Search

ispartof: EUROCHOICES vol:21 issue:3 pages:21-26 status: published

Funding Information: This study was partially funded by VLIR-UOS. The study sponsors had no role in the study design, the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the paper for publication. Publisher Copyright: © 2022, The Author(s). Background: HIV drug resistance (HIVDR) continues to threaten the effectiveness of worldwide antiretroviral therapy (ART). Emergence and transmission of HIVDR are driven by several interconnected factors. Though much has been done to uncover factors influencing HIVDR, overall interconnectedness between these factors remains unclear and African policy makers encounter difficulties setting priorities combating HIVDR. By viewing HIVDR as a complex adaptive system, through the eyes of multi-disciplinary HIVDR experts, we aimed to make a first attempt to linking different influencing factors and gaining a deeper understanding of the complexity of the system. Methods: We designed a detailed systems map of factors influencing HIVDR based on semi-structured interviews with 15 international HIVDR experts from or with experience in sub-Saharan Africa, from different disciplinary backgrounds and affiliated with different types of institutions. The resulting detailed system map was conceptualized into three main HIVDR feedback loops and further strengthened with literature evidence. Results: Factors influencing HIVDR in sub-Saharan Africa and their interactions were sorted in five categories: biology, individual, social context, healthcare system and ‘overarching’. We identified three causal loops cross-cutting these layers, which relate to three interconnected subsystems of mechanisms influencing HIVDR. The ‘adherence motivation’ subsystem concerns the interplay of factors influencing people living with HIV to alternate between adherence and non-adherence. The ‘healthcare burden’ subsystem is a reinforcing loop leading to an increase in HIVDR at local population level. The ‘ART overreliance’ subsystem is a balancing feedback loop leading to complacency among program managers when there is overreliance on ART with a perceived low risk to drug resistance. The three subsystems are interconnected at different levels. Conclusions: Interconnectedness of the three subsystems underlines the need to act on the entire system of factors surrounding HIVDR in sub-Saharan Africa in order to target interventions and to prevent unwanted effects on other parts of the system. The three theories that emerged while studying HIVDR as a complex adaptive system form a starting point for further qualitative and quantitative investigation. publishersversion published

This deliverable D7.6 of the LIFT project is the final scientific deliverable of the project that was carried out during four years from May 2018 till April 2022. The deliverable summarises the methodologies used and the key results for the main research activities that were carried out in LIFT: definition of ecological agriculture; adoption of ecological approaches; farm performance of ecological agriculture; territorial sustainability of ecological agriculture; trade-offs and synergies across sustainability dimensions and scales; impact of policies; role of stakeholders. Recommendations in terms of policies, data and research needs, are then provided.

This Deliverable 5.2 of the LIFT project presents a territorial level sustainability assessment of alternative scenarios for the adoption of ecological farming approaches for 16 case study areas across Europe. Given that there are many approaches to sustainability assessment depending on the theoretical framework, the assessment’s aims, and data used, this deliverable begins with a review of the sustainability assessment literature in relation to agriculture and territorial scale issues, to identify the most appropriate methodology for this deliverable. The limited availability of landscape-scale data, the use of scenarios, and the need to rapidly apply a straightforward methodology across diverse case study areas, favoured a qualitative assessment of each adoption scenario in terms of their impacts against a set of regionally-specific sustainability objectives. Moreover, because territorial impacts can reflect many interacting cause-effect relationships, network analysis formed an optional extension to the assessment, to explore the patterns of influence underpinning scenario performance. In order to define the sustainability objectives for assessment, an initial long list of possible objectives was created through a review of the academic literature and relevant regional policy documents, followed by a round of stakeholder consultation to produce a final short list of objectives for each case study area. Performance against these objectives was assessed for four ecological farming adoption scenarios that differed in terms of the rate (either high or low) and distribution (clustered or dispersed) of adoption in 10 years’ time. The ecological practices being adopted in these scenarios were identified based on the output of Delphi exercises with stakeholder panels for each case study area, conducted as part of previous research in LIFT. Drawing on results from LIFT, local literature, and expert knowledge, each scenario was described as the product of a set of drivers of change. The drivers of change were tabulated against the objectives to produce an assessment matrix for each scenario. Groups of experts and stakeholders completed these matrices by deciding whether the state of each driver in each scenario had a positive or negative, strong or weak, impact on each objective. The different driver impacts on each objective were aggregated to show the scenario’s overall performance against each objective. For the High Weald case study area in England, the assessment matrices were also used to create network graphs to show the interacting cause-effect relationships between drivers and impacts, and network analysis was used to identify features of the system that were especially influential in determining overall sustainability performance. Based on this qualitative mapping of impacts against sustainability objectives, across case study areas, territorial sustainability performance was assessed to be strongest when the ecological farming adoption rate was high, and when adoption occurred in a clustered distribution (although the impact of adoption distribution was typically smaller than the impact of adoption rate). The same overall pattern was also reported when considering only the environmental and social dimensions of sustainability, but economic sustainability performance was only impacted by the rate, and typically not the distribution, of adoption. These results suggest that the practices identified by stakeholders as relevant to future ecological adoption scenarios for a given case study area tend to be appropriate for achieving the area’s specific sustainability objectives, and that the spread of ecological farming approaches, at least in some areas, has the potential to deliver ‘win-win-win’ outcomes that reconcile performance across different sustainability dimensions. However, no one scenario was best for every objective in a case study area, so even if high clustered adoption of ecological farming makes an overall positive contribution to sustainability at the territorial level, realising this scenario in practice will still involve navigating some trade-offs between objectives. By extending the methodology to include network analysis, the sustainability assessment for the High Weald highlighted pathways and barriers that could be important in accounting for differences in scenario performance. In particular, information exchange among farmers on the benefits of ecological practices (facilitated by strong organisational and advisory support, and the use of technology) was a key contributor to the strong territorial sustainability performance of a high clustered adoption scenario. The network graphs produced for the High Weald also provided some indication as to how the territorial sustainability performance of ecological farming is due to a combination of farm-level and landscape-level processes, and suggested areas of interaction between these farm and landscape-level processes. As an example, strong interpersonal relationships among farmers could enhance information exchange that promotes ecological practice uptake on individual farms, but also encourage greater coordination of land management and collaboration between farmers. While the combination of scenario analysis, qualitative impact mapping and network analysis has been used for sustainability assessment before, in this case scenario development was built around alternative outcomes for the spread of agricultural land management practices, rather than starting with particular philosophies about the direction of society or policy. A key challenge, and priority area for further innovation, could be to reconcile the approach presented here with farm-level sustainability assessments, helping to identify areas of alignment or disconnect between farm and territorial level performance.

In the present deliverable, D5.3 of the LIFT project we present a framework which evaluates the over-all sustainability performance by incorporating farm and territorial level. The framework considers the sustainability along the economic, social and environmental dimensions. Matches and mismatches between the two spatial levels are considered by weighting farm level performance across said three dimensions. Weights are context-specific and reflect the importance of each dimension at the territo-rial level. Further, by evaluating sustainability performance across three different dimensions we are able to assess the synergies and trade-offs that exist between each and consider how these drive overall sustainability performance. The framework may also be used to inform policy decision-making by identifying which farming approaches are most sustainable within a particular case study area, and by identifying areas of focus to increase adoption rates of said systems. The deliverable includes three components. First, we provide a brief overview of the literature on sustainability performance assessments and position the present framework within it. Following this we provide a detailed explanation of how the framework is constructed, highlighting the input data used. Second, we apply the framework to five LIFT case study areas, namely Flanders (Belgium), Aus-tria, Romania, the United Kingdom and France. Here we detail the process of applying the data and discuss the results and how these can be interpreted. We also demonstrate how these results can be linked to drivers of change to help inform policy decision-making and identify target areas for increas-ing adoption of sustainable farming approaches. Finally, we provide insights into the assumptions that underpin the framework, highlighting the benefits and drawbacks of the proposed approach. We also provide insights and point of consideration for future application of the framework. The framework incorporates stakeholder’s sustainability objectives, multicriteria analysis, secondary data from the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) database, and further descriptive analysis to present an innovative multi-dimensional and multi-scale approach to evaluating farming approach sustainability performance. Though the framework has been developed within the LIFT project, it is highly flexible and can easily be adopted by interested parties outside of the LIFT project.

In light of the ambitions of the European Union (EU) to achieve an ecological transition of its agricultural sector it is crucial to assess and continuously monitor (i) the uptake of main ecological approaches by farms and (ii) associated effects on farm performance, considering all sustainability dimensions (economic, environmental, social) jointly. Given these needs, in the present deliverable D5.1 of the LIFT project, we develop a novel indicator system, which combines the LIFT farm typology and farm performance data, covering all sustainability dimensions. The approach compares performance of farms in five ecological groups (referred to as ecological farming approaches or ecological farming systems) from the LIFT farm typology (Conservation Agriculture, Low-Input farming, Integrated/Circular farming, Organic farming, Agroecology) as well as possible combinations of these groups with a less ecological group, referred to as Standard farming. This allows us to depict whether ecological farms perform differently or have different trade-offs and synergies than standard farms. Based on this system, we carry out a farm sustainability performance assessment with the two main data sources in the LIFT project, namely Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) data and data from the LIFT large-scale farmer survey, covering main farm types present in the European Union (EU) in several case study regions/countries. Additionally, we present in-depth analyses of further specific aspects, namely (i) the extension of the developed indicator framework to bio-economic models, (ii) the integration of the consumption and provision of ecosystem services into the developed indicator system through composite agri-environmental performance (AEP) indicators, derived from the body of secondary literature and region-specific stakeholder input, and (iii) working conditions and employment on farms in the context of an ecological transition. Overall, our results show the importance of considering trade-offs and synergies both within and between farm sustainability dimensions, in the assessment of farm level sustainability performance of ecological farming approaches. Our results also highlight that in many cases the effects of an increasing uptake of ecological approaches are heterogenous and need to be investigated further. We clearly point out the assumptions associated with our approach as well as its limitations. Given these limitations, the LIFT farm sustainability performance assessment developed here is nevertheless well suited for large-scale and long-term monitoring. This is based on readily available FADN data and, in the near future, could be based on Farm Sustainability Data Network (FSDN) data, providing an in-depth exploratory view for policy makers and researchers regarding farm level sustainability performance of ecological approaches in the EU farming sector. We outline several possible avenues for further research, namely (i) the inclusion of other data sources, (ii) the usage of econometric methods to facilitate causal inference, (iii) the broader usage of the developed composite AEP indicators, and (iv) further in-depth studies regarding the social sustainability dimension. Finally, in terms of policy recommendations we point out the importance of (i) flexible policy measures, able to properly address region-specific needs of farms, (ii) sound data as a basis for evidence-based policy, and (iii) investigating the ecological transition of the EU farming sector in more detail also at regional level, e.g. via living labs.

Additional file 2. Interview guide.

This deliverable presents the results of the research carried out in WP6 task 6.2 of the LIFT project, on the impact of policies on the adoption of ecological approaches and on the performance and sustainability of ecological agriculture. We first provide a short synthesis of the policy implications of the studies carried out in WP2, WP3 and WP4 of the LIFT project. These studies highlight some drawbacks of currently implemented schemes, such as the current Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) first and second pillar subsidies that may not be adequate for extensive technologies. In addition, these studies advocate policy compensation schemes that take into consideration the income forgone, given the regional potential, both in terms of agricultural production and environmental endowments. We then focus on the effect of Payments for Environmental Services (PES) using meta-analysis and quasi-experimental methods for about 150 PES-schemes implemented worldwide. We find that the effect of PES largely depends on their characteristics. Among others, eligibility of Ecosystem Services (ES) providers, contract length, reference design, payment constraint, monitoring system and the implementation zone of the PES schemes appear to be correlated with the probability of achieving positive environmental results. Nevertheless, the effectiveness of the PES-schemes investigated in this meta-analysis is shown to especially depend on the monitoring system implemented to ensure compliance and on the eligibility of ES providers. Using econometric analysis on French farm data, we also find that farmers’ incomes are not affected by their ecological practices, once the extra cost of these practices has been covered by the Agri-Environmental Schemes (AES) payment or promote some efficiency gains. The real cost of the transition is therefore on average well compensated by these payments. It does not imply that farms earn extra profit, and thus appears to respect World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules.

In the present deliverable, D4.3 of the LIFT project we provide insights on the environmental impact, which is termed here more precisely the agri-environmental impact (AEI), of ecological farm management practices using the ecosystem service concept at territorial level through a two-pronged approach. First, we present an indicator framework which uses one the one hand, evidence derived from an extensive systematic literature review quantifying the potential supply of 17 ecosystem services from 26 different (ecological) farm management practices, and on the other hand local, stakeholder-derived ecosystem service weights (which reflect relative ecosystem service demand) to obtain an overall AEI indicator for a given ecological farm management practice. The indicator framework is then applied to three case study regions across Belgium (Hageland-Haspengouw) and England (North Kent and the High Weald) to demonstrate the context-specific territorial-level AEI of ecological farm management practices. We demonstrate that at territorial level, though there is quite some variation in AEI of ecological farm management practices based on local contexts, semi-natural habitats, extensive livestock systems and cover crops have a high AEI across the three considered case study regions. Second we present results from a discrete choice experiment (DCE) in which we quantify preferences for the aesthetic value of integrating ecological farm management practices into an agricultural landscape in Flanders (Belgium), England and Hungary. From this DCE, we find that, similarly to the findings from the AEI indicators, ecological management practices which target increasing (bio)diversity and maintaining green corridors within a landscape, such as semi-natural habitats and cover crops, illicit strong positive preferences from the general public. Our findings illustrate that considering local context and demand is important when evaluating AEI of farm management practices based on ecosystem services.

The strategy of reconnecting rivers with their floodplains currently gains popularity because it not only harnesses natural capacities of floodplains but also increases social co-benefits and biodiversity. In this paper, we present an example of a successfully implemented nature-based solution (NBS) in the Dijle valley in the centre of Belgium. The research objective is to retrospectively assess cost and benefit differences between a technical solution (storm basins) and an alternative NBS, here the restoration of the alluvial floodplain. The method is a comparative social cost–benefit analysis. The case study analysis reveals similar flood security, lower costs, more ecosystem services benefits and higher biodiversity values associated with the NBS option in comparison to the technical alternative. However, the business case for working with NBS depends substantially on the spatial and socio-ecological context. Chances for successful NBS implementation increase in conditions of sufficient space to retain flood water, when flood water is of sufficient quality, and when economic activity and housing in the floodplain is limited. Supplementary Information The online version of this article contains supplementary material available at (10.1007/s13280-021-01548-4).

The objective of this report is to provide an overview of agricultural land market regulations in the EU Member States (MS). This report builds upon the framework developed by Swinnen, Van Herck and Vranken (2014a) to provide comprehensive and structured analyses of the different agricultural land market regulations across MS. The report describes the situation of land market regulations as it was in 2020 in 22 MS. The analyses of agricultural land market regulations provided in this report are based on information obtained from the MS country experts using the following three tools: (i) structured questionnaires, (ii) semi-structured group interviews and (iii) country reports. The input compiled by land market experts through these tools is based on MS legislation and other relevant documents (e.g. official documents and academic literature) that contain information on agricultural land market regulations and/or their implementation. Published Este informe es el resultado del trabajo conjunto de los autores principales, Liesbet Vranken (KU Leuven), Ewa Tabeau (Wageningen Economic Research (WEcR)) y Peter Roebeling (WEcR), basado en aportes de expertos de 22 países. Pavel Ciaian (Centro Común de Investigación) revisó el informe y contribuyó con análisis adicionales en diferentes partes del informe. Los expertos de los países contribuyeron conjuntamente con los informes de los países, completaron los cuestionarios de los países y proporcionaron otros materiales, incluidas fuentes legales, referencias, publicaciones relevantes o partes de los mismos. Participaron en discusiones de grupos focales y fueron coautores de la sección con las descripciones cualitativas a nivel de país de las regulaciones del mercado de tierras.

This deliverable D2.1 of the LIFT project presents the conceptual framework on farmers’ up‐take of ecological approaches across the supply chain. The framework combines behavioural theories on individual decision‐making with drivers and methodological considerations related to economic decision‐making. Furthermore, deliverable D2.1 presents a systematic map of previous literature related to farmers’ up‐take of ecological approaches. The purpose of D2.1 is to guide data collection through the LIFT survey to farmers and interview studies in WP (workpackage) 2 of LIFT. The theoretical part of the framework departs from the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) for understanding individual decision‐making, extended by integrating the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). Furthermore, the framework distinguishes between endogenous, as well as exogenous factors such as: (i) motivational factors; (ii) farmers’ self‐identity; (iii) farm characteristics; (iv) supply‐chain characteristics; (v) institutional conditions (including policy framework); and (vi) consumers’ preferences and demands. Factors serve to identify the main drivers of farmers’ up‐take of ecological approaches, and to enable comparison of different dimensions of up‐take across territories. The decision to implement the up‐take of ecological approaches is approached across four different dimensions, according to their: (i) timing; (ii) intensity/extensity; (iii) size of change, and (iv) type of practices adopted. These dimensions are important since the factors that affect the decision to adopt have been found to differ across them. The deliverable continues by presenting a systematic map of previous literature related to farmers’ up‐take of ecological approaches. Two methodological approaches for understanding the drivers of farmers’ up‐take of ecological approaches are suggested: psychometric methodology and qualitative interviews, using the means‐end chain and laddering approach. The deliverable ends by concluding on implications for the LIFT farmers’ survey.

Het consortium KULeuven-Antea voerde in 2017 in opdracht van het agentschap een onderzoek uit naar de effecten van de erfgoedkarakteristieken van woningen en hun omgeving op de marktprijzen van woningen in Vlaanderen. Het onderzoek kadert in de opdracht van het agentschap om de bijdrage van het onroerend erfgoed aan onze samenleving te onderzoeken en een geschikte methodiek te ontwikkelen om de waarde van onroerend erfgoed op objectieve wijze in beleidsbeslissingen te laten doorwegen, zoals beschreven in de Beleidsnota Onroerend Erfgoed 2014-2019 en Beleidsbrief Onroerend Erfgoed 2017. In een hedonische prijzenanalyse werd onderzocht wat de woningprijsimpact is van de erfgoedkarakteristieken van woningen en hun omgeving in Vlaanderen. Daarvoor werden gegevens uit meerdere databanken gecombineerd, waaronder de ERA vastgoeddatabank en de databank van het agentschap Onroerend Erfgoed. De resultaten tonen aan dat erfgoedkarakteristieken een significant effect hebben op de woningprijs: bouwkundig erfgoed dat is opgenomen in de vastgestelde inventaris heeft een meerwaarde van 6% beschermde monumenten hebben een bijkomend positief effect op de woningprijs van 6% wat neerkomt op een totaal effect van 12% een woning gelegen in een beschermd stads- of dorpsgezicht heeft een meerwaarde van 3% elk bijkomend beschermd monument in een straal van 50m heeft een prijsopdrijvend effect van 1,8 à 2,2% ook de oppervlakte van beschermde monumenten in de omgeving is positief significant, zij het degressief indien het aantal erfgoedobjecten in de omgeving gelijktijdig in het model wordt opgenomen Dit wijst erop dat een sterke concentratie van erfgoedobjecten hoog gewaardeerd wordt door kopers. Een erfgoedobject wordt ook sterker gewaardeerd in een omgeving waar meer erfgoed aanwezig is of in een omgeving met een hogere bevolkingsdichtheid. Een sensitiviteitsanalyse met buffers van 100m toonde verder aan dat erfgoed in de wijdere omgeving minder sterk wordt gewaardeerd dan erfgoed in de directe omgeving. De resultaten van deze studie kunnen gebruikt worden om het gemiddeld nettowoongenot van onroerend erfgoed in cijfers te duiden. Hiermee wordt alvast een deel van het maatschappelijk belang van onroerend erfgoed tastbaar gemaakt. In principe kan het model ook gebruikt worden om de maatschappelijke schade bij afbraak van erfgoed te bepalen. Toepassing van het model op enkele voorbeelden laat echter grote variaties zien in de resultaten waardoor enige voorzichtigheid bij het gebruik voor concrete cases geboden is. ispartof: vol:83 status: published

ispartof: Metaforum position paper 15 pages:1-34 status: published

An updated version of this working paper is published as: De Valck J., J., Broekx, S., Liekens, I., De Nocker, L., Van Orshoven, J., Vranken, L. (2016). Contrasting collective preferences for outdoor recreation and substitutability of nature areas using hot spot mapping. Landscape and Urban Planning, 151, 64-78.

Labeling schemes are used as a mechanism to inform consumers about products with both public and private characteristics. Consumers are increasingly interested in the ethical characteristics of food products and are willing to pay the premium for it. Nevertheless, market shares of ethically produced food products remain low. Not much research has been directed towards the question whether labels completely incorporate the ethical characteristics they stand for and are able to convey these values to consumers. Using two, partially incentive compatible, stated choice experiments in a natural consumer environment and chocolate as study object, we are able to compare consumers’ willingness to pay for a Fair Trade label and for the label’s underlying characteristics. Results show that dispersion exists between the value of a Fair Trade label and the actual values consumers attach to the underlying characteristics of Fair Trade.

The current attention for food production outside the traditional agricultural area concentrates on urban and community supported agriculture, but largely bypasses domestic gardens. Nonetheless, these multifunctional spaces offer interesting perspectives for food production. We developed a theoretical model to capture, quantify and interrelate the most relevant variables and constraints of potential food production in domestic gardens. As such, insight is gained in the food production potential in domestic gardens. Also the influence of utility on the household's decision on how much space and time to devote to food production was incorporated. The model development was fostered by quantitative and qualitative data collection for the case study Flanders. These data allowed to gain insights in the current food production and potential for food production in Flemish domestic gardens. The resulting model does not claim to be finalized, and future research could collect all necessary data to run the model. It does allow to explore the spatial and temporal constraints of individual domestic gardens for food production. This contributes to a better understanding of the adaptive capacity for food production of small-scale multifunctional spaces.

An updated version of this working paper is published as: Lerouge, F., Sannen, K., Gulinck, H., Vranken, L. (2016). Revisiting production and ecosystem services on the farm scale for evaluating land use alternatives, Environmental Science & Policy, 57, 50-59

This paper investigates the effect of nearby nature substitutes on preferences for nature restoration. Previous studies have generally approached the substitution question by looking into competing destinations. We evaluate substitutes from the respondent’s viewpoint. We use a contextual approach relying on densities of nature substitutes within various ranges from each respondent’s home. This approach has the advantage of allowing the consideration of the direct, indirect and non-use values of nature. Data from three similar discrete choice experiments carried out in Flanders (northern Belgium) are compared. Different spatial discounting factors are tested to better understand how the substitution effect behaves with regard to distance. Latent class analyses are performed to account for preference heterogeneity among respondents. Our results show divergent behaviours across groups of respondents. The “distance-to-substitutes” affects the way respondents rank substitutes and we observe a significant influence of the squared average buffer distance. However, this effect varies in sign across case studies and classes of respondents. Our research calls for further investigation of the influence of taste heterogeneity and nature perception on people’s capacity to value nature. The eligibility of potential nature substitutes and what contributes to their relative attractiveness compared to other substitutes, deserve further exploration in future research. no isbn ispartof: pages:1-42 ispartof: pages:1-42 ispartof: Annual BIOECON Conference on Biodiversity, Ecosystem Services and Sustainability location:King's College, Cambridge, UK date:22 Sep - 23 Sep 2014 status: published

Land regulations have a major impact on economic development, especially in agrarian societies, and they continue to affect the efficiency of the rural economy when economies further develop. This paper aims to give an overview of the regulations that are present in the land market in the EU member states and builds a land regulatory index to quantify the extent of regulations of agricultural land sales and rental markets. ispartof: LICOS - Discussion paper series 354/2014 pages:1-31 status: published