Search

The geological conceptual model is considered a major source of uncertainty in groundwater modelling and well capture zone delineation. However, how to account for it in groundwater policy and management remains largely unresolved. We explore the drivers and barriers to account for geological conceptual uncertainty in groundwater protection amongst decision makers and stakeholders in an agricultural groundwater catchment in Denmark. Using a groundwater model, we analyze the impact of alternative geological conceptual models on capture zone delineation. A focus area, which covers multiple modelled capture zones, is defined and considered for groundwater protection. Model uncertainty and focus area are discussed at two workshops, one with local and national stakeholders and another with local farmers. The drivers to account for model uncertainty include: i) safer drinking water protection by considering a larger area for protection than identified from a single geological model; and ii) stability over time of management plans. The main barrier is the additional cost to the stakeholders for the protection of a larger area. We conclude that integration of geological uncertainty in groundwater protection plans may be improved through: i) better communication between the research community and the national water authority; ii) more constraining guidelines regarding the estimation of geological uncertainty; and iii) the development of a framework ensuring knowledge transfer to the local water authorities and detailing how to integrate uncertainty in management plans.

This paper explores the connections between farm modernisation, rural development and the resilience of agricultural and rural systems. The paper starts by ascertaining why agricultural and food systems need to change systemically. Evidence from case studies in fourteen countries is used to explore the possibilities for, and drivers and limitations of systemic change in four thematic areas: the resilience of farms and rural areas; prosperity and well-being; knowledge and innovation, and; the governance of agriculture and rural areas. In each area, we identify a major mismatch between visions and strategies on the one hand, and market developments, policy measures and outcomes on the other. The first theme is of growing concern as there has been an observable decrease in the social-ecological resilience of farms and of rural communities in recent decades. The second theme emerges as important as the concentration of production in some regions or some farms is directly linked to the marginalisation of others. The third theme illustrates that local farmer-driven innovations can teach us much, especially since farmers focus on efficiently using the resources available to them, including their location-specific experiential knowledge. Through the final theme we show that informal networks can balance different interests and approaches, which is essential for integrated rural development strategies and projects. Our findings in these four thematic areas have implications for the strategic frameworks and policy of the EU (and beyond) and future research agendas. We explicitly draw these out. The 14 case studies show that practitioners, grassroots initiatives and pilot programmes are already generating a wealth of experiences and knowledge that could be fruitfully used to inform higher-level policy development. The paper concludes that systemic change requires more critical reflection of conventional wisdom and approaches, and openness to ideas and practices that are outside the mainstream.

The relationship between farming and landscape is a topical and disputed issue – in academia, among policy analysts and between policy makers and involved citizens. At a general level, agriculture affects most rural landscapes, and when agriculture changes, landscapes change, often with great implications for biodiversity, cultural heritage, recreation and other functions. The farmer is the key agent concerning landscape management decisions and practices, and the landscape is managed through three roles. As producers of food, fibre and energy, farmers affect landscape processes and structures through the production practices applied. In this respect, farmers usually consider themselves and their colleagues as skilful and professional producers. As owners of farm properties, farmers take more long-term decisions concerning overall land uses and buildings, and owners are legally responsible for landscape changes more often than producers. When land is leased, producers and owners are two different agents, and when large cooperations are running the farm, the ‘owner’ dimension may be of limited significance. Finally, farmers are also members of local communities in which they may participate in collective landscape projects. In addition, farmers may also in their individual choices and practices include concerns for neighbours. Farmers may therefore also manage the local landscape in the role as citizens. A growing number of public policy measures are affecting farmers' landscape management with all three roles being of relevance. In these policies, however, farmers are often seen solely in their role as producers implying that they may be targeted inappropriately, because their management practices and the motives behind are interpreted too narrowly, and opportunities for more effective policies may therefore be missed.

Hunting represents an important activity in Danish rural landscapes. In this paper, we analyse recent developments in farmers' management of the right to hunt and associated landscape activities in three agricultural regions based on surveys from 1995/96 and 2008. The results show that the total area on which farmers hunt has increased, especially the area on which the owner is the hunter. This indicates that interest in hunting is increasing, and the interest for hunting may play an increasing role as a landscape activity and as a motive to become a farm property owner. Concerning landscape management, non-hunters, surprisingly, seem to have a more game-friendly management practice than hunters. On the other hand, hunters own farms with forests and/or farms located in areas of high landscape heterogeneity more often than non-hunters. Local hunting associations play an interesting role in relation to non-owners' accessibility to hunting and such associations may play a significant role in the fut...

The subject of this paper is the views of farmers concerning their local landscape. In two contrasting Danish case study areas previously analysed in the 1990s, a small number of farmers have been interviewed regarding their views of the landscape and recent changes in their respective area including landscape changes. One of the areas (Hvorslev) is characterized by good conditions for agriculture, intensive husbandry production and a relatively stable landscape history. The other (Nees) has more marginal conditions and major changes in land use characterize the recent landscape history. We analyze the way in which the landscape is perceived by farmers and compare their views of the changing landscapes with the actual recorded changes on the one hand, and with other significant changes on the other. Farmers in both areas emphasized the same type of structural changes in agriculture and in the villages as significant, whereas only farmers in Nees indicated that the landscape had changed. When aske...

Agri-Environment Schemes (AES) to maintain or promote environmentally-friendly farming practices were implemented on about 25% of all agricultural land in the EU by 2002. This article analyses and discusses the actual and potential use of impact models in supporting the design, implementation and evaluation of AES. Impact models identify and establish the causal relationships between policy objectives and policy outcomes. We review and discuss the role of impact models at different stages in the AES policy process, and present results from a survey of impact models underlying 60 agri-environmental schemes in seven EU member states. We distinguished among three categories of impact models (quantitative, qualitative or common sense), depending on the degree of evidence in the formal scheme description, additional documents, or key person interviews. The categories of impact models used mainly depended on whether scheme objectives were related to natural resources, biodiversity or landscape. A higher proportion of schemes dealing with natural resources (primarily water) were based on quantitative impact models, compared to those concerned with biodiversity or landscape. Schemes explicitly targeted either on particular parts of individual farms or specific areas tended to be based more on quantitative impact models compared to whole-farm schemes and broad, horizontal schemes. We conclude that increased and better use of impact models has significant potential to improve efficiency and effectiveness of AES.

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.

Regional agricultural development in Denmark in the 1980s is analysed by using surrogate statistics for three bipolar development trends: 1) intensification-extensification. 2) concentration-dispersal and 3) specialisation-diversification. The scale of analysis is the municipality. The results show that agriculture in eastern Denmark has intensified and specialised, whereas central parts of Jutland have extensified and diversified mainly due to the introduction of more complex crop patterns and a decline in the number of dairy cows. An increase in concentration is evident for the whole country. Aggregation of the development trends show that only 16% of the municipalities developed in the direction of ‘industrialisation’. a result which conflicts with the conventional understanding of the main development trends in Danish agriculture. However, part of this new interpretation may be related to the data and methodology employed in the analysis.

The Agri-Environment Footprint Index (AFI) has been developed as a generic methodology to assess changes in the overall environmental impacts from agriculture at the farm level and to assist in the evaluation of European agri-environmental schemes (AES). The methodology is based on multicriteria analysis (MCA) and involves stakeholder participation to provide a locally customised evaluation based on weighted environmental indicators. The methodology was subjected to a validation and feasibility assessment in a series of case studies across the EU. The AFI approach was able to measure significant differences in environmental impact between farms that participated in an AES and non-participants. Wider environmental concerns, beyond the scheme objectives, were also considered in some case studies and the benefits for identification of unintentional (and often beneficial) impacts of AESs are presented. The participatory approach to AES evaluation proved efficient in different environments and political contexts. The approach proved to be appropriate for environmental evaluation of complex agri-environment systems and is available now to complement any evaluation conducted under the Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. The applicability of the AFI in routine monitoring of AES impacts and in providing feedback to improve policy design is discussed., JRC.J.5-Agriculture and Life Sciences in the Economy

Farmers are important agents in rural landscape management as they modify landscape elements to suit their needs. The purpose of this study is to investigate if patterns of landscape activities undertaken by farmers are related to certain farm characteristics and if landscape activities vary from one location to another. With this purpose, we investigated the differences between the level of farmers' involvement in landscape activities in two study areas in central Jutland, Denmark. Particular attention was given to the analysis of the type and extent of landscape activities and their relationship with farm characteristics. In both study areas, landscape activities leading to a more extensive type of land use predominate. However, a multivariate analysis implemented on the set of landscape activity data reveals significant differences between the two study areas. Hedgerow planting and removal is more common in Sonder Omme, while pond digging and cultivation of permanent grass lands are characteristic activities in Gadbjerg-Givskud. Moreover, the proportion of farmers involved and the area affected by different landscape activities is larger in Sonder Omme than in Gadbjerg-Givskud. The farms of the two areas are different in terms of production type, size and socio-economic characteristics. These characteristics represent significant relationships with landscape activities. However, they are not sufficient to explain the differences between landscape activities undertaken in the two areas. The differences are caused by unique cultural and biophysical environment, which influence and modify the relationship between farm characteristics and landscape activities in a distinct manner for each study area.

[Departement_IRSTEA]Territoires [TR1_IRSTEA]DTAM [Axe_IRSTEA]DTAM3-ECOPRAe-mail de contact: ridavide@gmail.com; Agriculture faces big challenges, such as feeding a growing population and providing an increasing amount of biomass for energy production. Land is, however, a limited resource and intensification of agricultural practices is deprecated because of the negative impacts on natural resources. Effective answers should therefore be fostered by the development of smarter spatial configurations of agricultural activities. The improvement of farming systems therefore requires agronomy to interact with geography and other disciplines that deal with spatially-explicit aspects of agricultural land management. Different research approaches have supported agronomy in the development of a landscape approach and in this paper we focus on the interactions with geography fostering the enhancement of a common language about the way farming practices are observed and understood by the two disciplines. For this purpose, we compare land management units, identified in recent agronomic literature, with the aim to facilitate future synergies of landscape-oriented research about farming system design. We conclude by arguing for the enhancement of the interface between agronomy and geography and discussing some perspectives on the use of the various land management units in the design of future farming systems with a landscape approach.