A conceptual model to integrate the regional context in landscape policy, management and contribution to rural development: Literature review and European case study evidence

Geoforum

Volumn 82, Issue , 2017, Pages 1-12

  Zasada, Ingo ^a   Häfner, Kati ^a   Schaller, Lena ^b   van Zanten, Boris T ^c   Lefebvre, Marianne ^d   Malak Rawlikowska, Agata ^e   Nikolov, Dimitre ^f   Rodríguez Entrena, Macario ^g   Manrique, Rosa ⁱ   Ungaro, Fabrizio ^a,h   Zavalloni, Matteo ⁱ   Delattre, Laurence ^j   Piorr, Annette ^a   Kantelhardt, Jochen ^b   Verburg, Peter H ^c   Viaggi, Davide ⁱ  

^a LEIBNIZ CENTRE FOR AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPE RESEARCH ZALF   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND LIFE SCIENCES   (Austria)

^c VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^d UNIVERSITÉ D'ANGERS   (France)

^e WARSAW UNIVERSITY OF LIFE SCIENCES   (Poland)

^f Institute of Agricultural Economics Sofia   (Bulgaria)

^g IFAPA CENTRO EL TORUÑO   (Spain)

^h CNR   (Italy)

ⁱ UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

^j INRA Ecodeveloppement   (France)

more..

Author keywords

Agri environmental policy; Agricultural landscapes; Geography; Governance; Landscape services; Place; Regional assets; Rural development

Indexed keywords

AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; AGRICULTURAL LAND; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; LAND MANAGEMENT; POLICY IMPLEMENTATION; RURAL DEVELOPMENT;

EUROPE;

EID: 85016041336     PISSN: 00167185     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.03.012     Document Type: Article

References (131)

1. Adevi, A.A., Grahn, P., Preferences for landscapes: a matter of cultural determinants or innate reflexes that point to our evolutionary background?. Landsc. Res. 37:1 (2011), 27–49.
2. Armitage, D., de Loë, R., Plummer, R., Environmental governance and its implications for conservation practice. Conserv. Lett. 5:4 (2012), 245–255.
3. Balmford, A., Rodrigues, A., Walpole, M., ten Brink, P., Kettunen, M., Braat, L., de Groot, R., Review of the Economics of Biodiversity Loss: Scoping the Science, Brussels. 2008.
4. Beichler, S.A., Hasibovic, S., Davidse, B.J., Deppisch, S., The role played by social-ecological resilience as a method of integration in interdisciplinary research. Ecol. Soc., 19(3), 2014.
5. Belletti, G., Marescotti, A., Sanz-Cañada, J., Vakoufaris, H., Linking protection of geographical indications to the environment: evidence from the European Union olive-oil sector. Land Use Policy 48 (2015), 94–106.
6. Berger, T., Agent-based spatial models applied to agriculture: a simulation tool for technology diffusion, resource use changes and policy analysis. Agric. Econ. 25:2–3 (2001), 245–260.
7. Bergmann, H., Dax, T., Hovorka, G., Thomson, K.J., Multifunctionality and pluriactivity across Europe – a comparison between Scotland and Austria. J. Österreich. Gesellschaft Agrarök. 16 (2007), 17–28.
8. Berkes, F., Folke, C., Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. 1998, Cambridge University Press, New York.
9. Bjørkhaug, H., Blekesaune, A., Development of organic farming in Norway: a statistical analysis of neighbourhood effects. Geoforum 45 (2013), 201–210.
10. Bock, K., Muhar, S., Muhar, A., Polt, R., The ecosystem services concept: gaps between science and practice in river landscape management. Gaia-Ecol. Perspect. Sci. Soc. 24:1 (2015), 32–40.
11. Boncinelli, F., Bartolini, F., Brunori, G., Casini, L., Spatial analysis of the participation in agri-environment measures for organic farming. Renew. Agric. Food Syst., 2015.
12. Braat, L.C., de Groot, R., The ecosystem services agenda: bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy. Ecosyst. Serv. 1:1 (2012), 4–15.
13. Broch, S.W., Strange, N., Jacobsen, J.B., Wilson, K.A., Farmers' willingness to provide ecosystem services and effects of their spatial distribution. Ecol. Econ. 92 (2012), 78–86.
14. Burton, R.J.F., The influence of farmer demographic characteristics on environmental behaviour: a review. J. Environ. Manage. 135 (2014), 19–26.
15. Carmona-Torres, C., Parra-López, C., Groot, J.C.J., Rossing, W.A.H., Collective action for multi-scale environmental management: achieving landscape policy objectives through cooperation of local resource managers. Landsc. Urban Plan. 103:1 (2011), 24–33.
16. Conrad, E.F., Cassar, L., Jones, M., Eiter, S., Izaovičová, Z., Barankova, Z., Christie, M., Fazey, I., Rhetoric and reporting of public participation in landscape policy. J. Environ. Planning Policy Manage. 13:1 (2011), 23–47.
17. Cooke, B., Lane, R., Re-thinking rural-amenity ecologies for environmental management in the Anthropocene. Geoforum 65 (2015), 232–242.
18. Cooper, T., Hart, K., Baldock, D., The Provision of Public Goods through Agriculture in the European Union, London. 2009.
19. Copus, A., Courtney, P., Dax, T., Meredith, D., Noguera, J., Talbot, H., Shucksmith, M., EDORA – European Development Opportunities for Rural Areas, Final Report, Parts A, B and C, Luxembourg. 2011.
20. Costanza, R., Ecosystem services: multiple classification systems are needed. Biol. Cons. 141:2 (2008), 350–352.
21. de Loë, R.C., Armitage, D., Plummer, R., Davidson, S., Moraru, L., From Government to Governance: A State-of-the-Art Review of Environmental Governance. Final Report, 2009, Prepared for Alberta Environment, Environmental Stewardship, Environmental Relations. Rob de Loë Consulting Services, Guelph.
22. Del Corso, J.-P., Kephaliacos, C., Plumecocq, G., Legitimizing farmers' new knowledge, learning and practices through communicative action: application of an agro-environmental policy. Ecol. Econ. 117 (2015), 86–96.
23. Dissart, J.-C., Landscapes and regional development: what are the links?. Cahiers d’écon. sociol. rurales 84–85 (2007), 62–91.
24. Duru, M., Therond, O., Martin, G., Martin-Clouaire, R., Magne, M.-A., Justes, E., Journet, E.-P., Aubertot, J.-N., Savary, S., Bergez, J.-E., Sarthou, J., How to implement biodiversity-based agriculture to enhance ecosystem services: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35 (2015), 1–23.
25. ENRD, Thematic Working Group 3: Public Goods and Public Intervention. Final Report, 2010, European Network for Rural Development (ENRD), Brussels.
26. Evans, N.J., Morris, C., Towards a geography of agri-environmental policies in England and Wales. Geoforum 28:2 (1997), 189–204.
27. Fagerholm, N., Käyhkö, N., Ndumbaro, F., Khamis, M., Community stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments – mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecol. Ind. 18 (2012), 421–433.
28. Ferreyra, C., de Loë, R.C., Kreutzwiser, R.D., Imagined communities, contested watersheds: challenges to integrated water resources management in agricultural areas. J. Rural Stud. 24:3 (2008), 304–321.
29. García-Martín, M., Bieling, C., Hart, A., Plieninger, T., Integrated landscape initiatives in Europe: multi-sector collaboration in multi-functional landscapes. Land Use Policy 58 (2016), 43–53.
30. Görg, C., Landscape governance: the “politics of scale” and the “natural” conditions of places. Geoforum 38:5 (2007), 954–966.
31. Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J., Graham, W.F., Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 11:3 (1989), 255–274.
32. Häfner, K., Zasada, I., van Zanten, B., Koetse, M., Ungaro, F., Piorr, A., forthcoming. Assessing landscape preferences: a visual choice experiment in the agricultural region of Märkische Schweiz, Germany. Landsc. Res.
33. Haines-Young, R.H., Potschin, M.B., The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. Raffaelli, D.G., Frid, C.L.J., (eds.) Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis, 2010, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 110–139.
34. Hart, K., Baldock, D., Weingarten, P., Osterburg, B., Povellato, A., Vanni, F., Pirzio-Biroli, C., Boyes, A., What Tools for the European Agricultural Policy to Encourage the Provision of Public Goods?. 2011, Commission of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
35. Hartter, J., Solomon, J., Ryan, S.J., Jacobson, S.K., Goldman, A., Contrasting perceptions of ecosystem services of an African forest park. Environ. Conserv. 41:4 (2014), 330–340.
36. Healey, P., Making Better Places: The Planning Project in the Twenty-First Century. 2010, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.
37. Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R.S., van Ierland, E.C., Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 57:2 (2006), 209–228.
38. Herzon, I., Mikk, M., Farmers' perceptions of biodiversity and their willingness to enhance it through agri-environment schemes: a comparative study from Estonia and Finland. J. Nat. Conserv. 15:1 (2007), 10–25.
39. Hien, H.T., Franke, C., Piorr, A., Lange, A., Zasada, I., Target groups of rural development policies. Outlook Agric. 43:2 (2014), 75–83.
40. Howley, P., Donoghue, C.O., Hynes, S., Exploring public preferences for traditional farming landscapes. Landsc. Urban Plan. 104:1 (2012), 66–74.
41. Ilbery, B., The Geography of Rural Change. 1998, Longman, Harlow.
42. Ilbery, B.W., Agricultural Geography: A Social and Economic Analysis. 1986, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
43. Kerselaers, E., Rogge, E., Vanempten, E., Lauwers, L., Van Huylenbroeck, G., Changing land use in the countryside: stakeholders’ perception of the ongoing rural planning processes in Flanders. Land Use Policy 32 (2013), 197–206.
44. Kiesling, E., Günther, M., Stummer, C., Wakolbinger, L.M., Agent-based simulation of innovation diffusion: a review. CEJOR 20:2 (2012), 183–230.
45. Kragt, M.E., Robertson, M.J., Quantifying ecosystem services trade-offs from agricultural practices. Ecol. Econ. 102 (2014), 147–157.
46. Lambin, E.F., Meyfroidt, P., Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108:9 (2011), 3465–3472.
47. Lange, A., Piorr, A., Siebert, R., Zasada, I., Spatial differentiation of farm diversification: how rural attractiveness and vicinity to cities determine farm households response to the CAP. Land Use Policy, 2013, 136–144.
48. Lange, A., Siebert, R., Barkmann, T., Sustainability in land management: an analysis of stakeholder perceptions in rural Northern Germany. Sustainability, 7(1), 2015, 683.
49. Läpple, D., Kelley, H., Spatial dependence in the adoption of organic drystock farming in Ireland. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 42:2 (2015), 315–337.
50. Lefebvre, M., Espinosa, M., Gomez y Paloma, S., Paracchini, M.L., Piorr, A., Zasada, I., Agricultural landscapes as multi-scale public good and the role of the Common Agricultural Policy. J. Environ. Planning Manage. 58:12 (2015), 2088–2112.
51. Liu, J., Hull, V., Batistella, M., DeFries, R., Dietz, T., Fu, F., Hertel, T.W., Izaurralde, R.C., Lambin, E.F., Li, S., Martinelli, L.A., McConnell, W.J., Moran, E.F., Naylor, R., Ouyang, Z., Polenske, K.R., Reenberg, A., de Miranda Rocha, G., Simmons, C.S., Verburg, P.H., Vitousek, P.M., Zhang, F., Zhu, C., Framing sustainability in a telecoupled world. Ecol. Soc., 18(2), 2013, 26.
52. López-i-Gelats, F., Is mountain farming no longer viable?. Mann, S., (eds.) The Future of Mountain Farming, 2013, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 89–104.
53. Maestre Andrés, S., Calvet Mir, L., van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Ring, I., Verburg, P.H., Ineffective biodiversity policy due to five rebound effects. Ecosyst. Serv. 1:1 (2012), 101–110.
54. Manrique, R., Viaggi, D., Raggi, M., A Bayesian network highlighting the linkages between landscape structure and the local economy: the case of agritourism in lowland areas of Northern Italy. J. Environ. Planning Manage. 58:12 (2015), 2137–2158.
55. Marquardt, D., Möllers, J., Buchenrieder, G., Social networks and rural development: leader in Romania. Sociol. Ruralis 52:4 (2012), 398–431.
56. Matthews, R., Selman, P., Landscape as a focus for integrating human and environmental processes. J. Agric. Econ. 57:2 (2006), 199–212.
57. McCracken, M.E., Woodcock, B.A., Lobley, M., Pywell, R.F., Saratsi, E., Swetnam, R.D., Mortimer, S.R., Harris, S.J., Winter, M., Hinsley, S., Bullock, J.M., Social and ecological drivers of success in agri-environment schemes: the roles of farmers and environmental context. J. Appl. Ecol. 52:3 (2015), 696–705.
58. Meert, H., Van Huylenbroeck, G., Vernimmen, T., Bourgeois, M., Van Hecke, E., Farm household survival strategies and diversification on marginal farms. J. Rural Stud. 21:1 (2005), 81–97.
59. Meraner, M., Heijman, W., Kuhlman, T., Finger, R., Determinants of farm diversification in the Netherlands. Land Use Policy 42 (2015), 767–780.
60. Mewes, M., Drechsler, M., Johst, K., Sturm, A., Watzold, F., A systematic approach for assessing spatially and temporally differentiated opportunity costs of biodiversity conservation measures in grasslands. Agric. Syst. 137 (2015), 76–88.
61. Meyer, C., Reutter, M., Matzdorf, B., Sattler, C., Schomers, S., Design rules for successful governmental payments for ecosystem services: taking agri-environmental measures in Germany as an example. J. Environ. Manage. 157 (2015), 146–159.
62. Moran, D., The Economic Valuation of Rural Landscapes. 2005, Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD), Edinburgh.
63. Moran, D., McVittie, A., Allcroft, D.J., Elston, D.A., Quantifying public preferences for agri-environmental policy in Scotland: a comparison of methods. Ecol. Econ. 63:1 (2007), 42–53.
64. Morgan, S.L., Social learning among organic farmers and the application of the communities of practice framework. J. Agric. Educ. Extens. 17:1 (2011), 99–112.
65. Morris, C., Potter, C., Recruiting the new conservationists: farmers' adoption of agri-environmental schemes in the U.K. J. Rural Stud. 11:1 (1995), 51–63.
66. Mullendore, N.D., Ulrich-Schad, J.D., Prokopy, L.S., U.S. farmers’ sense of place and its relation to conservation behavior. Landsc. Urban Plan. 140 (2015), 67–75.
67. Munton, R., Rural land ownership in the United Kingdom: changing patterns and future possibilities for land use. Land Use Policy 26:Suppl. 1 (2009), S54–S61.
68. Murdoch, J., Lowe, P., Ward, N., Marsden, T., The Differentiated Countryside. 2003, Routledge, New York, London.
69. Murphy, G., Hynes, S., Murphy, E., O'Donoghue, C., An investigation into the type of farmer who chose to participate in Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) and the role of institutional change in influencing scheme effectiveness. Land Use Policy 39 (2014), 199–210.
70. Noe, E., Alrøe, H., Sustainable agriculture issues explained by differentiation and structural coupling using social systems analysis. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35:1 (2015), 133–144.
71. OECD, The New Rural Paradigm. 2006, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris.
72. Overbeek, G., Opportunities for rural-urban relationships to enhance the rural landscape. J. Environ. Planning Policy Manage. 11:1 (2009), 61–68.
73. Page, G., Bellotti, B., Farmers value on-farm ecosystem services as important, but what are the impediments to participation in PES schemes?. Sci. Total Environ. 515 (2015), 12–19.
74. Pahl-Wostl, C., Giupponi, C., Richards, K., Binder, C., de Sherbinin, A., Sprinz, D., Toonen, T., van Bers, C., Transition towards a new global change science: requirements for methodologies, methods, data and knowledge. Environ. Sci. Policy 28 (2013), 36–47.
75. Palang, H., Time boundaries and landscape change: collective farms 1947–1994. Eur. Countryside, 2010, 169–181.
76. Pascucci, S., Capitanio, F., Adinolfi, F., De Magistris, T., 2011. Factors affecting participation of Italian farmers in rural development policy. 122nd EAAE Seminar “Evidence-based Agricultural and Rural Policy Making: Methodological and Empirical Challenges of Policy Evaluation”. Ancona.
77. Pfeifer, C., Jongeneel, R.A., Sonneveld, M.P.W., Stoorvogel, J.J., Landscape properties as drivers for farm diversification: a Dutch case study. Land Use Policy 26:4 (2009), 1106–1115.
78. Pinto-Correia, T., Gustavsson, R., Pirnat, J., Bridging the gap between centrally defined policies and local decisions – towards more sensitive and creative rural landscape management. Landsc. Ecol. 21:3 (2006), 333–346.
79. Piorr, A., Müller, K., Rural Landscapes and Agricultural Policies in Europe. 2009, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
80. Piorr, A., Ungaro, F., Ciancaglini, A., Happe, K., Sahrbacher, A., Sattler, C., Uthes, S., Zander, P., Integrated assessment of future CAP policies: land use changes, spatial patterns and targeting. Environ. Sci. Policy 12:8 (2009), 1122–1136.
81. Piorr, A., Viaggi, D., The spatial dimension of Public Payments for Rural Development: evidence on allocation practices, impact mechanisms, CMEF indicators, and scope for improvement. Ecol. Ind. 59 (2015), 1–5.
82. Plieninger, T., Bieling, C., Connecting cultural landscape to resilience. Plieninger, T., Bieling, C., (eds.) Resilience and the Cultural Landscape: Understanding and Managing Change in Human-Shaped Environments, 2012, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 3–26.
83. Prager, K., Freese, J., Stakeholder involvement in agri-environmental policy making – learning from a local and a state-level approach in Germany. J. Environ. Manage. 90 (2009), 1154–1167.
84. Prager, K., Reed, M.S., Scott, A., Encouraging collaboration for the provision of ecosystem services at a landscape scale—rethinking agri-environmental payments. Land Use Policy 29:1 (2012), 244–249.
85. Primdahl, J., Kristensen, L.S., Landscape strategy making and landscape characterisation—experiences from Danish experimental planning processes. Landsc. Res. 41:2 (2016), 1–12.
86. Primdahl, J., Kristensen, L.S., Busck, A.G., The farmer and landscape management: different roles, different policy approaches. Geogr. Compass 7:4 (2013), 300–314.
87. Raggi, M., Viaggi, D., Bartolini, F., Furlan, A., The role of policy priorities and targeting in the spatial location of participation in Agri-Environmental Schemes in Emilia-Romagna (Italy). Land Use Policy 47 (2015), 78–89.
88. Rawlins, A., Morris, J., Social and economic aspects of peatland management in Northern Europe, with particular reference to the English case. Geoderma 154:3–4 (2010), 242–251.
89. Ray, C., The EU LEADER Programme: rural development laboratory. Sociol. Ruralis 40:2 (2010), 163–171.
90. Reed, M.S., Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol. Cons. 141:10 (2008), 2417–2431.
91. Robinson, G.M., Geographies of Agriculture: Globalisation, Restructuring and Sustainability. 2004, Pearson Education Limited, Harlow.
92. Rodríguez-Entrena, M., Arriaza, M., Adoption of conservation agriculture in olive groves: evidences from southern Spain. Land Use Policy 34 (2013), 294–300.
93. Rodríguez-Entrena, M., Arriaza, M., Gómez-Limón, J.A., Determining economic and social factors in the adoption of cover crops under mower control in olive groves. Agroecol. Sustain. Food Syst. 38:1 (2014), 69–91.
94. Rodríguez-Entrena, M., Espinosa-Goded, M., Barreiro-Hurlé, J., The role of ancillary benefits on the value of agricultural soils carbon sequestration programmes: evidence from a latent class approach to Andalusian olive groves. Ecol. Econ. 99 (2014), 63–73.
95. Rogers, E.M., Diffusion of Innovations. fifth ed., 2003, Free Press, New York.
96. Schmidtner, E., Lippert, C., Engler, B., Häring, A.M., Aurbacher, J., Dabbert, S., Spatial distribution of organic farming in Germany: does neighbourhood matter?. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ., 2011, 1–23.
97. Scholte, S.S.K., van Teeffelen, A.J.A., Verburg, P.H., Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: a review of concepts and methods. Ecol. Econ. 114 (2015), 67–78.
98. Schomers, S., Matzdorf, B., Meyer, C., Sattler, C., How local intermediaries improve the effectiveness of public payment for ecosystem services programs: the role of networks and agri-environmental assistance. Sustainability, 7(10), 2015, 13856.
99. Sevenant, M., Antrop, M., Transdisciplinary landscape planning: does the public have aspirations? Experiences from a case study in Ghent (Flanders, Belgium). Land Use Policy 27:2 (2010), 373–386.
100. Shucksmith, M., Thomson, K.J., Roberts, D., The CAP and the Regions: The Territorial Impact of the Common Agricultural Policy. 2005, CABI Publishing, Wallingford, UK.
101. Sutherland, L.-A., Burton, R.J.F., Ingram, J., Blackstock, K., Slee, B., Gotts, N., Triggering change: towards a conceptualisation of major change processes in farm decision-making. J. Environ. Manage. 104 (2012), 142–151.
102. Taylor, B.M., Van Grieken, M., Local institutions and farmer participation in agri-environmental schemes. J. Rural Stud. 37 (2015), 10–19.
103. Termorshuizen, J.W., Opdam, P., Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landsc. Ecol. 24:8 (2009), 1037–1052.
104. Ungaro, F., Haefner, K., Zasada, I., Piorr, A., Mapping cultural ecosystem services: connecting visual landscape quality to cost estimations for enhanced services provision. Land Use Policy 54 (2016), 399–412.
105. Ungaro, F., Zasada, I., Piorr, A., Mapping landscape services, spatial synergies and trade-offs: a case study using variogram models and geostatistical simulations in an agrarian landscape in North-East Germany. Ecol. Ind. 46 (2014), 367–378.
106. Uthes, S., Matzdorf, B., Müller, K., Kaechele, H., Spatial targeting of agri-environmental measures: cost-effectiveness and distributional consequences. Environ. Manage. 46:3 (2010), 494–509.
107. v. Haaren, C., Bathke, M., Integrated landscape planning and remuneration of agri-environmental services: results of a case study in the Fuhrberg region of Germany. J. Environ. Manage. 89:3 (2008), 209–221.
108. van Berkel, D.B., Verburg, P.H., Sensitising rural policy: assessing spatial variation in rural development options for Europe. Land Use Policy 28:3 (2010), 447–459.
109. van der Ploeg, J.D., Farming styles research: the state of the art. Workshop on ‘Historicising Farming Styles', Melk, Austria, 2010.
110. van Leeuwen, E., Urban-rural synergies: an explorative study at the NUTS3 level. Appl. Spat. Anal. Policy 8:3 (2015), 273–289.
111. van Zanten, B.T., Verburg, P.H., Espinosa, M., Gomez-y-Paloma, S., Galimberti, G., Kantelhardt, J., Kapfer, M., Lefebvre, M., Manrique, R., Piorr, A., Raggi, M., Schaller, L., Targetti, S., Zasada, I., Viaggi, D., European agricultural landscapes, common agricultural policy and ecosystem services: a review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 34:2 (2014), 309–325.
112. van Zanten, B.T., Verburg, P.H., Koetse, M.J., van Beukering, P.J.H., Preferences for European agrarian landscapes: a meta-analysis of case studies. Landsc. Urban Plan. 132 (2014), 89–101.
113. van Zanten, B.T., Zasada, I., Koetse, M.J., Ungaro, F., Haefner, K., Verburg, P.H., A comparative study of visitor's visual preferences in a Dutch and German agricultural landscape. Ecosyst. Serv. 17 (2016), 87–98.
114. Viaggi, D., Raggi, M., Bartolini, F., Sardonini, L., Spatial patterns of change in agriculture and the role of the Common Agricultural Policy. Outlook Agric. 42:1 (2013), 25–32.
115. Villanueva, A.J., Gómez-Limón, J.A., Arriaza, M., Rodríguez-Entrena, M., The design of agri-environmental schemes: farmers’ preferences in southern Spain. Land Use Policy 46 (2015), 142–154.
116. Villanueva, A.J., Targetti, S., Schaller, L., Arriaza, M., Kantelhardt, J., Rodriguez-Entrena, M., Bossi-Fedrigotti, V., Viaggi, D., Assessing the role of economic actors in the production of private and public goods in three EU agricultural landscapes. J. Environ. Planning Manage. 58:12 (2015), 2113–2136.
117. Visser, M., Moran, J., Regan, E., Gormally, M., Skeffington, M.S., The Irish agri-environment: how turlough users and non-users view converging EU agendas of Natura 2000 and CAP. Land Use Policy 24:2 (2007), 362–373.
118. Waltert, F., Schulz, T., Schläpfer, F., The role of landscape amenities in regional development: evidence from Swiss municipality data. Land Use Policy 28:4 (2011), 748–761.
119. Weingarten, P., Neumeier, S., Copus, A., Psaltopoulos, D., Skuras, D., Balamou, E., Building a Typology of European Rural Areas for the Spatial Impact Assessment of Policies (TERA-SIAP). 2010, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS), Luxembourg.
120. Weltin, M., Zasada, I., Franke, C., Piorr, A., Raggi, M., Viaggi, D., Analysing behavioural differences of farm households: an example of income diversification strategies based on European farm survey data. Land Use Policy 62 (2017), 172–184.
121. Whittingham, M.J., Krebs, J.R., Swetnam, R.D., Vickery, J.A., Wilson, J.D., Freckleton, R.P., Should conservation strategies consider spatial generality? Farmland birds show regional not national patterns of habitat association. Ecol. Lett., 10(25), 2007, 35.
122. Woods, M., Rural Geography. 2005, SAGE Publications, London.
123. Wossen, T., Berger, T., Mequaninte, T., Alamirew, B., Social network effects on the adoption of sustainable natural resource management practices in Ethiopia. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. World Ecol. 20:6 (2013), 477–483.
124. Wünscher, T., Engel, S., Wunder, S., Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services: a tool for boosting conservation benefits. Ecol. Econ. 65:4 (2008), 822–833.
125. Zasada, I., Multifunctional peri-urban areas – a review of societal demands and agricultural provision of goods and services. Land Use Policy 28:4 (2011), 639–648.
126. Zasada, I., Berges, R., Hilgendorf, J., Piorr, A., Horsekeeping and the peri-urban development in the Berlin Metropolitan Region. J. Land Use Sci. 8:2 (2013), 199–214.
127. Zasada, I., Piorr, A., The role of local framework conditions for the adoption of rural development policy: an example of diversification, tourism development and village renewal in Brandenburg, Germany. Ecol. Ind. 59 (2015), 82–93.
128. Zasada, I., Reutter, M., Piorr, A., Lefebvre, M., Paloma, S.G.y., Between capital investments and capacity building—development and application of a conceptual framework towards a place-based rural development policy. Land Use Policy 46 (2015), 178–188.
129. Zavalloni, M., Raggi, M., Targetti, S., Viaggi, D., Agricultural policies and the emergence of voluntary landscape enhancement efforts: an exploratory analysis of rural tourism using an agent-based model. J. Environ. Planning Manage. 58:12 (2015), 2159–2175.
130. Zimmermann, A., Britz, W., European farms’ participation in agri-environmental measures. Land Use Policy 50 (2016), 214–228.
131. Zscheischler, J., Rogga, S., Transdisciplinarity in land use science – a review of concepts, empirical findings and current practices. Futures 65 (2015), 28–44.