023).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Alternatively, broad typologies of agricultural land-use systems enable contextualising locally specific cases (e.g. farms) within regional to national frameworks (Ribeiro et al 2016, Oberlack et al 2023. These approaches that identify and map archetypal patterns of agricultural systems have proved useful for modelling land-use policy impacts (Metzger et al 2013), understanding land-management intensities (Václavík et al 2013, van der Zanden et al 2016, Levers et al 2018, Rega et al 2020, analysing agrienvironmental potentials (Beckmann et al 2022) and farm management practices (Goodwin et al 2022), or upscaling regional findings (Václavík et al 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Farming system archetypes help explain the uptake of agri-environment practices in Europe

Václavík,

Beckmann,

Bednář

et al. 2024

Environ. Res. Lett.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The adoption of agri-environment practices (AEPs) is crucial for safeguarding the long-term sustainability of ecosystem services within European agricultural landscapes. However, the tailoring of agri-environment policies to the unique characteristics of farming systems is a challenging task, often neglecting local farm parameters or requiring extensive farm survey data. Here, we develop a simplified typology of farming system archetypes (FSAs), using field-level data on farms’ economic size and specialisation derived from the Integrated Administration and Control System in three case studies in Germany, Czechia and the United Kingdom. Our typology identifies groups of farms that are assumed to react similarly to agricultural policy measures, bridging the gap between efforts to understand individual farm behaviour and broad agri-environmental typologies. We assess the usefulness of our approach by quantifying the spatial association of identified archetypes of farming systems with ecologically relevant AEPs (cover crops, fallow, organic farming, grassland maintenance, vegetation buffers, conversion of cropland to grassland and forest) to understand the rates of AEP adoption by different types of farms. Our results show that of the 20 archetypes, economically large farms specialised in general cropping dominate the agricultural land in all case studies, covering 56% to 85% of the total agricultural area. Despite regional differences, we found consistent trends in AEP adoption across diverse contexts. Economically large farms and those specialising in grazing livestock were more likely to adopt AEPs, with economically larger farms demonstrating a proclivity for a wider range of measures. In contrast, economically smaller farms usually focused on a narrower spectrum of AEPs and, together with farms with an economic value <2 000 EUR, accounted for 70% of all farms with no AEP uptake. These insights indicate the potential of the FSA typology as a framework to infer key patterns of AEP adoption, thus providing relevant information to policy-makers for more direct identification of policy target groups and ultimately for developing more tailored agri-environment policies. 

show abstract

Mapping lock-ins and enabling environments for agri-food sustainability transitions in Europe

Williams,

Bürgi,

Debonne

et al. 2024

Sustain Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

European agri-food systems must overcome structural lock-ins to achieve more sustainable modes of production and consumption. Yet European regions are highly diverse, and we lack understanding of how different regional characteristics may enable or inhibit sustainability transitions. This hinders the development of context-tailored governance strategies. In this paper, we identify and apply sets of spatial indicators to map the regional potentials for agri-food transitions. We first analyse the strength of lock-in to the incumbent agro-industrial paradigm. We then map the enabling environments for two alternative agri-food networks—multifunctional value chains and civic food networks—that each embed distinct social–ecological qualities of agriculture and food. Results demonstrate a large spatial diversity in transition potential, with stronger lock-ins throughout North and Western Europe and stronger enabling environments for agri-food transitions in Italy, France, Switzerland, and Southwest Germany. We find that lock-ins are strongest in livestock-dominated regions and are associated with higher GHG emissions and excess nitrogen levels. Our study demonstrates the need for coordinated public policies that (1) leverage region-specific transition potentials and (2) enable complementary innovations in market-based and community-led networks.

show abstract

Archetypes in support of tailoring land-use policies

Cited by 7 publications

References 51 publications

Archetypes of social-ecological-technological systems for managing ecological infrastructure

Archetypes of social-ecological-technological systems for managing ecological infrastructure

Farming system archetypes help explain the uptake of agri-environment practices in Europe

Mapping lock-ins and enabling environments for agri-food sustainability transitions in Europe

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About