Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Focus rural land policies on ecosystem services, not agriculture

Nature Ecology & Evolution volume 3, pages 1136–1139 (2019)Cite this article

Subjects

Land policies around the world tend to focus on support for agricultural output. We argue that this leads to ineffective public expenditure, environmental harm and missed opportunities for the use of rural resources. Applying thinking centred on ecosystems services to the governance of rural land would secure greater social value.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Alternative approaches to rural land use policy.
Fig. 2: A governance framework for an ESP.

References

  1. Posthumus, H., Rouquette, J. R., Morris, J., Gowing, D. J. G. & Hess, T. M. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1510–1523 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bateman, I. J. et al. Science 341, 45–50 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Agricultural Policy Monitoring and Evaluation 2018 (OECD, 2018).

  4. Bullock, J. M. et al. J. Ecol. 105, 880–884 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hill, B. Farm Incomes, Wealth and Agricultural Policy: Filling the CAP’s Core Information Gap (CABI, 2012).

  6. Tangermann, S. Inter Econ. 6, 321–326 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Cooper, T., Hart, K. & Baldock, D. The Provision of Public Goods Through Agriculture in the European Union (Institute for European Environmental Policy, 2009).

  8. Westhoek, H. J., Overmars, K. P. & van Zeijts, H. Environ. Sci. Policy 32, 5–13 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. The State of Nature 2016 (RSPB, 2016).

  10. Rockström, J. et al. Ambio 46, 4–17 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sánchez-Bayo, F. & Wyckhuys, K. A. G. Biol. Conserv. 232, 8–27 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. A Vision for the Common Agriculture Policy (HM Treasury and Defra, 2005).

  13. Health and Harmony: The Future for Food, Farming and the Environment in a Green Brexit (Defra, 2018).

  14. Erjavec, K. & Erjavec, E. Food Policy 51, 53–62 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Harvey, D. R. Agric. Econ. 31, 265–275 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Daugbjerg, C. & Feindt, P. H. J. Eur. Public Policy 24, 1565–1584 (2017).

  17. CAP financing. The Common Agricultural Policy at a Glance (European Commission, accessed 18 February 2019); https://ec.europa.eu/info/food-farming-fisheries/key-policies/common-agricultural-policy/cap-glance#howitspaidfor

  18. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis (Island Press, 2005).

  19. UKNEA. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment: Synthesis of the Key Findings (UNEP-WCMC, 2011).

  20. Costanza, R. et al. Ecosyst. Serv. 28, 1–16 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Alm, J. & Banzhaf, H. S. J. Econ. Surv. 26, 177–202 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wunder, S. et al. Nat. Sustain. 1, 145 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Vatn, A. Ecol. Econ. 117, 225–233 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Chan, K. M. A., Anderson, E., Chapman, M., Jespersen, K. & Olmsted, P. Ecol. Econ. 140, 110–122 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Reed, M. S. et al. Glob. Environ. Change 43, 92–106 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hodge, I. The Governance of the Countryside: Property, Planning and Policy (Cambridge University Press, 2016).

  27. Sixth National Report to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Overview of the UK Assessment of Progress for the Aichi Targets (JNCC, 2019).

  28. Hodge, I. In Oxford Handbook of Land Economics (eds. Duke, J. M. & Wu, J.) 583–611 (Oxford University Press, 2014).

  29. Claasen, R., Cooper, J., Salvioni, C. & Veronesi, M. In The Oxford Handbook of Land Economics (eds. Duke, J. M. & Wu, J.) 612–647 (Oxford University Press, 2014).

  30. Roberts, P.D. & Pullin, A.S. The Effectiveness of Land-Based Schemes (Incl. Agri-environment) at Conserving Farmland Bird Densities within the U.K. Systematic Review No. 11. (Collaboration for Environmental Evidence / Centre for Evidence-Based Conservation, 2007).

  31. Lubell, M. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 12, 41–47 (2015).

  32. Westerink, J. et al. Land Use Policy 69, 176–192 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jongeneel, R. & Polman, N. Farmer groups as a device to ensure the provision of agri-environmental services in the Netherlands: a procurement perspective. in EAAE 2014 Congress ‘Agri-Food and Rural Innovations for Healthier Societies’ https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/186379 (2018).

  34. Hellerstein, D. M. Land Use Policy 63, 601–610 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rolfe, J., Whitten, S. & Windle, J. Land Use Policy 63, 611–620 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Burton, R. J. F. & Schwarz, G. Land Use Policy 30, 628–641 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Derissen, S. & Quaas, M. F. Ecol. Econ. 85, 77–84 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Hodge, I. Land Use Policy 18, 99–111 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Guillet, F., Mermet, L. & Roulot, J. Biodivers. Conserv. 25, 1711–1726 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hodge, I. The Conveyancer and Property Lawyer 6, 490–500 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  41. Droste, N., Ring, I., Santos, R. & Kettunen, M. Ecol. Econ. 147, 373–382 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. DeCaro, D., Chaffin, B., Schlager, E., Garmestani, A. & Ruhl, J. B. Ecol. Soc. 22, 32 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Catchment and River Basin Management : Integrating Science and Governance 1st edn (eds Smith, L., Porter, K., Hiscock, K., Porter, M. J. & Benson, D.). (Routledge, 2015).

  44. Schultz, L., Folke, C., Österblom, H. & Olsson, P. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 7369–7374 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Westerink, J., Opdam, P., van Rooij, S. & Steingrover, E. Land Use Policy 60, 408–418 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. de Boer, C., Kruijf, J. V., Özerol, G. & Bressers, H. Environ. Policy Gov. 26, 229–241 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Olsson, P., Folke, C., Galaz, V., Hahn, T. & Schultz, L. Ecol. Soc. 12, 28 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Pike, A., Marlow, D., McCarthy, A., O’Brien, P., Tomaney, J. & Camb., J. Regions. Econ. Soc. 8, 185–204 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Collingwood Environmental Planning. Monitoring and Evaluation of Nature Improvement Areas: Year 2 (2013–14) Progress Report. (Collingwood Environmental Planning Ltd, 2014).

  50. Benson, D., Jordan, A., Cook, H. & Smith, L. Land Use Policy 30, 748–757 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Fish, R. et al. Ecosyst. Serv. 21, 329–343 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Curtis, A. et al. Australas. J. Environ. Manage. 21, 175–199 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Blackstock, K. L., Dinnie, E. & Dilley, R. J. Rural Stud. 52, 12–20 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Clarke, R. Manag. Environ. Qual. 26, 172–194 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Dwyer, J. & Hodge, I. Environ. Sci. Policy 66, 1–10 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Buckwell, A., Matthews, A., Baldock, D. & Mathus, E. Thinking Out of the Box: Further Modernisation of the CAP — Why, What and How? (Rise Foundation, 2017).

  57. Hodge, I. & Adams, W. M. Land (Basel) 5, 39 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Austin, Z. et al. Ecosyst. Serv. 20, 37–43 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Lee, H. & Lautenbach, S. Ecol. Indic. 66, 340–351 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Mace, G. M. Oxf. Rev. Econ. Policy 35, 54–67 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Land Economy, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

    David Gawith & Ian Hodge

Authors
  1. David Gawith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ian Hodge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to David Gawith or Ian Hodge.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gawith, D., Hodge, I. Focus rural land policies on ecosystem services, not agriculture. Nat Ecol Evol 3, 1136–1139 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0934-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-019-0934-y

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing