Ecological Economics 69 (2009) 292–300

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Economics

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate /eco lecon

Land use change, biomass production and HANPP: The case of Hungary 1961–2005☆

Norbert Kohlheb a,⁎, Fridolin Krausmann b

a Department of Environmental Economics, Institute of Environmental and Landscape Management, Szent István University (IELM-SIU), Gödöllő, Hungaryb Institute of Social Ecology, Faculty of Interdisciplinary Studies, Klagenfurt University, Austria

☆ Special issue: “Analyzing the global human appropriaTrajectories, processes and implications”, Guest eds. KFridolin Krausmann.⁎ Corresponding author. Institute of Environmental and

IstvánUniversity (IELM-SIU), H-2103 Gödöllő, Páter K. u. 1E-mail address: kohlheb.norbert@kti.szie.hu (N. Koh

0921-8009/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. Adoi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.07.010

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 6 March 2009Received in revised form 14 July 2009Accepted 14 July 2009Available online 14 August 2009

Keywords:AgricultureBiomassHANPPHungaryLand useSocial metabolism

This paper presents an empirical analysis of the human appropriation of aboveground net primaryproduction (aHANPP) in Hungary in the years 1961–2005. In this period aboveground HANPP dropped from67% to 49% of the potential vegetation's NPP. The trajectory was not smooth, but aboveground HANPPfluctuated with changes in factors affecting agricultural production conditions. Both aboveground netprimary production (aNPP) of the prevailing vegetation and harvested aNPP increased during the socialistregime, dropped when the system collapsed and has shown considerable fluctuations since. We discuss thedevelopment of aboveground HANPP and the Hungarian land use system in the context of socioeconomicchanges during three distinct phases: (1) industrialisation of agriculture (1961–1989), (2) regime collapse(1989–1993) and (3) restructuring of a new economy (1993–2005). Within these periods, different drivingfactors influenced aboveground HANPP and its constituents. In the phase of industrialisation, mechanisationand agrochemical inputs reduced aHANPP while harvested amounts of biomass increased progressively. Inthe second phase, political and economic circumstances devastated production conditions resulting in adecline of productivity of actual vegetation and a temporary rise in aboveground HANPP. During the lasttwelve years, industrialisation patterns of agricultural production recovered. The restructuring of inefficientagricultural production systems raised harvest at moderate levels of agricultural inputs, while climaticconditions intimidated high yield and harvest security. The paper discusses the effect of different economicand political regimes and of major socioeconomic restructuring on the development of the land use system,biomass production and aboveground HANPP.

© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Humans use terrestrial ecosystems to provide biomass for humannutrition and feed for domesticated livestock and to supply energyand raw materials. Human activities related to the production ofbiomass have a significant impact on terrestrial ecosystems (Lambinand Geist, 2006). In particular, land use changes the productivity ofecosystems and large amounts of biomass are extracted, both aspectscontributing to significant alterations of energy flows in terrestrialecosystems (Vitousek et al., 1986). The intensity of land use and itsimpact on terrestrial ecosystems has changed significantly during thetwentieth century (e.g. Wolman and Fournier, 1987). In the decadesafter World War II European countries experienced a process of rapidagricultural industrialisation (Grigg, 1992). Agricultural inputs,mechanisation and new crops boosted yields and biomass produc-tion and changed spatial patterns of land use and land cover (e.g.

tion of net primary production:arl-Heinz Erb, Helmut Haberl,

LandscapeManagement, Szent, Hungary. Fax:+36 28415383.lheb).

ll rights reserved.

Krausmann et al., 2003; Mather et al., 1999). Some traditional pres-sures on the environment resulting from land use were alleviatedwhile new ones emerged (Tivy, 1997).

This paper investigates changes in land use and biomass produc-tion in Hungary during the period 1961 to 2005.We apply the conceptand the corresponding accounting framework of human appropria-tion of net primary production (HANPP) to provide a comprehensivepicture of the impacts of these changes on the energy flows interrestrial ecosystems (Imhoff et al., 2004; Haberl et al., 2008). Theperiod of investigation covers a good part of the industrialisation ofHungarian agriculture during the socialist regime and also thecollapse of this regime in the late 1980s and the subsequent transitionfrom a planned economy towards a market economy. The differentperiods of political and economic development left their imprintson the country's socio-economic characteristics as well as on landuse structure and biomass production and make it an interesting caseto study changes in the human interference with ecosystem processesduring industrialisation. By discussing changes in abovegroundHANPP in the context of Hungary's socio-economic development, thispaper aims at contributing to a better understanding of the temporaldynamics of HANPP in relation to land use change and biomass pro-duction over longer periods of time and investigates some of theunderlying socio-economic drivers of change.

293N. Kohlheb, F. Krausmann / Ecological Economics 69 (2009) 292–300

The first part of the paper provides a concise overview of the appliedcalculation methods and the used data. The second part presents theresults of the calculation of aboveground HANPP, biomass extractionand changes in biological productivity on Hungarian territory. In thediscussion of the results in the third section of the paper we identifythree distinct phases of development and relate the changes inaboveground HANPP to socio-economic change and agricultural devel-opment. Finally,we summarise ourfindings and draw someconclusionson the different factors that influence the temporal dynamics ofaboveground HANPP and the relation of changes in HANPP andsustainable development.

2. The Hungarian case

Hungary is a densely populated and industrialized Central Europeancountry. Its populationdensity slowly increased in the secondhalf of the20th century andpeaked in1981 at115 inhabitantsper square km, sinceit declined steadily towards 108 capita/km2 in 2005. Two thirds of thepopulation live in urban areas, and this share is still growing (Table 1).

Due to its favourable natural conditions that comprise good soilquality and a moderate climate, the country used to play a crucial rolein Central European food supply during early periods of Europeanindustrialisation (Szabóné Medgyesi, 2000) and also in the 20thcentury agriculture was an important aspect of Hungary's develop-ment. At the beginning of the 21st century, agricultural area stillcovers almost two thirds of the Hungarian territory (Table 1) and overhalf of the total land area is used for growing crops. Nevertheless, theeconomic significance of agriculture and forestry diminished rapidlyin the period of investigation: in 2007, agriculture contributed only3.5% to the Hungarian GDP (HCSO, 2007), and merely 4% of thepopulation was employed in the sector (Table 1).

In the period of investigation, Hungary experienced a radical shiftfrom a planned economy under socialist regime towards a marketeconomy and European integration. During the period of the plannedeconomy Hungary was rapidly industrialized and agriculture inparticular experienced a process of mechanisation and collectivisa-tion. From 1961 to 1989 income (GDP per capita) almost doubled anddomestic energy consumption (DEC) grew by almost 60% (Table 1).The collapse of the regime in 1989 caused a sharp recession and bothincome and energy consumption declined drastically. In the 1990s theeconomy quickly recovered and since 1993 income is growing at arapid pace. In 2001 income surpassed the peak value of the old regime

Table 1Main socio-economic and land use characteristics of Hungary.

Populationdensityi

Agriculturalareaii

Agriculturallabour forceiii

GDP/capi DEC/capiv

cap/km2 % of total area % of total labour force US$/cap/yr GJ/cap/yr

1961 108 76 38 3816 n.d.1965 109 75 n.d. 4410 1191970 111 74 25 5028 1301975 113 73 n.d. 5805 1571980 115 71 19 6306 1791985 114 70 18 6557 1781990 111 70 15 6459 1761995 111 66 7 5772 1502000 109 63 4 7137 1512005 108 63 4 8832 n.d.

DEC denotes domestic energy consumption and measures apparent consumption (i.e.,domestic extraction plus imports minus exports) of all types of primary energyincluding all agricultural biomass (Haberl, 2001). GDP denotes gross domestic productin millions of 1990 US$ converted at Geary Khamis purchasing power parities. n.d.indicates that no data were available.Sources: iGroningen Growth and Development Centre and the Conference Board, TotalEconomy Database (GGDC, 2006); iiHungarian Central Statistical Office (HCSO);iiiMitchell, 2003 (1961–1980), The World Bank Group, 2007; ivKohlheb et al., 2006.Since GDP calculation was changed several times in Hungary, a standardised data setwas not available in national statistics. That is why we used secondary data.

and almost reached 9000 $/cap in 2006 (GGDC, 2006), ranging in thelower third of the EU member states. The shift towards marketeconomy and European integration was accompanied by a farreaching structural change which also had a significant impact onthe agricultural production system and land use. The collapse of theold regime and the shift from state ownership and collective farmstowards private ownership practically destroyed all prevalentproduction systems. In the 1990s, a new process of concentrationand modernization of agriculture set in. With economic assistance ofthe European Union new infrastructures were built up and modernagro-technologies greatly improved the efficiency of Hungarianagriculture and boosted agricultural production. We use the conceptof HANPP to assess how these changes in the economic system arereflected in the development of the physical economy and in changesin the human impact on energy flows in terrestrial ecosystems.

3. Methods and data

For the quantification of human appropriation of net primaryproduction (HANPP) we refer to the conceptual principles outlined inthe Introduction of this special issue (Erb et al., 2009—this issue) andfollow the methodological principles outlined in Haberl et al. (2007).HANPP is defined as the difference between the net primary production(NPP) of the potential natural vegetation (NPP0) and theNPP remainingin ecosystems after harvest (NPPt). From a socioeconomic perspective,this equals to the sum of land use induced changes of NPP (ΔNPPLC)and harvested biomass (used and unused extraction of biomass, NPPh).For a graphic representation of HANPP in relation to these parameterssee Fig. 1 in the introduction paper (Erb et al., 2009—this issue). Due tolimited availability and reliability of data on belowground NPP, allcalculations are restricted to aboveground NPP flows. This is indicatedby the use of the prefix “a” in all HANPP parameters (aHANPP, aNPP0,aNPPact, aNPPt, ΔaNPPLC).

Using different constituents of HANPP, it is possible to calculateefficiency indicators related to land use and biomass production: Theratio NPPact/NPP0 describes the productivity of the actual vegetationcompared to that of the natural vegetation and is a relative measure forΔNPPLC. It can be interpreted as an indicator for the efficiency of theland use system. A ratio of 1 or higher indicates very efficient land usesystems. In contrast, the ratio HANPP/NPPh measures the amount ofHANPP that originates fromperunit of harvested biomass, i.e. it indicatesthe HANPP intensity of biomass production. These measures arenot independent of each other but focus on different aspects of HANPP.

The calculation of HANPP is based on information concerning landcover and land use, socio-economic biomass harvest and the overallproductivity of terrestrial ecosystems. The following primary data andestimation procedures were used to arrive at quantitative estimates ofHANPP parameters.

3.1. Land use

Data on land use and land coverwere compiled from the long-termdata series provided by the Hungarian Central Statistical Office(HCSO) and FAO. Hungarian land use statistics groups land use into11 categories, of which the most relevant ones for our calculationsare: arable land (including temporary fallow), garden, orchard, vine-yard, grassland and forest and uncultivated land. The first five aresummarised under agricultural area.

Hungarian land use statistics provides no separate account of builtup land (which is characterized by an aNPPact of 0), but it is includedunder the category of uncultivated land. Uncultivated land subsumesland currently not used for agriculture or forestry or not suitable for thispurpose and includes a variety of very different land use and land covertypes like roads, railways, built-up and urban areas, house gardens,parks and recreation areas, industrial areas, cemeteries, unproductiveandbare land,mines andquarries (Kapronczai, 2003). Somehints on the

Fig. 1. The development of aboveground HANPP and related parameters in Hungary, 1961–2005.

294 N. Kohlheb, F. Krausmann / Ecological Economics 69 (2009) 292–300

extent of built up land are provided by Corine Land Cover 2000 (EEA,2005) which estimates artificial surfaces in Hungary (corresponds tobuilt-up land area) to amount to roughly 550 kha or 6% of total land areain the year 2000 (Prieler, 2008). The total uncultivated area was around1500 kha in 2000 (Table 2). Based on these figures we assume that builtup land — in its narrow sense — accounts for one third of uncultivatedland, while the reminder is in equal shares covered by wood- andgrassland type vegetation (gardens, parks, road side vegetation etc.).

Table 2 gives an overview on the development of land use and landcover in Hungary during the observed period. All categories ofagricultural land show a steady decline. Arable land was reduced by13%, area of permanent crops and grassland even by 27%. In totalagricultural land decreased by 1200 kha i.e. by 18%. A significantfraction of the agricultural land taken out of production wasreforested and woodlands expanded from 1300 to 1700 kha. Therest was converted into land for infrastructure, settlement andindustrial purposes, which is reflected in the stark increase in thecategory of uncultivated areas, which grew from 800 to 1500 kha. In2005, forests accounted for 19%, uncultivated land for 17% andagricultural land for 63% of total land area.

3.2. Aboveground productivity of potential vegetation (aNPP0)

aNPP0 values for Hungary were provided by a model run of theLund–Potsdam–Jena digital global vegetation model (LPJ DGVM, Sitchet al., 2003). According to this calculation NPP0 increased by 11% from1097 PJ/yr (11.9 MJ/m2/yr) in 1961 to 1225 PJ/yr (13.3 MJ/m2/yr) in

Table 2Land cover and land use in the period 1961 and 2005.

Years Arable land Permanent crops Grassland Forest Uncultivated land

Area in (kha)

1961 5208 416 1459 1334 7891965 5084 565 1304 1421 8311970 5046 548 1281 1471 8561975 4976 519 1275 1545 8621980 4735 598 1294 1610 9351985 4697 504 1246 1648 10731990 4713 329 1186 1695 12441995 4638 315 1148 1763 13022000 4500 303 1051 1770 15192005 4513 294 1057 1775 1500

Source: HCSO, 2007, own calculation.

2005 due to climatic changes and increases in atmospheric CO2

concentration.

3.3. Biomass harvest (aNPPh)

Data on biomass harvest from cropland were used from FAOSTAT(2004) for the period 1961–2001 and from national statistics (HCSO)for the period 2002 to 2005. We decided on using FAO data instead ofdata from national statistics for the period 1961 to 2001, because oflimited temporal comparability of national data due to severalchanges in the statistical reporting system. In general, data fromnational statistics correspond well with FAO data.

Harvest of crop residues is not recorded in international or nationalstatistical data bases and had to be extrapolated from primary cropharvest data using crop specific harvest factors and recovery rates(Wirsenius, 2000, 2003). The amount of harvested primary cropmultiplied with the specific harvest factor gives the total amount ofavailable crop residues. The recovery rate denotes the share of cropresidue that is further subject to socioeconomic use. This is theharvested fraction of available residues. Region specific harvest factorsand recovery rates were derived from Krausmann et al. (2008).Technological development was considered by adjusting harvestfactors and recovery rates over time (Krausmann, 2001).

Biomass harvested from grassland or grazed by livestock is notrecorded in national and international statistical sources, too. Weestimated NPPh from grassland by calculating the difference betweentotal feed demand of Hungarian livestock and total supply of foddercrops, market feed and crop residues used as feed (grazing gapmethod, Krausmann et al., 2008). We calculated species specific dailydry matter intake of different livestock species in Hungary by usingdata on milk and meat production from FAOSTAT (2004) and productspecific feed conversion factors provided by Krausmann et al. (2008).Data on the supply with market feed and fodder crops were takenfrom FAOSTAT (2004) and national sources. Additionally, it wassupposed that a decreasing percent of straw was used as feed. Weassumed that in 1961 20% of all recovered crop residues were used tofeed livestock and that this share declined continuously to 5% in 1980where it remained since.

Wood extraction from forest was accounted for as total fellingswhich comprise removals of roundwood and harvested residues. Dataon round wood removals (industrial round wood and wood fuel) inm3 are reported in FAO forestry statistics (FAOSTAT, 2004). They were

Table 3Average aboveground NPP (aNPPact) per unit of land area in the period 1961–2005.

Arable land andpermanent crops

Grassland Forest Uncultivatedland

Average

aNPPact in (GJ/ha/yr)

1961 78.1 75.0 118.8 66.8 91.81965 95.1 75.0 118.8 66.8 104.01970 98.0 75.6 119.7 67.1 106.61975 153.1 75.6 119.7 67.1 143.31980 172.6 77.1 122.1 67.9 156.91985 187.5 77.1 122.1 67.9 165.81990 158.4 80.7 127.8 69.8 148.31995 150.0 80.7 127.8 69.8 146.72000 123.2 83.8 132.7 71.4 136.22005 193.0 83.8 132.6 71.4 179.9

Source: Own calculation, see text.

Table 4Harvested NPP (aNPPh) from different land use categories.

Years Arable land andpermanent cropharvest

Forest Uncultivatedland

Grassland TotalaNPPh

aNPPh in (PJ/yr)

1961 289 42 26 96 4141965 352 45 28 101 4871970 357 56 29 97 4981975 536 60 29 91 6751980 603 68 32 87 7501985 639 75 37 94 8051990 538 66 45 84 7001995 498 48 47 26 6002000 394 66 57 41 5402005 600 66 56 42 749

Source: Own calculation, see text.

295N. Kohlheb, F. Krausmann / Ecological Economics 69 (2009) 292–300

converted into tons by assuming an average density of round wood of0.57 t/m3 (at 15% moisture content). Total fellings were extrapolatedfrom round wood harvest by assuming a recovery rate of 85% (UN,2000).

Considerable amounts of biomass are harvested fromhomegardens,parks and recreational areas and above all from the vegetation accom-panying roads and rails. Only the smaller part of this biomass is,however, subject to further socioeconomic use.We assumed that 50% ofthe aNPPact on uncultivated land is harvested.

Data on biomass harvest were converted into energy values byapplying item specific gross calorific values for all types of crops, cropresidues and harvest from grassland and cropland provided bySchandl et al. (2002) and Haberl (1995).

3.4. Aboveground productivity of actually prevailing vegetation(aNPPact)

aNPPact on arable land and of permanent crops was calculated asthe sum of harvested crops and available crop residues (see above). Itshows considerable annual fluctuations and ranged between 7.8 and19.3 MJ/m2/yr.

aNPPact on grassland was estimated based on a literature review.Bystrickaya and Osychnyuk (1975) report an annual abovegroundNPP of 0.36 kg DM/m2/yr (6.5 MJ/m2/yr) for grassland sites in theUkrainian steppe with similar characteristics as Hungarian pastures.Bokori and Kovács (1993) assume an average grassland yield(harvest) in Hungary of 1.7 t/ha/yr of hay. Assuming that only55% of all aboveground NPP can be harvested, this corresponds to anaboveground NPP of 9.5 MJ/m2/yr. Ajtay et al. (1979) gives an averagegrassland productivity of 8.4 MJ/m2/yr for temperate dry grassland.Based on these data we used an average productivity of 8.4 MJ/m2/yrfor the year 1961 and assumed that grassland productivity increasedin accordance with changes in aNPP0 to 9.4 MJ/m2/yr in 2005.

aNPPact per unit of forest land was assumed to be equal to theaverage productivity of the potential natural vegetation (NPP0).Accordingly it increased from 11.9 MJ/m2/yr in 1961 to 13.3 MJ/m2/yrin 2005.

We assume that uncultivated land is covered by a mix of wood-and grassland type vegetation and sealed soils (built up land with noNPP) in equal shares. aNPPact per unit of uncultivated land is thuscalculated as the arithmetic mean of the average productivity ofgrassland, woodland and built up land of the specific year.

4. Results

Fig. 1 shows the development of aboveground HANPP and relatedparameters in the observed period. The period from 1961 to 1989featured a significant decline of aHANPP, which decreased from737 PJ/yr in 1961 to 546 PJ/yr in 1989 or from 67% to 48% of aNPP0. Theyears after 1989 are marked by a considerable increase in aHANPP. In2003 it even exceeded the highest value of the previous period whichwas recorded in 1961. Contrary to aHANPP, aNPPact was characterizedby a significant increase in the period 1961 to 1989 and evensurpassed aNPP0 in the early 1970s. It grew by 83% and increased from773 PJ/yr to 1414 PJ/yr. After 1989, it declined sharply and wascharacterised by strong fluctuations until 2005. aNPPh follows thetrend of aNPPact and the share of harvested NPP from aNPPact remainsmore or less constant over time. The NPP remaining in ecosystemsafter harvest (aNPPt) grew steadily from 359 PJ in 1961 to 581 PJ in1989 and oscillated around 600 PJ/yr until 2005.

The development of aNPPact was mostly driven by changes in theproductivity of arable land, which covers between 49% and 59% oftotal land area in the observed time period and is the dominant landuse category in Hungary. Table 3 shows, that between 1961 and 1989aNPPact of arable land and permanent crops increased by 260%surpassing average aNPP0 per unit of land area in the 1970s. Between

1989 and 1993 productivity of arable land and of permanent cropsslumped and was characterized by large fluctuations in the followingyears. The modest increases in aNPPact on grassland are related to ourassumption that grassland remained in arid regions of marginalproductivity (not suitable for cropping) only. Grasslands were used asextensive pastures and did not receive any artificial fertilization orirrigation in the observed period. The productivity of forests wasassumed to be equal to that of the potential natural vegetation andincreased modestly due to changes in the concentration of atmo-spheric CO2 and climatic conditions according to the LPJ model run.

The amount of harvested biomass (aNPPh) almost doubled in theobserved period (see Table 4). Harvest from cropland (arable land withpermanent crops) grew steadily and reached 668 in 1989 PJ/yr.Afterwards it dropped steeply and showed large fluctuations since.Forest harvest increased slowly until 1986 and peaked with 77 PJ/yr.Thereafter the harvested amount slumped and stabilized around65PJ/yr.

Harvest from grassland was comparatively stable and fluctuatedbetween 85 and 106 PJ in the period from 1961 to the late 1980s.Withthe steep decline in the livestock numbers after the regime change(see below) harvest on grassland dropped to 26 PJ within only twoyears and stabilized at a level of 40 to 45 PJ for the rest of theinvestigated period. Harvest from cropland accounted for the largestpart of total harvest, ranging between 70 and 84% of total harvest. Allother categories of harvested biomass were of minor significance:harvest from grassland accounted for 5–14%, harvest of forest for 10–13% and harvest from uncultivated areas for 4–11% of total NPPh.

The contribution of the individual land use types to total aHANPPchanged over time (Table 5). During the observed period, aHANPP onarable land accounted for the largest fraction of total aHANPP, but itsshare decreased steadily from almost 70% in 1961 to 50% in 1989. Inthe same period the share of forest land more than doubled from 6 to13% but also slumped in the early 1990s. In contrast, the share of

Table 5Contribution of different land use types to total aboveground HANPP.

Share of total aHANPP

Years Arable land andpermanent crops (%)

Forest land(%)

Grassland(%)

Uncultivatedland (%)

1961 70 6 15 91965 68 6 15 101970 67 8 14 101975 61 10 16 131980 58 12 16 141985 53 13 17 171990 58 10 14 171995 64 8 8 202000 61 9 9 202005 53 11 12 24

Source: own calculation, see text.

296 N. Kohlheb, F. Krausmann / Ecological Economics 69 (2009) 292–300

uncultivated land grew continuously from 9% in 1961 to almost onequarter of total aHANPP in 2005 due to the expansion of built up land.

Fig. 2 shows the development of two efficiencymeasures regardingaHANPP. The ratio of aHANPP/aNPPh, which measures the HANPPintensity of biomass production, drops steeply until the mid 1980s.While in 1961 1 unit of biomass harvest was associated with 1.8 unitsof aHANPP this ratio declined to 0.7 in 1985. In 1989 the ratio shows asudden increase and strong fluctuations in the years afterwards. Theratio aNPPact/aNPP0, which can be regarded as a measure for theefficiency of land use, increased significantly in the observed period. In1973 the ratio exceeded 1, indicating that the productivity of the actualvegetation (aNPPact) exceeded that of the potential natural vegetation(aNPP0). The ratio reached its peak in 1989 and dropped afterwards,even below 1 in certain years. Fig. 2 shows, that the two efficiencymeasures are inversely related to each other. This indicates that in theHungarian case improvements in land use efficiency contributeddirectly to a reduction in the HANPP intensity of biomass harvest andhighlights the significance of ΔaNPPLC for HANPP.

5. Discussion

5.1. Phases of development

The results presented in the previous section show that aHANPP,biomass harvest and aNPPact did change drastically in the observed

Fig. 2. Efficiency measures: aHANPP per unit of

period. These changes did not follow a continuous trend, but differentphases of development can be distinguished, which appear to bevery much in line withmajor periods of socioeconomic development inHungary. Fig. 3 shows how changes in aHANPP and related parametersare reflected in GDP and in domestic energy consumption (DEC), twoimportant indicators for economic and biophysical development.Accordingly, we distinguish the following three phases of developmentin the discussion of aHANPP and the land use system in Hungary sincethe early 1960s (Fig. 3 and Table 6): The period of planned economicindustrialisation under the socialist regime lasted from the beginning ofthe observed period until 1989.With the collapse of the socialist regimein 1989 this period abruptly ended and it took several years until theeconomy and the land use system began to recover. Accordingly wedenote the period from 1989 to 1993 as collapse. This period wasfollowed by a phase of restructuring and eventually economic growthwhich begins in 1993 and lasts until the end of the observed period.Table 6 shows the relative change of aHANPP variables and importantsocioeconomic variables during the three phases.

Fig. 4 shows the development of a number of key characteristics ofthe agricultural production system in Hungary. Also the developmentof fertilizer and pesticide consumption (4a and b), livestock (4c) andcrop yields (4d) reflect the three phases of development outlinedabove: All variables show significant growth during the period ofindustrialisation, radical decline in the period of collapse andstabilisation at a lower level or growth in the years after 1993.

5.2. Agricultural industrialisation (1961–1989)

The period from 1961 to 1989was characterized by industrialisationand collectivisation of the economy including the mechanisation andintensification of agricultural production. aHANPP declined by 26%,while the amount of harvested NPP grew in line with aNPPact by 101%(Fig. 3 and Table 6).

From a socio-economic perspective, this was a period of growth:Population grew modestly (4%), while GDP per capita and domesticenergy consumption almost doubled (Table 6b). Hungarian agricultureand forestry experienced rapid modernization and industrialisationbased on massive financial investments from the state (SzabónéMedgyesi, 2000). Fig. 4a indicates, that within merely 10 years fertilizeruse grew from 50 kg pure nutrient per ha and year tomore than 200 kg/ha/yr and remained at this high level until 1989 (Szász, 2000; Ángyánet al., 2003). A similar development can be observed for the use of

aNPPh and the ratio of aNPPact and aNPP0.

Fig. 3. The development of aboveground HANPP parameters, gross domestic product (GDP) and domestic energy consumption (DMC) during different phases of development.

297N. Kohlheb, F. Krausmann / Ecological Economics 69 (2009) 292–300

pesticides (Fig. 4b) and for mechanisation: The number of tractorsincreased between 1950 and 1970 from 13 thousands to 67 thousandsand the mechanical traction capacity and the performed work inagriculture roseby30 times in the sameperiod(Szász, 2000, pp. 502). Tomake use of these investments in production, the structure of theagrarian landscapewasmodified andmore intensive cropvarietieswereintroduced.

The industrialisation of agriculture allowed for considerable in-creases in agricultural yields. Yieldsofmajor crops likewheat,maize andsunflower increased by factors of 2.4 to 3.4 between 1961 and 1989(Fig. 4d). But also in forestry, land use became more intensive andefficient: The amount of harvested wood increased faster than forestarea (Fig. 5a) (see also Keresztesi, 1984).

The industrialisation of agriculture was a major cause for thereduction of the extent of agricultural areas, since the use of expensiveinputs was economically viable only on the most productive soils.Areas of marginal productivity were increasingly taken out ofproduction and reforested or left to natural succession, very similarto the dynamics of land use change observed in other WesternEuropean countries in this period (Krausmann et al., 2003, Mather,1992). But growing yields by far outgrew the reduction in agriculturalareas and total harvest of agricultural biomass doubled (Fig. 5b). TheHungarian agriculture was able to meet an increasing domesticdemand for staple food and animal products and became self

Table 6Change of socioeconomic indicators and aboveground HANPP parameters during threephases of development.

1961–1989Industrialisation (%)

1989–1993Collapse (%)

1993–2005Restructuring (%)

Gross domestic product(GDP)i

88 −21 55

Domestic energyconsumption (DEC)ii

62a −21 2b

Populationi 4 −1 −3aHANPPiii −26 29 −15aNPPhiii 101 −39 48aNPPact/aNPP0iii 78 −34 35aHANPP/aNPPhiii −63 113 −43

Sources: own calculations based on iGGDC, 2006; iiKohlheb et al., 2006; iiiowncalculation.

a In the period of 1965–1989.b In the period of 1993–2002.

sufficient with respect to the most important agricultural productsin the 1970s. The growing agricultural output even began to exceededdomestic demand and Hungary turned from a net importing countryto a significant net exporter of many agricultural products. Between1970 and 1980 about 1/3 of agricultural output, in particular largeamounts of cereals, but also fruits and animal products, were exported(see Fig. 6) (Szabóné Medgyesi, 2000).

Agricultural industrialisation and the related changes yields perunit of area and in land use and land cover resulted in the observedchanges in aHANPP parameters; the application of agricultural inputsand irrigation allowed for increases in aNPPact until it eventually evensurpassed the level of aNPP0 in 1973 (Fig. 1). In this period the ratioof aNPPact to aNPP0 increased by 78% to 1.2, indicating large gainsin the efficiency of land use (Fig. 2). The surge in biomass harvest inthis period was achieved by increases in aNPPact which resulted insignificant improvements in the aHANPP intensity of biomass harvest.aHANPP per unit of NPPh declined from 1.78 to 0.66 or by 63% (Fig. 2,Table 6). Our data show, that in the case of Hungary, industrialisationof agriculture allowed to multiply harvest without boosting aHANPP.This was only possible through a massive increase in land use andbiomass production efficiency. These efficiency improvements were,among others, achieved by the large scale application of agrochem-icals, irrigation and mechanisation. This reduced the energy efficiencyof agricultural production and contributed to environmental degrada-tion (Ángyán et al., 2003).

5.3. Collapse of the socialist regime and the planned economy(1989–1993)

In 1989 the socialist regime collapsed and the period of theplanned economy was abruptly terminated. Similar to other EasternEuropean countries this major break in the economic developmentcaused disruptions visible in many socio-economic and biophysicalvariables (see e.g. Kovanda and Hak, 2008 or Kuskova et al., 2008) andequally so in aHANPP. Between 1989 and 1993 per capita GDP slumpedby 21% and fell back to the level of 1976; domestic energy consump-tion declined by 21%. In the same period, biomass harvest (both inagriculture and forestry) decreased by more than one third and theproductivity of the actual vegetation declined by 30% (Fig. 3, Table 6). Asa result, aHANPP jumped from 49% to 61% and efficiency measuresdeteriorated: aHANPP per unit of harvested biomass doubled and theratio of aNPPact to aNPP0 fell back below 1 (Fig. 2).

Fig. 4. Agricultural intensification in Hungary from 1961 to 2005: a: Fertilizer inputs in pure nutrient content of nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium fertilisers (NPK); b: Pesticideinputs; c: Livestock in livestock units (LSU; equivalent to 500 kg live weight); d: Yield of major crops.

298 N. Kohlheb, F. Krausmann / Ecological Economics 69 (2009) 292–300

Behind these changes the radical dismantling of socio-economicstructures of the planned economy can be identified: With the abruptend of the regime also the collectively managed farms wereabandoned. The large and state-owned firms had to be divided andprivatised; the agricultural land owned by state or cooperatives wasgradually broken up into smaller parts, restituted to former owners orprivatised. Production structures, distribution networks and formerexport markets were lost and for several years agricultural productionwas more or less devastated (Szabóné Medgyesi, 2000). The collapseof the agricultural production system is reflected in the decline inagricultural inputs (Fig. 4a and b): Fertiliser use dropped from 188 kgto 30 NKP/ha/yr and pesticide use from 4.2 to 1.8 kg/ha/yr. Livestockwas reduced by more than 50% in that period (Fig. 4c). Even domesticfood consumption was affected by the economic disruptions and theper capita consumption of animal based food declined by 14% duringthese four years (HCSO, 2007), while exports of agricultural biomassremained high for several years (Fig. 6).

The collapse of the industrialized agricultural production systemcaused the observed decline in the productivity of the actual vege-tation and in biomass harvest. However, the decline in aNPPact wasmore pronounced than the decline in harvest, which resulted in theincrease in aHANPP.

5.4. Transition to market economy (1993–2005)

After the turbulent years that followed the collapse of the oldregime, a period of structural change and the consolidation of eco-nomic development began. In 1993 the recession ended and theeconomy began to grow at a rapid pace. Per capita GDP doubled in thisperiod and domestic energy consumption grew from 150 to 160 GJ/cap/yr. With regard to aHANPP no clear trend is visible. For a fewyears, aHANPP declined but then slightly increased again and also the

development of aNPPact and aNPPh was characterized by strongfluctuations.

Much in linewith the overall economic development the agriculturalsector increasingly recovered. Outdated and inefficient infrastructuresand production technologies of the 1980s were replaced and the newlyorganisedprivate andmarket oriented farmenterprises began tooperateefficiently. Fertiliser use grew from 46 to 77 kg/ha/yr and also pesticideapplication shows an upward trend since the mid 1990s (Fig. 4a and b).Although these increments are modest compared to the high level ofagricultural inputs in the 1980s, crop yields recovered rapidly andreached a level exceeding the yields of the late 1980s at the beginning ofthe new century (see Fig. 4d). Obviously, structural change associatedwith the collapse of the old regime resulted in the establishment of amore efficient agricultural production system. The recovery of agricul-ture and forestry is also reflected in high values of aNPPact and aNPPhrecorded in the years 1997, 2001 and 2003. The strong fluctuations ofaNPPact and aNPPh and ultimately also the comparatively high aHANPPvalues of the years 1993, 2000 and 2003have to be attributed toweatherextremes. In these years, severe draught periods, often in combinationwithfloods and inland inundationhaddevastating effects on agriculturalharvest, only comparable to the historical drought in 1952 (Pálfai, 2004;Konecsny, 2008; Szalai et al., 2008). Thus, beside socioeconomicinfluences, natural factors tend to shape agricultural productionincreasingly. In which way this is related to the introduction of moresophisticated production systems which operate at a lower level ofagrochemical inputs andenvironmentaldegradationof agro-ecosystemsdue to historical intensification processes remains an open question.

We also assume that the restructuring of agriculture and forestrymay have had a larger effect on land cover change as indicated by landuse statistics, which basically shows, that the trend of an expansionof forestry and uncultivated area continued at an unchanged pace(Table 2, Fig. 5). Currently, significant amounts of former agricultural

Fig. 5. Relation of area and biomass harvest in forestry (a) and agriculture (b).

299N. Kohlheb, F. Krausmann / Ecological Economics 69 (2009) 292–300

land, in particular grassland are unused and subject to natural succes-sion. This, however, is not recorded in land use statistics, which tendsto recognize such phenomena with considerable delay and maycontribute to an overestimation of aHANPP in the period since 1989.

6. Conclusions

The Hungarian case illustrates the complexity of the humaninteractions with terrestrial ecosystems which result in temporalpatterns of aHANPP. The development of aHANPP over time is theresult of the interplay of land cover change, changes in the intensity ofland use and biomass extraction. The Hungarian case shows, that a largeincrease in biomass harvest can be achieved without raising or even byreducing aHANPP. Increases in the intensity of land use (e.g. on the basisof irrigation, mechanisation, the application of agrochemicals or theintroduction of new crops) allow to augment aNPPact — even above thelevel of NPP0 — and harvested NPP can be boosted without affectingaHANPP. However, production efficiency increases with respect toaHANPP are achieved at the cost of energy efficiency (Price, 1995;Krausmann, 2001) and may bring about a considerable shift inenvironmental pressures. In Hungary, already in the middle of the1980s serious ecological and environmental damages emerged fromintensive agricultural and forestry production and high inputs.Agricultural intensification contributed to soil compaction, erosionand acidification, eutrophication of water bodies, biodiversity loss andfragmentation of habitats (Ángyán et al., 2003; Somogyi, 2001; EEA,

Fig. 6. Physical trade balance (imports minus exports) of agricultural produ

2004). The short period of economic disruption after the end of thecommunist regime impressively shows the effect of a sudden collapse ofan industrial agricultural production system and its related institutions.In the Hungarian case external inputs abruptly receded, the land usesystem deteriorated and biomass production efficiency was reduced;both aNPPact and harvest drastically declined and aHANPP increasedtemporarily.

In general, the effects of agricultural industrialisation on humaninterference with ecosystems and aHANPP in Hungary appear to bequite similar to those observed in neighbouring Austria (Kraus-mann, 2001) or in other Western European market economies suchas Spain (Schwarzlmüller, 2009—this issue), the UK (Musel, 2009—this issue) despite the differences in the political and economicsetting. In both market and planned economies agriculturalindustrialisation was associated with a considerable decline in agri-cultural areas and the expansion of woodlands, and increases in landuse intensity based on high inputs and the corresponding surge inbiomass harvest. These factors contributed to a decline in aHANPPover time.

Acknowledgements

We want to thank Helmut Haberl and Karl Heinz Erb for theirsupport and their comments on earlier versions of this manuscript.Special thanks to a number of colleagues at HCSO, who provided uswith valuable and up-to-date information. Namely: Miklós Demeter,

cts. Negative values indicate net exports, positive values net imports.

300 N. Kohlheb, F. Krausmann / Ecological Economics 69 (2009) 292–300

Zsuzsa Imre, Lajos Kaposi, Zsuzsanna Szabó, Lászlóné Fenyvesi andlast but not least for the coordination of data collection a specialthanks for Gábor Szilágyi. We also thank our two anonymousreviewers for their valuable comments. This research benefits fromthe Austrian Science Fund (FWF), projects P-16692, P20812-G11 andP21012-G11 and contributes to the Global Land Project (http://www.globallandproject.org) and to ALTER-Net.

References

Ajtay, G.L., Ketner, P., Duvigneaud, P., 1979. Terrestrial primary production andphytomass.In: Bolin, B., et, al. (Eds.), The Global Carbon Cycly. Scope, vol. 13. Wiley and Sons,Chichester, pp. 129–182.

Ángyán, J., Menyhért, Z., Szakál, F., Bakonyi, G., Varga, A., Aratóné Baumann, A., TakácsSánta, A., Vida, G., Márai, G., Barczi, A., Penksza, K., Bardóczyné Székely, E., 2003. Amagyar mezőgazdálkodás fejlődése és helyzete (Development and situation of theHungarian agriculture). In: Ángyán, J., Tardy, J., Vajnané Madarassy, A. (Eds.),Védett és érzékeny természeti területek mezőgazdálkodásának alapjai (Basics ofagriculture on protected and sensible natural areas). Mezőgazda Kiadó, Budapest,pp. 26–48.

Bokori, J., Kovács, G., 1993. Takarmányismeret (Fodder knowledge). In: Schmidt, J. (Ed.),Takarmányozástan (Feeding knowledge). Mezőgazda Kiadó, Budapest, pp. 182–233.

Bystrickaya, T.L., Osychnyuk, V.V., 1975. Soils and primary biological productivity ofsteppes of Pryazovye (as exemplified by the qKhomutovskaya Steppeq reserve).Nauka, Moscow. 112 pp.

EEA, 2004. Agriculture and the environment in the EU accession countries. Implicationsof applying the EU common agricultural policy. Environmental Issue Report No. 37.EEA, Copenhagen. 54 pp.

EEA, 2005. CORINE Land Cover 2000 — Mapping a decade of change. Copenhagen. URL:http://terrestrial.eionet.eu.int/CLC2000; EEA, Copenhagen. Date of download: 05. 2006.

Erb, K.-H., Krausmann, F., Gaube, V., Gingrich, S., Bondeau, A., Fischer-Kowalski,M., Haberl,H., 2009e. Analyzing the global human appropriation of net primary production —

processes, trajectories, implications. An introduction. Ecological Economics 69,250–259 (this issue).

FAOSTAT, 2004. FAO Statistical Databases: Agriculture, Fisheries, Forestry, Nutrition.FAO, Rome.

Grigg, D., 1992. The transformation of agriculture in the West. Blackwell, Oxford. 141 pp.Groningen Growth and Development Centre and the Conference Board (GGDC), Total

Economy Database URL: http://www.ggdc.net, Date of download: 05. 2006.Haberl, H., 1995. Menschliche Eingriffe in den natürlichen Energiefluß von Ökosyste-

men. Social Ecology Working Paper No. 43. Institute of Social Ecology, Vienna.Haberl, H., 2001. The energetic metabolism of societies, Part I: Accounting concepts.

Journal of Industrial Ecology 5, 11–33.Haberl, H., Erb, K.-H., Krausmann, F., Gaube, V., Bondeau, A., Plutzar, C., Gingrich, S., Lucht,

W., Fischer-Kowalski,M., 2007. Quantifying andmapping the human appropriation ofnet primary production in earth's terrestrial ecosystems. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences of the United States of America 104, 12942–12947.

Haberl, H., Erb, K.-H. and Krausmann, F., 2008. Global human appropriation of netprimary production. In: Earth Portal (Editors), Encyclopedia of the Earth. URL:http://www.eoearth.org/.

HCSO 2007. personal communication and web based data source. URL: www.ksh.hu,Date of download: 20.07.2007.

Imhoff, M.L., Bounoua, L., Ricketts, T., Loucks, C., Harriss, R., Lawrence,W.T., 2004. Globalpatterns in human consumption of net primary production. Nature 429, 870–873.

Kapronczai, I., 2003. A magyar mezőgazdaság a rendszerváltástól az Európai Unióig.Szaktudás Kiadóház, Budapest.

Keresztesi, B., 1984. Afforestation within reduced boundaries: the development ofHungarian forestry, 1950–1980. Unasylva 145 36(3), URL: http://www.fao.org/docrep/q9270e/q9270e00.htm#Contents-.

Kohlheb, N., Krausmann, F.,Weisz, H., 2006. Amagyar társadalomenergia-intenzitásánakmeghatározása és elemzése a társadalmimetabolizmusmódszereivel (Energy inten-sity of the Hungarian society from the perspective of social metabolism). Kovász,Budapest, pp. 21–41. 1–4.

Konecsny K., 2008. Az éghajlatváltozás kimutatható jelei a felső-tiszai éghajlati éshidrológiai idősorokban. URL: http://www.aquadocinter.hu/themes/Vandorgyules/pages/6szekcio/konecsny.htm, Date of download: 08.2008.

Kovanda, J., Hak, T., 2008. Changes in materials use in transition economies. Journal ofIndustrial Ecology 12 (5–6), 721–738.

Krausmann, F., 2001. Land use and industrial modernization: an empirical analysis ofhuman influence on the functioning of ecosystems in Austria 1830–1995. Land UsePolicy 18, 17–26.

Krausmann, F., Haberl, H., Schulz, N.B., Erb, K.-H., Darge, E., Gaube, V., 2003. Land-usechange and socio-economic metabolism in Austria — Part I: driving forces of land-use change. Land Use Policy 20, 1–20.

Krausmann, F., Erb, K.-H., Gingrich, S., Lauk, C., Haberl, H., 2008. Global patterns ofsocioeconomic biomass flows in the year 2000: a comprehensive assessment ofsupply, consumption and constraints. Ecological Economics 65, 471–487.

Kuskova, P., Gingrich, S., Krausmann, F., 2008. Long term changes in social metabolismand land use in Czechoslovakia, 1830–2000: an energy transition under changingpolitical regimes. Ecological Economics 68, 394–407.

Lambin, E.F., Geist, H.J., 2006. Land-use and land-cover change. Local Processes andGlobal Impacts. InSpringer, Berlin, p. 222.

Mather, A.S., 1992. The forest transition. Area 24, 367–379.Mather, A.S., Fairbairn, J., Needle, C.L., 1999. The course and drivers of the forest transition:

the case of France. Journal of Rural Studies 15, 65–90.Mitchell, B.R., 2003. InternationalHistorical Statistics. PalgraveMcMillan,NewYork. 960pp.Musel, A., 2009. Human appropriation of net primary production in the United

Kingdom, 1800 –2000. Changes in society's impact on ecological energy flowsduring the agrarian–industrial transition. Ecological Economics 69, 270–281(this issue).

Pálfai, I., 2004. Belvizek és aszályok Magyarországon. Hidrológiai tanulmányok,Közlekedési Dokumentációs Kft, Budapest.

Price, D., 1995. Energy and human evolution. Population and Environment: A Journal ofInterdisciplinary Studies 16, 301–319.

Prieler, S., Built-up and associated land area increases in Europe. WP 3— EnvironmentalEvaluation. MOSUS project. URL: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC, Date ofdonwnload: 08.2008.

Schandl, H., Grünbühel, C.M., Haberl, H., Weisz, H., 2002. Handbook of physicalaccounting. Measuring bio- physical dimensions of socio-economic activities. MFA–EFA –HANPP. Federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Environment andWater Management, Vienna. 75 pp.

Schwarzlmüller, E., 2009e. Human appropriation of aboveground net primaryproduction in Spain, 1955–2003: an empirical analysis of the industrialization ofland use. Ecological Economics 69, 282–291 (this issue).

Sitch, S., Smith, B., Prentice, I.C., Arneth, A., Bondeau, A., Cramer, W., Kamplan, J.O., Levis,S., Lucht, W., Sykes, M.T., Thonicke, K., Venevsky, S., 2003. Evaluation of ecosystemdynamics, plant geography and terrestrial carbon cycling in the LPJ dynamic globalvegetation model. Global Change Biology 9, 161–185.

Somogyi, Z., 2001. Mert dőlni kell a fának…(Because tree has to be cut…). In: Somogyi,Z. (Ed.), Erdő nélkül (Without forest?). L' Harmattan, Budapest. 270 pp.

Szabóné Medgyesi, É., 2000. A mezőgazdaság helyzete és arányai a nemzetgazdaság-ban. In: Kollega Tarsoly I. (Editor), Magyarország a XX. században. Babits Kiadó,Szekszárd, pp. 517–523; 555–559.

Szalai, J., Varga, Gy., Pappné Urban, J., 2008. A hidrometeorologiai és talajvízszintválto-zások értélelése a Duna-Tisza közén az EU VKI szempontjainak tükrében. VITUKiKht. Magyar Hidrológiai Társaság, XXV. Országos Vándorgyűlés, Tata 4–5 July 2007.URL: www.hidrologia.hu/ovgytata/25/2szekcio/250223.doc, Date of download:08.2008.

Szász, K., 2000. Mezőgazdaság. In: Kollega Tarsoly I. (Editor), Magyarország a XX.században. Babits Kiadó, Szekszárd, pp. 467–474; 487–492; 498–504.

Tivy, J., 1997. Agricultural ecology. Longman, Essex, UK.The World Bank Group, 2007. World Development Indicators 2007. The World Bank

Group, Washington. CD-ROM.UN, 2000. Forest resources of Europe, CIS, North America, Australia, Japan and New

Zealand (industrialized temperate/boreal countries). UN-ECE/FAO Contribution tothe Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000. Main Report ECE/TIM/SP/17. UnitedNations Publications, New York, Geneva.

Vitousek, P.M., Ehrlich, P.R., Ehrlich, A.H., Matson, P.A., 1986. Human appropriation ofthe products of photosynthesis. BioScience 36, 363–373.

Wirsenius, S., 2000. Human Use of Land and Organic Materials. Modeling the Turnoverof Biomass in the Global Food System. Chalmers University, Göteborg, Sweden.

Wirsenius, S., 2003. Efficiencies and biomass appropriation of food commodities onglobal and regional levels. Agricultural Systems 77, 219–255.

Wolman, M.G., Fournier, F.G.A., 1987. Land Transformations in Agriculture. In: Scope,vol. 32. John Wiley, Chichester.