Pe

Ea

b

c

d

a

ARR1A

KCSLEAA

I

aa2eaeepaas

ecs

fv

0h

Land Use Policy 33 (2013) 183– 194

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

jou rn al h om epa g e: www.elsev ier .com/ locate / landusepol

ast and future impacts of land use and climate change on agriculturalcosystem services in the Czech Republic

liska Lorencováa,∗, Jana Frélichováb, Edward Nelsonc, David Vackárd

Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Humanities, U Kríze 8, 150 00 Prague 5, Czech RepublicCharles University in Prague, Faculty of Science, Albertov 6, 128 43 Prague 2, Czech RepublicUniversity of Stirling, Centre for Environmental History and Policy, Stirling, Scotland, FK9 4LA, UKGlobal Change Research Centre, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Belidla 986/4a, 603 00 Brno, Czech Republic

r t i c l e i n f o

rticle history:eceived 12 July 2012eceived in revised form0 December 2012ccepted 15 December 2012

eywords:limate change

a b s t r a c t

Climatic and land use change are amongst the greatest global environmental pressures resulting fromanthropogenic activities. Both significantly influence the provision of crucial ecosystem services, suchas carbon sequestration, water flow regulation, and food and fibre production, at a variety of scales. Theaim of this study is to provide spatially explicit information at a national level on climate and land usechange impacts in order to assess changes in the provision of ecosystem services. This work provides aqualitative and quantitative analysis of the impacts on selected ecosystem services (carbon sequestration,food production and soil erosion) in the agricultural sector of the Czech Republic. This assessment shows

cenariosand use changecosystem servicesgriculturessessment

that, historical land use trends and land use under projected climate scenarios display some shared spatialpatterns. Specifically, these factors both lead to a significant decrease of arable land in the border fringesof the Czech Republic, which is to some extent replaced by grasslands, in turn affecting the provision ofecosystem services. Moreover, this assessment contributes to a useful method for integrating spatiallyexplicit land use and climate change analysis that can be applied to other sectors or transition countrieselsewhere.

ntroduction

Ecosystem services provided by agriculture receive increasingttention with regard to sustainability of agro-ecosystems andssociated economic prosperity and human well-being (Power,010; Zhang et al., 2007). The interactions between agriculture,nvironment and society are very complex and multifaceted. Dalend Polasky (2007) identified three key ways in which agriculturalcosystems and ecosystem services interact. Firstly, agriculturalcosystems generate ecosystem services such as soil retention, foodroduction and aesthetics. Secondly, the agricultural ecosystemsre beneficiaries of ecosystem services from other ecosystems, suchs pollination. Thirdly, agricultural practices may impact ecosystemervices of other non-agricultural systems.

Climate and land use change are recognized as leading global

nvironmental problems (Pielke, 2005; Boyd et al., 2008). Agri-ulture has been identified as a major land use, connected also toocial, economic and cultural activity that provides wide range of

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +420 725 415 294; fax: +420 220 199 462.E-mail addresses: eliska.lorencova@czp.cuni.cz (E. Lorencová),

relichova.j@czechglobe.cz (J. Frélichová), edward.nelson@stir.ac.uk (E. Nelson),ackar.d@czechglobe.cz (D. Vackár).

264-8377/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.12.012

© 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

ecosystem services globally (Howden et al., 2007). Agricultural sys-tems, namely croplands and pastures, are contributing by 40% toglobal land cover (Ramankutty et al., 2008). Land-use change pro-vides a significant contribution to global CO2 concentrations in thelong-term (Houghton and Goodale, 2004). Currently, agriculturalactivities are contributing from 12-14% to global anthropogenicgreenhouse gas emissions to global CO2 emissions, not includingland clearing (Power, 2010). However, the precise magnitude of CO2emissions from land-use change remains uncertain (IPCC, 2007a).

The impacts of climate change on agriculture are likely to bewide ranging and felt across many regions of the world (IPCC,2007b). In general, agriculture is highly sensitive to climate changeand climatic variations. This may lead not only to differences amongregions, but also cause interannual variability of production anddisruption of ecosystem services within a single region (Howdenet al., 2007). Climate change impacts on agricultural productionare associated with impacts on human well-being and welfare.Changes in crop yields will influence crop prices and climate changeresults in additional price increases of crops (Nelson et al., 2009b).

Change in agricultural systems, driven by socioeconomic

changes, greenhouse gas emissions, agricultural policies and otherfactors, is also affecting natural and managed ecosystems (Zaehleet al., 2007). Consequently, keystone ecosystem services suchas carbon sequestration, water flow regulation, food and fibre

1 Use P

peut

ttgoionea(

udchareapfvp

pr(ttp(ttacauhaqc

sRcr2pmsacpp

mplsCm

84 E. Lorencová et al. / Land

roduction are influenced by these changes. These two interactingnvironmental issues as such have the potential to seriouslyndermine the capacity of multifunctional landscapes to providehe array of vital ecosystem services (Rickebusch et al., 2011).

Land use change occurs mainly at a local level; however it hashe potential to determine ecological processes and accordinglyhe provision of ecosystem services across local, regional and evenlobal scales (Zhao et al., 2006; Li et al., 2007). Climate change,n the other hand, performs at a global scale. Agroecosystems aremportant for climate change mitigation, both as a sink and a sourcef carbon. Agricultural land use activities introduce ecologically sig-ificant impacts on biophysical conditions in terms of changes innergy budgets, fragmentation and habitat loss. In turn, they inter-ct with atmospheric conditions and determine climate conditionsPyke and Andelman, 2007).

According to Koomen and Stillwell (2007), not only does landse influence climate, but the relationship is mutual and inter-ependent, with agriculture itself being extremely vulnerable tolimate change impacts (Nelson et al., 2009a). Climatic changes mayave an impact on ecosystem services, such as crop yield, foddernd fiber production, genetic variability, soil fertility and erosionisk, water quality, and recreational potential of the area (Zaludt al., 2009). The overall impacts of climate change on agriculturere expected to be negative, despite regionally-specific gains. Euro-ean agriculture is sensitive to climate change risks as farming isocused on high quality foods (Orlandini et al., 2008). Assessing theulnerability of the agricultural sector to climate change as suchrovides a topical, timely and valuable exercise.

There is already a growing demand among stakeholders acrossublic and private institutions for spatially-explicit informationegarding vulnerability to climate change at regional and local scalePreston et al., 2011). As such, there is a need for robust informa-ion on how aspects will be affected, but set against a time horizonhat is appropriate to underpin the implementation of integratedolicy options and adaptation planning over the coming decadesFalloon and Betts, 2010). This research therefore seeks to reflecthis need and the spatial variability of climate impacts by analysingrends in climate and land use change at national level. Utilizingn ecosystem services framework, climate scenarios, and land usehanges analysis, this study introduces a spatially explicit regionalssessment of climate change vulnerability that can be potentiallyseful for assessing and designing suitable adaptation options. Aandful of key, relevant agricultural ecosystem services variablesre applied to act as indicators for this study, to quantitatively andualitatively assess the impacts of climate change and land usehange.

This study looks at the impacts of climate and land use change onpecific ecosystem services in the agricultural sector of the Czechepublic, which is of strategic national importance. Whilst agri-ulture only contributes about 2% of GDP, agricultural land useepresents more than 50% of the total area of Czech Republic (CZSO,011). Its importance rests not only in food and other agriculturalroduction, but it also has great significance for landscape manage-ent and landscape conservation. As such, the Czech agricultural

ector represents an area of considerable economical, ecologicalnd social value. Moreover, in the Czech Republic, the prevailingontribution to human appropriation of aboveground net primaryroduction (aHANPP) originates mainly from agriculture (50%) andastures (15%) (Vackár and Orlitová, 2011).

The methodology section presents our approach to the assess-ent of climate and land use change, and ecosystem services, and

rovides an overview of data used. In this paper, we first of all ana-

yze agricultural land use changes from 1948 to 2010, and considerome of the influential underlying socio-political transitions in thezech Republic. We then use scenarios to assess the impact of cli-ate change on agro-ecosystems in the Czech Republic. Finally,

olicy 33 (2013) 183– 194

these changes are considered in terms of their influence on theselected agricultural ecosystem services – carbon sequestration,food production and erosion regulation. Outcomes of this study arethen summarized and considered.

Methodology

Climate and long-term land use change are taken as the maindrivers of environmental change that have an impact on agricul-ture. Fig. 1 presents the methodological framework that illustratesthe work flow of this research. Firstly, we analyzed changes in agri-cultural land use from 1948 to 2010, utilizing data from CzechLUCC database in combination with data from Czech StatisticalOffice (CZSO). Secondly, in order to assess potential climate changeimpacts, we applied ALARM scenarios downscaled at national levelfor year 2080. As one of the outputs of the exercise, maps representa basis for the comparison of the trends in land use changes overtime period defined. We then describe potential impacts of envi-ronmental change on the three indicators of selected ecosystemservices. Spatially explicit results of the analysis can be used as abasis for further adaptation planning development.

Land use change assessment

In accordance with Koomen and Stillwell (2007), we understandland use not only as the actual use of the land, but as observableland cover too. Land use is associated with a particular land coverclass, sometimes a term “land conversion” is preferred to describelong-term land cover changes. In this case, we are concerned withland cover change, not land use change per se.

The land use category under observation in this study is agri-cultural land that consists of arable land, grasslands (pastures andmeadows) and permanent cultures (orchards, gardens vineyardsand hop-fields). Because the category of permanent cultures coversa relatively low proportion of Czech land (3%), and represents a veryheterogeneous category, we focused our study on the dominantcategories of arable land and grasslands.

Changes in the areas of particular land use subcategories wereanalyzed. As an indicator of land use change, we applied an indexof change (Ichange) which was adapted from Bicík (1995). The indexassesses in percent the change in share of the land between par-ticular land use categories during a given period. We comparedthe change in shares of arable land and grasslands at national levelbetween years 1948 and 2000.

Ichange(%) = 100 × Ay2

Ay1

where Ay2 is an area of arable land (or grasslands alternatively)in 2000 and Ay1 represents an area of arable land (or grasslands) in1948. Year 1948 is a year of reference, which represents 100% state.Lower values in 2000 symbolize a reduction of the total area of theland use category, meanwhile higher values than 100% representan increase of the area.

Climate change impact assessment

To assess the impact of climate change on the agro-ecosystemsin the Czech Republic, we applied integrative scenarios developedin ALARM (Assessing Large-scale environmental Risks for biodi-versity with tested Methods) project (Spangenberg et al., 2012;Spangenberg, 2007) that have been downscaled within Ecochange

(Challenges in assessing and forecasting biodiversity and ecosys-tem changes in Europe) project. In general, scenarios are usefultools for environmental assessments, evaluating future trajectoriesof environmental problems, and testing policy options to resolve

E. Lorencová et al. / Land Use Policy 33 (2013) 183– 194 185

ENVIRO NMEN TAL CHA NGE

Ecosys tem Services

Maps of chan ge Maps of change

Indica tor analysis

Climate Change (S cenarios )

SED G GRASBAMBU

Long-t erm Land Use Cha nge

Arable land [ha]

Permanentgrassla nds [ha ]

EFFEC TS ON AGRI CUL TURE

Ca rbon Storage[Mg of C .ha-1.yr -1]

Yield [t.h a-1 yr -1] Erosion Reg ul.[Erosion rate. yr-1]

thodo

trpa

Sby2oesmm

noma2

B

empa

G

f

Fig. 1. Set up of me

hem (Alcamo, 2001). Scenario analysis aims to explore the long-ange possibilities of complex socio-ecological systems and torovide policy guidance on the consequences of alternative actionsnd choices (Raskin, 2005).

The ALARM scenarios are land use scenarios based on IPCCRES (Special Report Emission Scenarios) scenarios, which haveeen downscaled from European to country-specific level, for theears 2020, 2050 and 2080 (Spangenberg et al., 2012; Spangenberg,007). These scenarios are applied in our study to allow the analysisf relations between climate change impact and land use trends oncosystem service availability in the Czech Republic. Each ALARMcenario consists of a storyline or narrative, of which several ele-ents are quantitatively illustrated by different, partly integratedodels (Spangenberg et al., 2012; Spangenberg, 2007).The three scenarios analyzed reflect a broad range of social, eco-

omic, political and geo-biospheric parameters, and also conflictsf interest between the different aspects of sustainable develop-ent (Kaivo-oja, 1999). The following three scenarios have been

pplied within the analysis (Spangenberg et al., 2012; Spangenberg,007):

AMBU (Business As Might Be Usual)Policy driven scenario, based on A2 IPCC SRES scenario, that

xtrapolates expected trends in EU policies and includes both, cli-ate mitigation and adaptation measures as well as biodiversity

rotection policies. Moreover, environmental policy is perceiveds another technological challenge.

RAS (Growth Applied Strategy)A liberal, free-trade, globalization and deregulation scenario,

ocused mainly on adaptation that corresponds to IPCC SRES A1FI

logical framework.

scenario. Environmental policies focus on damage repair, withlimited prevention based on cost benefit-calculations. Biodiversityprotection occurs only when the problem emerges.

SEDG (Sustainable European Development Goal)A backcasting normative scenario, designed to meet specific

sustainable development goals and deriving the necessary policymeasures to achieve them, with the aim of 75% reduction of CO2emissions by 2050. SEDG is a normative scenario, which aims fora competitive economy, healthy environment, gender equity andinternational cooperation. IPCC SRES B1 scenario used as kind of“climate envelope”, while ignoring socioeconomic consideration ofSRES B1.

Within the scenarios, six land use categories have been identi-fied, namely built-up, arable land, permanent cultures, grasslands,forest and other land uses. With regard to the agro-ecosystemsand land use change analysis conducted, arable land and grasslandscategories are analyzed in the context of the Czech Republic.

In order to evaluate the impact of climate change on ecosys-tem service, we identified crucial ecosystem services in agriculturerelated to the above mentioned land use categories that have beenassessed. Land use categories of arable land and grasslands havebeen analyzed within particular BAMBU, GRAS and SEDG scenariosfor year 2080 in the Czech Republic. Furthermore, we quantitativelyand spatially compared results of 2080 scenarios with the baseline,represented by current land use CLC 2000.

Ecosystem services assessment

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005) describesecosystem services as benefits people obtain from ecosystems.

1 Use P

EvetiPmbc

ssfip(ccc(a(

tGtusbeawera

aca

afpCaCcm

ptDvel

asc

E

wio1

86 E. Lorencová et al. / Land

cosystem services are further classified into supporting, pro-isioning, regulating and cultural services. The provision ofcosystem services occur not just as one way benefits from naturalo social systems, but also a flow to and from managed ecosystems,n the form of services (benefits) (Zhang et al., 2007). Dale andolasky (2007) additionally identified that agricultural practicesay affect the quality and quantity of ecosystem services provided

y other non-agricultural systems (e.g. pollinators increasing agri-ultural crop yield).

Agricultural systems are managed by society to obtain a certainet of field and landscape characteristics and functions (ES) thaterve key objectives, such as maximizing the provision of yield,ber and fuel outputs. Besides, these services agricultural systemsrovide a number of other benefits in terms of supporting servicese.g. soil fertility), regulating services (regulation of soil loss, waterycle, carbon sequestration or biodiversity by a capacity of agri-ultural landscapes to regulate population dynamics of species), orultural services providing aesthetics and recreation possibilitiesSwinton et al., 2007). The existence of disservices (e.g. pest dam-ge) is also important issue in a case of agricultural ecosystemsZhang et al., 2007).

The selected ecosystem services aim to qualitatively and quan-itatively assess the impact of the studied changes on agriculture.iven the spatial and temporal range of the study, we limit our focus

o three ecosystem services. The ecosystem services considerednder the scope of this research are provisioning services, repre-ented by yield production; and regulating services, representedy carbon storage and erosion regulation. The three services aressential for agricultural ecosystems functioning and were chosens highly relevant to describe the trends in historical land use asell as being applicable under projected climate scenarios. The

cosystem services (yield production, carbon storage and erosionegulation) are translated into three specific indicators, which wepply.

Carbon storage is an indicator directly linked to climate change,nd has of course a large role in climate mitigation. ESindicator ofarbon storage is estimated based on carbon sequestration rate forrable land and for pastures and managed grasslands.

Yield and erosion regulation suitably reflect agricultural man-gement and adaptation measures effectiveness. ESindicator ofood production was quantified in terms of yield in tonneser hectare and year based on statistical data provided byzech Statistical Office. The selected crops were wheat, barleynd maize, which are three commonly produced cereals in thezech Republic. Based on the literature review, we are able toomment on the expected impacts on yield under changed cli-ate.ESindicator of erosion level was estimated for arable land and

ermanent grasslands with the use of Universal Soil Loss Equa-ion (USLE). Data was obtained from the Department of Irrigation,rainage and Landscape Engineering of the Czech Technical Uni-ersity in Prague (Krása, 2010). As previously stated, the level ofrosion is calculated based on average erosion values for arableand and grasslands.

To assess the long term change in the capacity of arable landnd grasslands to sequester carbon, and to estimate the level ofoil erosion from 1948 to 2010, and in 2080 respectively, wealculated:

Sy = ESindicator × Ay

here ESy is assessed ecosystem service, ESindicator represents anndicator for selected ecosystem service and Ay is the area (in ha)f land use type (arable land or grasslands) in a given year (1948,990, 2000, 2010 or 2080).

olicy 33 (2013) 183– 194

Data

To examine land use changes over a period of 100 years,we needed to combine three data resources: the LUCC historicaldatabase, data of CZSO and ALARM scenarios with CLC 2000 as abaseline for future land use projections.

The evaluation of changes in the proportions of land use cat-egories from 1948 to 2000 is based on statistical data from theCzech LUCC database. For the purpose of the database, the totalarea of the Czech Republic is divided into 8 903 standardized units.The database includes data covering all cadastres in the countryin four time horizons, we use three of them (1948, 1990, 2000).Cadastral data from 1948 was acquired from the Central Land Sur-vey and Cadastre Archive files. More recent land-use data (1990,1999) came from the computerized database of the Central CzechLand Survey Office in Prague (Bicík et al., 2001). We add to historicaldata with 2010 statistical data on land use, provided by the CZSO.Furthermore, we applied Corine Land Cover 2000 (CLC 2000) of theCzech Republic to compare the current land cover represented byCLC 2000 with future climate scenario for 2080.

To ensure compatibility between all resources, we checked landuse categories and data compliance. The categories were provedby a control of land use types included. Content of observed cate-gories, arable land and grasslands, is basically corresponding. Datacompliance of the resources was tested by an assessment of datacomparability in year 2000 from respective databases. The LUCCdatabase and recent statistical data match in both categories arableland and grasslands. The difference is highly negligible as it makesonly 0.5% and 0.1% of the proportion of Czech land. CLC showshigher divergence from the LUCC database; however we also con-sider it insignificant, as it accounts for about a 3% difference in bothland use categories. The lower compatibility of CLC 2000 is perhapslower due to the fact that it is compiled for the European level,whereas national data will exhibit higher accuracy.

The data inputs for ecosystem services analysis were selectedbased on the literature review and data of the Czech StatisticalOffice. In the Czech Republic, the carbon sequestration rate of0.5 Mg C ha−1 year−1 for pastures and managed grasslands is usedfor calculations (Hönigová et al., 2012), meanwhile arable land rep-resents a carbon source by the release of 0.358 Mg C ha−1 year−1

(Janssens et al., 2005). Relating to data on long-term food produc-tion in the Czech Republic, we looked at yields of wheat, barleyand maize in 1948, 1990, 2000 and 2010 (Czech Statistical Office).National annual loss of soil from arable land (including vine-yards, orchards and hop fields) reaches, in average, 3.32 tonnes perhectare (Krása, 2010). Grasslands contribute to soil erosion at 0.18tonnes of released soil per hectare per year (Krása, 2010).

Results

Agricultural land use change

In this section, we analyze land use changes within agriculturalland from 1948 to 2010 (Fig. 2) and consider their socio-politicalcauses. Fig. 2 presents that national share of arable land droppedsince 1948 by approximately 6%. The area of permanent culturesincreased by about 3%, and area of grasslands increased also by3% compared to 1948. Despite arable land reduction, nationaliza-tion and socialist industrialization caused an enormous increase inthe exploitation of natural resources over this period (Bicík et al.,2001). The land consolidation and agricultural production intensi-

fication triggered landscape degradation and landscape structuresimplification. Large fields of arable land under the supervisionof co-operative and state farms started to dominate the agricul-tural landscape (Bicík et al., 2001). The exceptional socio-political

E. Lorencová et al. / Land Use P

S

cf

ctapc2tltilapsPaoc

tral and southern area in eastern part of the country, represents

Fig. 2. Area (%) of agricultural land subcategories (1948–2010).ource: Czech LUCC Database and Czech Statistical Office (2011).

hanges within this period, were an important contributory factoror land use change.

After 1989, new political and economic conditions led tohanges in key land-use characteristics. In this new era, sus-ainable utilization and landscape management emphasizing thegricultural land protection were expected. Unfortunately, therivatization of agriculture neither reduced the size and intensifi-ation of lands, nor enriched the diversity on the fields (Janecek,007). One of the reasons is highly fragmented ownership pat-erns. Moreover, Czech agriculture typically has a high share ofeased land (about 90%), which may affect farmers behavior andheir attitude towards landscape. Ownership fragmentation rate ismportant especially for grassland fragmentation whereas arableand fragmentation, is driven mainly by soil conditions (Sklenickand Salek, 2008). Another factor positively influencing not onlyrovisioning and regulating services, but cultural services is land-cape heterogeneity (Fahrig et al., 2011). The study Sklenicka andixová (2004) indicates the reduction of landscape heterogeneity

nd change towards a simpler land use pattern in Czech Republicver last 150 years (1845–2000). Similar trends, especially in agri-ultural landscapes, are recognized by Romportl et al. (2010) in

Map 1. Relative change in share of arable land from 1948

olicy 33 (2013) 183– 194 187

the period 1990–2000. In summary, after 1989 Czech agricultureturned to a more intensive use of fertile lands, and the conversionof those less fertile into permanent grasslands or forests. The dif-ference of land use change at a national level between 2000 and2010 is negligible as it makes 1% of share only in the case of arableland category and less then 1% in the other two land use categories.

The most important milestone in recent Czech historical socio-political development is its accession to the European Unionin 2004, opening up the country to European regulations andlaw. Consequently, several subsidization programs supportingagro-environmental management were applied (e.g. Rural Devel-opment Program). However, existing programs such as EU agri-environment schemes instead of encouraging landscape level coor-dination usually favor farm scale approach that leads to individual,disconnected actions (Prager et al., 2012). According to the latestdata, the area of arable agricultural land follows a downward trend.Grasslands, in contrary, increased its area in size by about 20,000 hafrom 2000 to 2008 (Czech Statistical Office, 2011). The main moti-vation for grassing is agricultural extensification, agricultural landmaintenance, soil conservation and water erosion prevention.

The relative change in share of arable land between years 1948to 2000 is illustrated by Map 1. The darkest red regions in Map 1identify areas with an increase of arable land area, when compar-ing 1948 and 2000. These areas are in the minority and correspondto the zones with the richest soils and suitable climate conditions.The lightest red color indicates where the largest decrease of arableland area took place. The area of arable land decreased in the bor-derland the most (by more than 50%), as indicated in Map 1. Theseregions of higher altitudes and cold climate are naturally not so suit-able for agricultural production and therefore have been grassed (orforested).

Map 2 shows the relative change in share of grassland betweenyears 1948 to 2000. Similar to the previous map, the darkest greenshows areas with an increase of grassland when comparing 1948to 2000. As Map 2 indicates, grassland increased in area mainlyon the northern and partly on the eastern borders of the country.The central area in the western part of the country, and the cen-

the regions with greatest decrease in grassed area. These areasare agriculturally utilized or underwent development and becameurbanized.

to 2000, the Czech Republic (Czech LUCC Database).

188 E. Lorencová et al. / Land Use Policy 33 (2013) 183– 194

1948

C

oceae

iTsflpsntByese

aat3ict2lsss

waGpepm

patterns in the three scenarios, although the basic trends of landuse change are similar. The largest changes include abandonmentof agricultural land and grasslands that are used for biofuels and

Map 2. Relative change in share of grasslands from

limate change and agricultural ecosystem services

As agricultural practices are climate-dependent and yields varyver years depending on shorter term weather patterns, the agri-ultural sector is particularly exposed to climatic change (Moriondot al., 2010). Changes in temperatures and rainfall patterns directlyffect crop yield and subsequent food production and indirectlyffect changes in water availability (Nelson et al., 2009b).

Zalud et al. (2009) describes the main climate related risks pos-ng significant hazard for agro-ecosystems in the Czech Republic.hese risks include: (a) hydrometeorlogical extremes (such astorms, short periods of very warm weather in winter, spring frost,ood, heat wave, etc.), (b) occurrence of harmful agents (pathogens,ests, weeds), and (c) change of farming conditions (changes andhifts in production regions). Climate change is expected to lead to aorthward expansion of suitable cropping areas and a reduction ofhe growing period of determinate crops (e.g. cereals) (Olesen andindi, 2002). The shortening of growing periods is likely to reduceield. Certain changes in conditions in the Czech Republic can bexpected rather in advance of cropping in higher altitudes, whereoil conditions are much less suitable than in the lowlands (Zaludt al., 2009).

The ALARM scenarios applied, in general represent threerchetypal policy approaches, liberal (GRAS), pragmatic (BAMBU)nd sustainable (SEDG) (Spangenberg et al., 2012). Based on thesehree scenarios, we quantitatively (see Fig. 3) and spatially (see Map) analyzed changes in arable land and grassland categories by 2080

n the Czech Republic. These 2080 scenarios were compared withurrent status, which is expressed by the CLC 2000. Map 3 illus-rates spatial changes in these two land use categories. The BAMBU080 scenario shows an arable land area comparable with current

evels, although the northwest of the Czech Republic shows a sub-tantial decline in arable land area. Moreover, the BAMBU scenariohows a decline in grassland area that is mainly in the northern andouthern parts of the Czech Republic.

The GRAS 2080 scenario indicates a decline in arable land areahen compared with current levels, specifically in the northwest

nd south of the Czech Republic. Grasslands are also declining in theRAS scenario, reaching a similar area as the BAMBU scenario, with

articular decline in border mountain areas. The GRAS scenario isntirely focused on growth, as economic growth is a key objective ofolitics and actively pursued by governments. Moreover, environ-ental policy focus is on damage repair rather than on preventive

to 2000, the Czech Republic (Czech LUCC Database).

measures (Spangenberg et al., 2012). Therefore under this growthfocussed scenario, it is likely that agricultural ecosystem serviceswill decline.

BAMBU scenario extrapolates currently known and foreseeablesocio-economic and policy trajectories in EU decision making andis rather a mix of market liberalism and socio-environmental sus-tainability policy (Spangenberg et al., 2012). As a consequence,BAMBU scenario shows relatively small changes with respect tothe baseline (CLC 2000), which is also reflected in the status of theecosystem services.

SEDG, as an inverse projection scenario, is designed to meet spe-cific policy goals, for instance halting biodiversity loss. Moreover,sustainability of societal development is enhanced by integratedsocial, environmental and economic policy (Spangenberg et al.,2012). In contrast to the relatively minor changes to land use areain the two previously described scenarios, SEDG 2080 indicatesan almost doubling of arable land area compared to current lev-els, which leads to increased provisioning of ecosystem services.This increase in arable land area is distributed across the CzechRepublic, whereas, grassland regions are retreating to marginalareas in southern and northeast parts of the country.

At the European scale, ALARM scenarios show different spatial

Fig. 3. Proportion of grasslands and arable land area in the Czech Republic – currentstate in 2000 and BAMBU, SEDG and GRAS scenarios in 2080.

E. Lorencová et al. / Land Use Policy 33 (2013) 183– 194 189

in the Czech Republic in 2080 and 2000.

f2

22rseoiolat

A

C

alFp

gwplad

t

-2000 000

-1500 000

-1000 000

-5000 00

0

500000

1000000

1948 1990 2000 2010

Carb

on se

ques

tra�

on (t

C.h

a-1.y

ear-1

)

Time (y ears)

arab le lan d

grassland s

Map 3. Grassland and arable land

orest, mainly in GRAS and BAMBU scenarios (Spangenberg et al.,012).

The percentage proportion of grassland and arable land area in080 is illustrated in Fig. 3. Across all of the selected scenarios for080, the grassland area is declining the greatest, compared to cur-ent status of CLC 2000. BAMBU together with the GRAS scenariohow similar results in grassland area, amounting to 13.8%. How-ver, SEDG shows a significant decrease in grassland area, reachingnly 0.3%. As a consequence of this decline, the area of arable landn the SEDG scenario is considerably higher, amounting to 54.1%f the total area of the Czech Republic. The current area of arableand is almost comparable to the BAMBU scenario area for 2080,mounting to 42.6%. Arable land area in the GRAS scenario declinedo 32.6%.

vailability of selected ecosystem services

arbon sequestrationLand use categories differ in the amount of carbon stored in soil

nd vegetation. In general, soil organic carbon stocks under crop-and are lower than the stocks under pastures (Schulp et al., 2008).ig. 4 shows the trend of the change in carbon sequestration servicerovision from 1948 to 2010.

Net sequestration communicates the capacity of arable andrasslands to fix carbon. Being the source of carbon, arable land,hich continues to dominate the category of agricultural land,ushes net sequestration into negative values. However, from a

ong term point of view, net sequestration is increasing. Acceler-

tion of the increase is visible in 1990. This correlates also with theiscussed socio-political changes in 1989.

Based on the ALARM scenarios, we estimated the carbon seques-ration potential of Czech grassland and arable land for the time

Fig. 4. Carbon sequestration by arable land and grasslands in the Czech Republic(1948–2010).

horizon 2080 (Fig. 5). Fig. 5 shows that current grassland area hasthe highest potential of sequestered carbon, amounting to about606 Gg C year−1. In contrast, the lowest level of sequestered car-bon is in SEDG scenario, 11 Gg C year−1, which relates to the areacovered.

Due to the fact that arable land is a source of carbon, net car-bon sequestration shows negative values in all three scenarios in

2080. Moreover, the conversion of cropland to grassland can leadto increases in soil C of up to 30%. The opposite process, conversionof pastures to cropland, always reduces the C stocks by 50% (Guoand Gifford, 2002).

190 E. Lorencová et al. / Land Use P

-2000 000

-1500 000

-1000 000

-5000 00

0

500000

1000000

BAMBU SEDG GRAS CLC 2000

(Mg

C yr

-1)

Grass lands

Arabl e land

Fig. 5. Potential for arable land and grasslands sequestered and/or released carbonin 2080 and in 2000 in the Czech Republic.

Table 1Production of selected crops from 1948 to 2010 (in tonnes).

Year 1948 1990 2000 2010

Wheat 925,887 4,624,190 4,084,107 4,161,553

F

ottttart2t

mddmo

acfa

E

iss2fcpqfewewo

sequestration indicates negative results in both analyses, the long

Barely 537,872 3,157,299 1,629,372 1,584,456Maize for grain 35,176 98,381 303,957 692,589

ood productionFood production yielded in particular years of the time period

bserved is introduced by Table 1. From around the 1950s to 1990,he data (CZSO) on food production reflect the intensive agricul-ural production introduced by the Communist regime, targetinghe agricultural self-sufficiency of the country. In the period 1990o 2000, the production of wheat and barley radically dropped bypproximately 12% and 48%. Production of these two crops hasemained more or less stable since 2000. Maize for grain startedo increase its share in total production, approximately trebling (to00,000 t) from 1990 to 2000, and still rises. One of the reasons forhis is its utility as a biofuel.

In the conditions of the Czech Republic, climate change mightore or less not influence the crops grown, as in several following

ecades, it is unlikely that climate change will allow massive intro-uction of new crops. However, the period between sowing andaturity will shorten in many crops which likely will have impact

n decreased yield (Zalud et al., 2009).Trnka et al. (2009) suggest that inter-annual yield variability

nd risk of extremely unfavorable years may also increase withlimate change. However, though rainfed agriculture might indeedace more climate related risks, the overall conditions will likelyllow for acceptable yield levels in most of the seasons.

rosion regulationIn nature, soil erosion is an essential natural process, reflect-

ng the translocation of soil particles by factors related to climate,oil, topography, and vegetation. However, human activities oftenignificantly influence this natural process (Renschler and Harbor,002). Soil erosion introduced by intensive agriculture, limits soilunctioning as a habitat and gene pool of soil organisms andontributes to soil degradation. Soil degradation further reducesroductive potential and other services such as regulation of wateruality, and nutrient cycling, platforms for human activity and aunctional element of landscape and cultural heritage (Elgersmat al., 2008). About 50% of arable land in the Czech Republic is underater erosion risk and about 9% of arable land is affected by wind

rosion (CENIA, 2011). For the purpose of this paper, we considerind erosion as marginal and focus on dominating water erosion

nly.

olicy 33 (2013) 183– 194

According to our results, soil erosion rate on arable land reachedtheir highest level in 1948 and have decreased since (from approx-imately 13 Mt to 10 Mt). In the case of grasslands, erosion rates areconsiderably lower. Here the highest erosion level was reached in1948 (184 thousand tonnes), with the lowest in 1990 (150 thousandtonnes). Since 1990 soil erosion started to rise, almost approachingthe 1948 rate (177 thousand tonnes in 2010). This trend, however,results from an increase in share of grasslands in the country.

In addition to soil erosion rates being driven by changes in therelative composition of land use categories, other drivers shouldbe considered. Accelerated erosion and sediment processes onarable land may be explained by collectivization and mass pro-duction in the 1950s. Land degradation was also speed up by theintroduction of crops not suitable for local conditions (e.g. maizeon unfertile parcels with steep slopes). Also animal productioncontributed to soil degradation. Intensive animal production instables replaced grazing and required the growing of modified feed-ing mixtures (Van Rompaey et al., 2003). Since 1989, the CzechRepublic has undergone a reorganization of the landscape struc-ture once again. Nevertheless, the (re)introduction of sustainablesystems that take into account actual and possible future landscapefunctions, and services remains challenging (Van Rompaey et al.,2003).

Furthermore, increased temperature will increase the turnoverrate of organic matter (Olesen and Bindi, 2002), with a very gen-eral rule that climate change will lead to reduced organic mattercontent in agricultural soils, albeit dependant on localized landmanagement strategies. Any fluctuation in soil organic matter hasconsequences for soil water balance, structure and nutrient statusof agricultural soils (Rounsevell et al., 1999). Climate change mightdirectly affect soil erosion by wind and water. Changes in erosioncould in turn cause changes in productivity and sustainability ofagricultural systems, and changes in air quality (PM10) and waterquality (by sediment transport) (Lee et al., 1999).

Discussion

In this section we discuss and summarize the main findings ofthis study and related uncertainties. This study found that changesin historical land use, and land use under projected climate scenar-ios show some shared spatial patterns. Historical land use changeshows a significant decrease of arable land in the border region,which is to some extent replaced by grasslands. The climate sce-narios (BAMBU and GRAS) also indicate changes in the borderlineregions, similar to the historical land use analysis. These fringe areas(in particular the north-west) are arable land replaced by grass-lands. This is particularly true of the GRAS scenario, focused oneconomic growth and damage repair in the area of environmentalpolicy. As a consequence, this scenario leads to decrease in arableland area and a potential decline in provisioning ecosystem servicessupply.

Generally, BAMBU extrapolates current trends in EU policies andbesides minor regional changes, shows relatively similar trend asthe baseline scenario.

In contrary to the previous scenarios, the SEDG scenario indi-cates the replacement of grassland area by arable land, which iscaused due to normative backcasting nature of the scenario thatis designed to meet European sustainable development goals. In2080 SEDG indicates an almost doubling of arable land area com-pared to the baseline, which leads to an increase in the provisionof agricultural ecosystem services.

Considering the ecosystem service assessment, net carbon

term land use change as well as scenarios estimation. Looking at thetrend in the period 1948–2010, grasslands showed limited abil-ity to compensate negative carbon balance introduced by arable

Use P

lWtnTssAoweaauc

taipbctpbeaucuobtcodii

ftlipdosnipseeir

locatGsutj

E. Lorencová et al. / Land

and. In total, selected ecosystems represent a source of carbon.ith regard to the climate scenarios, this trend continues. In 2080,

he highest net carbon potential sequestration indicates GRAS sce-ario: −374.4 Gg C year−1, but still represents a source of carbon.he lowest net carbon sequestration potential introduces SEDGcenario (−1,515 Gg C year−1), which shows also lower capacity toequester carbon then in current times (2010: −584 Gg C year−1).lthough we estimated the effects of land use and climate changen carbon sequestration in combination, we assume in accordanceith Müller et al. (2007), that these two processes have opposing

ffect. Müller et al. (2007) assessed effects of changes in climatend land use on the carbon balance of the terrestrial biospherend interpreted climate change as an additional terrestrial carbonptake of 105–225 GtC, while land-use change will cause terrestrialarbon losses of up to 445 GtC by 2100.

Food production has been estimated for the period from 1948o 2010, for three selected crops. While the production of wheatnd barley dropped, other less traditional crops like maize followncreasing pattern. Changes in agricultural production also tooklace in other European countries in last 50 years. Despite a num-er of drivers for this change, technological progress is commonlyonsidered as the central factor (Busch, 2006). Similar patterns inhe production of the three selected crops can be found at a Euro-ean level (EU-15) in the last decade: lower yields of wheat andarley and increased yields of maize (Eurostat, 2007). We did notstimate the agricultural yield under the climate scenarios, as inccordance with Trnka et al. (2011a), we acknowledge the highncertainty because of unpredictable variables related to changedlimate, inter-annual yield variability and the risk of extremelynfavorable years. Lobell and Field (2007) found negative responsef global yields to increased temperatures for wheat, maize, andarley. Moreover, results of the study of Busch (2006) show thathe structure of agricultural production and spatial patterns of agri-ultural land use in Europe are expected to face major changesver the next decades due to changes in global trade, technology,emography, biofuel production and policies. The large number of

nfluential factors supports our assertion to not examine food yieldn the Czech Republic in this paper.

Moreover, the climate change impacts and responses will dif-er between regions. For example, changes in temperature and inhe amount and distribution of precipitation will lead to a pro-ongation of the growing season in mid-latitudes and especiallyn Central Europe (Gornall et al., 2010; Trnka et al., 2011b) withositive effects on crop yields. On the contrary, crop yields are pre-icted to decrease in the Mediterranean as a result of the shorteningf the growing period (Iglesias et al., 2011). In Northern Europe, theuitability and productivity of crops is likely to increase and extendorthwards (Falloon and Betts, 2010). Scenarios of climate change

mpacts on agriculture for the 2080s show increasing regional dis-arities (Ciscar et al., 2011). Climate change will also affect landuitability which can bring novel conflicts over the use of landspecially in the context of climate change mitigation (e.g. bioen-rgy and biofuel production, afforestation). Adaptation to negativempacts of climate change requires agricultural investments intoaising calorie production (Nelson et al., 2009a,b).

From a long-term perspective, total national erosion on arableand and grasslands seems to follow an improving trend as the areaf the most vulnerable ecosystems decreases. However, under ahanged climate, soil erosion might cause changes in productivitynd sustainability of agro-ecosystems (Lee et al., 1999). Based onhe land use changes, the lowest erosion level is probable underRAS scenario; meanwhile SEGD scenario indicates highest ero-

ion level due to grassland area decrease. On the other hand, evennder SEGD scenario the erosion level is expected to be lower thanoday. It is important to mention that our results are interpretedust based on changes in shares of arable land versus grasslands.

olicy 33 (2013) 183– 194 191

We did not accounted for other erosion relevant factors, e.g. likechanges in crop preference, which will with high probability playa relevant role.

In addition to the ALARM scenarios applied in this study, a num-ber of other projects (e.g. IPCC SRES, ACCELERATES, UK NEA andothers) developed future land use change scenarios from global tolocal scales reflecting diverse drivers of change, including climatechange (Rounsevell and Reay, 2009). However, great uncertainty istypical for all these future assessments (Rounsevell and Reay, 2009).We utilized ALARM scenarios covering EU 27 because they havebeen downscaled to a national level (including Czech Republic) forthe year 2080, and provide three alternative scenarios (BAMBU,GRAS, SEDG). Moreover, ALARM scenarios have been designed toproject the effects of land use and climate change on differentbiomes (Spangenberg et al., 2012), which is highly relevant for thistype of study.

As such, ALARM scenarios enabled us to conduct a spatially-explicit analysis of projected climate change impacts in the CzechRepublic. Three scenario pathways introduced in this study couldin addition stimulate policy discussion with respect to possibleimplications of future agricultural activities and their impacts onagroecosystems and other ecosystem types (Busch, 2006). Theresults of this study have the potential to identify the vulnerableregions and to be useful as a valuable evidence base for the design ofsuitable adaptation plans and measures. However, further researchon the development and implementation of adaptation optionsin the Czech agricultural sector under changing climate needs tobe done.

Dealing with uncertainties

An assessment of the impact of land-use changes on ecosystemservices is challenging, due to the complexity and multifunctional-ity of natural and managed environmental systems (Li et al., 2007).The simplification in the qualitative or quantitative evaluation ofsuch impacts, through indicators, is inevitable and justifiable, butcan introduce bias.

To follow a timeline more then 130 years long, we needed tocombine different data resources for historical and current landuse change analysis with future climate scenario projections. Chal-lenges faced for example included integrating the Corine LandCover (CLC) which does not go back beyond 1990. The differencebetween the area of agricultural land in 2000, when comparing theLUCC Czechia Database and CLC 2000, is about 243,390 ha, whichrepresents 3% of the total area. Whilst less than ideal, we considerthis divergence not to be significant at a national level for our anal-ysis. Despite this limitation, we combined the data sets to allow along-term national approach to Czech landscape.

Dealing with agro-ecosystems, this approach displays anunderlying societal preference between the characteristics ofone ecosystem regime over another. Here, as in resilience theory(e.g. Walker et al., 2004), system management and interventionseeks to maintain essential services and functions for society, eventhrough disturbance (e.g. climate or land use change). We focusedour ecosystem services analysis on three ecosystem services,which we considered as “umbrella services” (meaning that asupport of these services indirectly influence a support of manyothers) and are thus sufficient for the purpose of our study. Amore significant limitation rests in the consideration of ecosystemsize as the only forcing variable influencing long-term availabilityof ecosystem services. Although size of an ecosystem crucially

influences availability of services, other factors may significantlycontribute. Carbon sequestration, production and soil erosionare for example influenced also through crop type, age of thecommunity, soil conditions or management practices, for example.

1 Use P

tosEa(oHdttaowsea

eaduMa

oaawortcvdawgatcciulcoa

C

oottl

wamlRue

92 E. Lorencová et al. / Land

Regarding soil erosion in particular, some additional limita-ions were introduced. Firstly, estimation of soil erosion is basedn a number of variable factors such as rain fall, soil erodibility,lope, vegetation type and management (see Universal Soil Erosionquation). Results may importantly differ dependently on vari-bles substituted, methodological modifications or model selectionKrása, 2010). Secondly, average soil erosion was counted basedn data from a LPIS database (Land Parcel Identification System).owever, the LPIS database (http://www.lpis.cz/) is still underevelopment and does not quite cover the real total area of agricul-ural land in the Czech Republic (Krása, 2010). When compared tohe LUCC Czechia Database, the difference in the agricultural landrea is about 10%. Consequently, this divergence is another sourcef slight inaccuracy in the soil erosion estimation. Last but not least,e are aware of the ambiguity introduced by a back-casting of the

oil erosion level based on the area of land use categories only. How-ver, no suitable historical data for soil erosion level estimation arevailable.

Another uncertainty is introduced by an assumption thatcosystem services are available linearly, whereas in reality theyre rather delivered as non-linear as they are conditioned by highlyynamic processes in nature (Koch et al., 2009). Quantitative meas-res to overcome this are generally unavailable (Koch et al., 2009).oreover, uncertainties regarding utilization of climate scenarios

re also substantial.For all the reasons discussed, it is important to regard values

n ecosystem services provided by this study as indicative, notbsolute. Despite limitations, this approach enabled us to simplifynd translate complex processes into a common robust frame-ork. Another added value of this study rests in the combination

f historical and scenario data (from 1948 up to 2080), which isarely possible. As a result, we provide an estimation of long termrends in a development of arable land and grasslands area; withhanges conveyed spatially and with reference to ecosystem ser-ices availability. To the best of our knowledge, this has not beenone previously for the Czech Republic. Moreover, research gener-ting spatially distinct outcomes describing environmental changeith respect to ecosystem services is scarce in the literature in

eneral. It is felt that this research, and where its methods arepplied elsewhere, especially in countries that have undergone dis-inct rural land-use change driven by socio-economic transition,ould stimulate valuable policy discussions regarding the impli-ations of future agricultural demand, productivity and resultingmpacts on rural areas. Additionally, ecosystem services can besed as measurable indicators of the functioning and change of the

and system, and therefore provide tools for management-relevantommunication concerning recent, past or potential future statesf human-environmental systems (Rounsevell et al., 2012; Müllernd Burkhard, 2012).

onclusions

Despite the proliferation of climate change awareness in areasf governance, industry and in wider society, there is often a lackf spatial resolution at a regional and more local level on whicho make meaningful management and adaptation decisions. Givenhe spatially variable effects of climate change, set against widerand use trends, this issue is of heightened significance.

This study deals with several limitations and uncertainties,hich is commonplace for the interdisciplinary and integrated

pproach taken. Despite these discussed limitations, the assess-ent provides an innovative insight into the impact of long term

and use and climate change on ecosystem services in the Czechepublic. Results of the spatial analysis of these changes can besed as a support tool for local land use management, or consid-red on a national scale for informing evidence led policy decisions.

olicy 33 (2013) 183– 194

This research demonstrates that it is possible to analyze long termland use trends and climate scenarios to generate more meaningful,spatially explicit information, which can form the basis to evidencebased adaptation planning.

Whilst this work has taken the example of the agricultural sec-tor in the Czech Republic, entailing in itself justifiable assumptionsand limitations, its approach of applying spatial trend data to cli-mate scenarios could be applied to many other socio-economicsectors, such as urban areas, forestry or aquatic environments, andof course in other countries, especially those that have undergonesocio-economic changes in landownership and management.

Additionally, the use of ecosystem services once again high-lights the significance of ecological processes beneficial as servicesfor society, and as such displays an associated underlying societalpreference for a given ecosystem regime. This research reiteratesthat the consideration of future climate impacts cannot be consid-ered in isolation, but must be set against socio-economic trendsand future environmental conditions, to inform the challenge ofdelivering sustainable environmental management in a changingworld.

Acknowledgements

The study was supported by Grant Agency of Charles Univer-sity in Prague, research grant number 146610 and 355911. Thestudy was also supported by Grants for Science 22/DPV/2011 andby CzechGlobe Centre that is being developed within the OP RDIand co-financed from EU funds and the State Budget of the CzechRepublic (Project: CzechGlobe – Centre for Global Climate ChangeImpacts Studies, Reg. No. CZ.1.05/1.1.00/02.0073). The databaseLUCC Czechia, exploited during the research, was supported by theGrant Agency of the Czech Republic, GACR 205/09/0995 “Regionaldifferentiation and possible risks of land use as a reflection offunctional changes of landscape in Czechia 1990–2010”. We givethanks to the authors of ALARM (Assessing Large-scale environ-mental Risks for biodiversity with tested Methods) scenarios thathave been downscaled within FP6 project Ecochange – Challengesin assessing and forecasting biodiversity and ecosystem. We alsothank Mr. J. Krása for valuable contribution to our paper by dataon national rates of soil erosion and two anonymous reviewers fortheir beneficial comments.

References

Alcamo, J., 2001. Scenarios as Tools for International Environmental Asessments.EEA Expert Corner Report Prospects and Scenarios No. 5. Office for the OfficialPublications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.

Bicík, I., Jelecek, L., Stepánek, V., 2001. Land-use changes and their social drivingforces in Czechia in the 19th and 20th centuries. Land Use Policy 18, 65–73.

Bicík, I., 1995. Possibilities of long-term human–nature interaction analysis: the caseof land-use changes in the Czech Republic. In: Simmons, I.G., Mannion, A. (Eds.),The Changing Nature of the People–Environment Relationship: Evidence from aVariety of Archives. Charles University of Prague, Faculty of Science, Departmentof Social Geography and Regional Development, Prague.

Boyd, E., Corbera, E., Estrada, M., 2008. UNFCCC negotiations (pre-Kyoto to COP-9):what the process says about the politics of CDM-sinks. International environ-mental agreements: politics. Law and Economics 8 (2), 1–18.

Busch, G., 2006. Future European agricultural landscapes—what can we learn fromexisting quantitative land use scenario studies? Agriculture Ecosystems andEnvironment 114, 121–140.

Ciscar, J.-C., Iglesias, A., Feyen, L., Szabó, L., Van Regemorter, D., Amelung, B., Nicholls,R., Watkiss, P., Christensen, O.B., Dankers, R., Garrote, L., Goodess, C.M., Hunt, A.,Moreno, A., Richards, J., Soria, A., 2011. Physical and economic consequences ofclimate change in Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108(7), 2678–2683.

Dale, V.H., Polasky, S., 2007. Measures of the effect of agricultural practices onecosystem services. Ecological Economics 64, 286–296.

Elgersma, A.M., Dhillon, S.S., Arnoldussen, A., Fanta, J., Boucníková, E., 2008. Under-

standing the Quality of Land in Agricultural Land Use Systems. SustainableLand Management: Strategies to Cope with the Marginalisation of Agriculture.Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK, Northampton, MA, USA.

Eurostat, 2007. Agricultural Statistics: Data 1995–2005. Office for Official Publica-tions of the European Communities, Luxembourg, ISBN 92-79-02955-X.

Use P

F

F

G

G

H

H

H

I

I

I

J

J

K

K

K

K

L

L

L

M

M

M

M

N

N

E. Lorencová et al. / Land

alloon, P., Betts, R., 2010. Climate impacts on European agriculture and water man-agement in the context of adaptation and mitigation – the importance of anintegrated approach. Science of the Total Environment 408, 5667–5687.

ahrig, L., Baudry, J., Brotons, L., Burel, F., Crist, T.O., Fuller, R.J., Sirami, C., Siriwar-dena, G.M., Martin, J., 2011. Functional landscape heterogeneity and animalbiodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecology Letters 14, 101–112.

ornall, J., Betts, R., Burke, E., Clark, R., Camp, J., Willett, K., Wiltshire, A., 2010. Impli-cations of climate change for agricultural productivity in the early twenty-firstcentury. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences365, 2973–2989.

uo, L.B., Gifford, R.M., 2002. Soil carbon stocks and land use change: a meta-analysis.Global Change Biology 8, 345–360.

önigová, I., Vackár, D., Lorencová, E., Melichar, J., Götzl, M., Sonderegger, G.,Ousková, V., Hosek, M., Chobot, K., 2012. Survey on Grassland Ecosystem Ser-vices, Report to the European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity. NatureConservation Agency of the Czech Republic, Prague, p. 78.

oughton, R.A., Goodale, C.L., 2004. Effects of land-use change on the carbon bal-ance of terrestrial ecosystems. Ecosystems and land use change. GeophysicalMonographs Series 153, 85–98.

owden, S.M., Soussana, J.F., Tubiello, F.N., Chhetri, N., Dunlop, M., Meinke,H., 2007. Adapting agriculture to climate change. Proceedings of theNational Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104 (50),19691–19696.

glesias, A., Mougou, R., Moneo, M., Quiroga, S., 2011. Towards adaptation of agricul-ture to climate change in the Mediterranean. Regional Environmental Change11, 159–166.

PCC, 2007a. In: Pachauri, R.K., Reisinger, A. (Eds.), Climate Change 2007: Synthesisreport. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth AssessmentReport of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Core Writing Team.IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, p. 104.

PCC, 2007b. The physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to theFourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 996, 2007a New York,NY, USA.

anecek, M., 2007. Agricultural Land Erosion Protection – Methodology (In Czech:Ochrana zemedelské pudy pred erozí – Metodika). VÚMOP, v.v.i., Praha.

anssens, I.A., Freibauer, A., Schlamadinger, B., Ceulemans, R., Ciais, P., Dolman, A.J.,Heimann, M., Nabuurs, G.J., Smith, P., Valentini, R., Schulze, E.D., 2005. The car-bon budget of terrestrial ecosystems at country-scale – a European case study.Biogeosciences 2 (1), 15–26.

aivo-oja, J., 1999. Alternative scenarios of social development: is analytical sus-tainability policy analysis possible? How? Sustainable Development 7 (3),140–150.

och, E.W., Barbier, E.B., Silliman, B.R., Reed, D.J., Perillo, G.M.E., Hacker, S.D., Granek,E.F., Primavera, J.H., Muthiga, N., Polasky, S., Halpern, B.S., Kennedy, C.J., Kappel,C.V., Wolanski, E., 2009. Non-linearity in ecosystem services: temporal and spa-tial variability in coastal protection. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment7 (1), 29–37.

oomen, E., Stillwell, J., 2007. Modelling land-use change: theories and methods.In: Koomen et al (Ed.), Modelling Land-use Change: Progress and Applications.Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

rása, J., 2010. Empirical Models for Water Erosion in Czech Republic (In Czech:Empirické modely vodní eroze v CR). Habilitation Thesis. Department ofIrrigation, Drainage and Landscape Engineering, Czech Technical University inPrague.

ee, J.J., Phillips, D.L., Benson, V.W., 1999. Soil erosion and climate change: assessingpotential impacts and adaptation practices. Journal of Soil and Water Conserva-tion 54 (3), 529–536.

i, R.Q., Dong, M., Cui, J.Y., Zhang, L.L., Cui, Q.G., He, W.M., 2007. Quantifica-tion of the impact of land use changes on ecosystem services: a case studyin Pingbian County China. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 128,503–510.

obell, D.B., Field, C.B., 2007. Global scale climate–crop yield relationships andthe impacts of recent warming. Environmental Research Letters 2 (1), 014002DOI:10. 1088/1748-9326/2/1/014002.

illennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being:A Framework for Assessment. Island Press, Washington DC.

oriondo, M., Bindi, M., Kundzewicz, Z.W., Szwed, M., Chorynski, A., Matczak,P., Radziejewski, M., McEvoy, D., Wreford, A., 2010. Impact and adaptationopportunities for European agriculture in response to climatic change andvariability. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 15 (7),657–679.

üller, C., Eickhout, B., Zaehle, S., Bondeau, A., Cramer, W., Lucht, W., 2007. Effects ofchanges in CO2, climate, and land use on the carbon balance of the land biosphereduring the 21st century. Journal of Geophysical Research G: Biogeosciences 122(2).

üller, F., Burkhard, B., 2012. The indicator side of ecosystem services. EcosystemServices 1, 26–30.

elson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D.R., Chan, K.M.A.,Daily, G.C., Goldstein, J., Kareiva, P.M., Lonsdorf, E., Naidoo, R., Ricketts, T.H.,Shaw, M.R., 2009a. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conser-

vation Commodity Production, and Tradeoffs at Landscape Scales. Frontiers inEcology and the Environment 7 (1), 4–11.

elson, G.C., Rosegrant, M.W., Koo, J., Robertson, R., Sulser, T., Zhu, T., Ringler,C., Msangi, S., Palazzo, A., Batka, M., Magalhaes, M., Valmonte-Santos, R.,Ewing, M., Lee, D., 2009b. Climate Change: Impact on Agriculture and Cost

olicy 33 (2013) 183– 194 193

of Adaptation. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington,DC.

Olesen, J.E., Bindi, M., 2002. Consequences of climate change for European agricul-tural productivity, land use and policy. European Journal of Agronomy 16 (4),239–262.

Orlandini, S., Nejedlik, P., Eitzinger, J., Alexandrov, V., Toulios, L., Calanca, P., Trnka,M., Olesen, J.E., 2008. Impacts of Climate Change and Variability on EuropeanAgriculture. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1146, 338–353.

Pielke, L.A., 2005. Land use and climate change. Science 310, 1625–1626.Power, A.G., 2010. Ecosystem services and agriculture:tradeoffs and synergies. Philo-

sophical transactions of the Royal Society B – Biological Sciences 365 (1554),2959–2971.

Prager, K., Reed, M., Scott, A., 2012. Encouraging collaboration for the provision ofecosystem services at a landscape scale – rethinking agri-environmental pay-ments. Land Use Policy 29 (1), 244–249.

Preston, B.L., Yuen, E.J., Westaway, R.M., 2011. Putting vulnerability to climatechange on the map: a review of approaches, benefits, and risks. SustainabilityScience 6 (2), 177–202.

Pyke, C.R., Andelman, S.J., 2007. Land use and land cover tools for climate adaptation.Climatic Change 80, 239–251.

Ramankutty, N., Evan, A.T., Monfreda, C., Foley, J.A., 2008. Farming the planet: 1.Geographic distribution of global agricultural lands in the year 2000. GlobalBiogeochemical Cycles 22, GB1003, doi:10. 1029/2007GB002952.

Raskin, P.D., 2005. Global scenarios: background review for the millennium ecosys-tem assessment. Ecosystems 8, 133–142.

Renschler, C.S., Harbor, J., 2002. Soil erosion assessment tools from point to regionalscales – the role of geomorphologists in land management research and imple-mentation. Geomorphology 47 (2–4), 189–209.

Rickebusch, S., Metzger, M.J., Xu, G., Vogiatzakis, I.N., Potts, S.G., Stirpe, M.T.,Rounsevell, M.D.A., 2011. A qualitative method for the spatial and thematicdownscaling of land-use change scenarios. Environmental Science & Policy 14,268–278.

Romportl, D., Chuman, T., Lipsky, Z., 2010. Landscape heterogenity changes and theirdriving forces in the Czech Republic after 1990. In: Bicík, I., Himiyama, Y., Fer-anec, J. (Eds.), Land Use/Cover Changes in Selected Regions in the World. VolumeV, IGU-LUCC Research Report. Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Science,pp. 41–50, ISBN 978-4-907651-05-9.

Rounsevell, M.D.A., Evans, S.P., Bullock, P., 1999. Climate change and agriculturalsoils: impacts and adaptation. Climatic change 43 (4), 683–709.

Rounsevell, M.D.A., Reay, D.S., 2009. Land use and climate change in the UK. LandUse Policy 26 S, S160–S169.

Rounsevell, M.D.A., Pedroli, B., Erb, K.H., Gramberger, M., Busck, A.G., Haberl, H., Kris-tensen, S., Kuemmerle, T., Lavorel, S., Lindner, M., Lotze-Campen, H., Metzger,M.J., Murray-Rust, D., Popp, A., Pérez-Soba, M., Reenberg, A., Vadineanu, A., Ver-burg, P.H., Wolfslehner, B., 2012. Challenges for land system science. Land UsePolicy 29 (4), 899–910.

Schulp, C.J.E., Nabuurs, G.J., Verburg, P.H., 2008. Future carbon sequestration inEurope – effects of land use change. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment 127(3–4), 251–264.

Sklenicka, P., Salek, M., 2008. Ownership and soil quality as sources of agricul-tural land fragmentation in highly fragmented ownership patterns. LandscapeEcology 23, 299–311.

Sklenicka, P., Pixová, K., 2004. Importance of spatial heterogeneity to landscapeplanning and management. Ekológia Bratislava 23 (1), 310–319.

Spangenberg, J.H., 2007. Integrated scenarios for assessing biodiversity risks. Sus-tainable Development 15, 343–356.

Spangenberg, J.H., Bondeau, A., Carter, T.R., Fronzek, S., Jaeger, J., Jylhä, K., Kühn, I.,Omann, I., Paul, A., Reginster, I., Rounsevell, M., Schweiger, O., Stocker, A., Sykes,M.T., Settele, J., 2012. Scenarios for investigating risks to biodiversity. GlobalEcology and Biogeography 21, 5–18.

Swinton, S.M., Lupi, F., Robertson, G.P., Hamilton, S.K., 2007. Ecosystem services andagriculture: cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. EcologicalEconomics 64 (2), 245–252.

Trnka, M., Olesen, J.E., Kersebaum, K.C., Skjelvag, A.O., Eitzinger, J., Seguin, B.,Peltonen-Sainio, P., Rotter, R., Iglesias, A., Orlandini, S., Dubrovsky, M., Hlavinka,P., Balek, J., Eckersten, H., Cloppet, E., Calanca, P., Gobin, A., Vucetic, V., Nejedlik,P., Kumar, S., Lalic, B., Mestre, A., Rossi, F., Kozyra, J., Alexandrov, V., Semeradova,D., Zalud, Z., 2011a. Agroclimatic conditions in Europe under climate change.Global Change Biology 17, 2298–2318.

Trnka, M., Eitzinger, J., Semerádová, D., Hlavinka, P., Balek, J., Dubrovsky, M., Kubu,G., Stepánek, P., Thaler, S., Mozny, M., Zalud, Z., 2011b. Expected changes inagroclimatic conditions in Central Europe. Climatic Change 108, 261–289.

Trnka, M., Eitzinger, J., Hlavinka, P., Dubrovsky, M., Semeradova, D., Stepanek, P.,Thaler, S., Zalud, Z., Mozny, M., Formayer, H., 2009. Climate-driven changesof production regions in Central Europe. Plant Soil and Environment 55 (6),257–266.

Van Rompaey, A., Krasa, J., Dostal, T., Govers, G., 2003. Modelling sediment supply torivers and water reservoirs in Eastern Europe during and after collectivizationperiod. Hydrobiologia 494, 169–176.

Vackár, D., Orlitová, E., 2011. Human appropriation of aboveground photosyntheticproduction in the Czech Republic. Regional Environmental Change 11, 519–529.

Walker, B., Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S.R., Kinzig, A., 2004. Resilience, adaptabilityand transformability in social–ecological systems. Ecology and Society 9 (2), 5http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss2/art5/ (online).

Zaehle, S., Bondeau, A., Carter, R.T., Cramer, W., Erhard, M., Prentice, C., Reginster, I.,Rounsevell, M.A.D., Sitch, S., Smith, B., Smith, P.C., Sykes, M., 2007. Projected

1 Use P

Z

Z

Z

Czech statistical office (CZSO), 2011. http://www.czso.cz/ (viewed in March 2012).

94 E. Lorencová et al. / Land

changes in terrestrial carbon storage in europe under climate and land-usechange, 1990–2100. Ecosystems 10, 380–401.

hang, W., Ricketts, T.H., Kremen, C., Carney, K., Swinton, S.M., 2007. Ecosystemservices and dis-services to agriculture. Ecological Economics 64 (2), 253–260.

hao, S., Peng, Ch., Jiang, H., Tian, D., Lei, X., Zhou, X., 2006. Land use

changes in Asia and the ecological consequences. Ecological Research 21,890–896.

ˇalud, Z., Trnka, M., Dubrovsky, M., Hlavinka, P., Semerádová, D., Kocmánková, E.,2009. Climate change impacts on selected aspects of the Czech agriculturalproduction. Plant Protection Science 45, S11–S19 (special issue).

olicy 33 (2013) 183– 194

Websites

CENIA, 2011. http://issar.cenia.cz/issar/page.php?id=1887 (viewed on 12thDecember 2011).

LUCC Czechia Database. (2008). Database of the project of the Grant Agency of theCzech Republic GACR 205/09/0995 “Regional differentiation and possible risksof land use as a reflection of functional changes of landscape in Czechia 1990 –2010”. http://www.lucc.ic.cz/.