This article was downloaded by: [Det Kgl Bibl Natl bibl og Kbh Univ bibl]On: 14 February 2012, At: 04:44Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Environmental Planning andManagementPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cjep20

Stakeholder and expert-guidedscenarios for agriculture and landscapedevelopment in a groundwaterprotection areaHenrik Vejre a , Jens Peter Vesterager a , Lone S. Kristensen a &Jørgen Primdahl aa Forest & Landscape Denmark, University of Copenhagen,Rolighedsvej 23, DK-1958, Frederiksberg, Denmark

Available online: 26 Sep 2011

To cite this article: Henrik Vejre, Jens Peter Vesterager, Lone S. Kristensen & Jørgen Primdahl(2011): Stakeholder and expert-guided scenarios for agriculture and landscape development in agroundwater protection area, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 54:9, 1169-1187

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2011.560782

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Stakeholder and expert-guided scenarios for agriculture and landscape

development in a groundwater protection area

Henrik Vejre*, Jens Peter Vesterager, Lone S. Kristensen and Jørgen Primdahl

Forest & Landscape Denmark, University of Copenhagen, Rolighedsvej 23, DK-1958,Frederiksberg, Denmark

(Received 17 April 2010; final version received 24 November 2010)

Nitrate and pesticide leaching led to the designation of groundwater protectionzones in Denmark. The protective measures in these zones often clash with localinterests in agriculture. Scenarios were used to evaluate the development of agroundwater protection zone in a farming area. Stakeholders are accorded stronginfluence on the scenarios. Scenario inputs comprised land cover, land use andfarmers’ plans and preferences, as registered in interviews with farmers. Scenarioswere evaluated regarding the effect on nitrate leaching, extent of pesticide-freearea and farm income. The scenarios proved effective in modelling coupleddevelopment in land use/land cover and nitrate leaching and pesticide-free area.Voluntary commitment to schemes, calculated according to stakeholderpreferences, reduced nitrate leaching by up to 15%. Scenarios with additionalinputs from experts who formulated more comprehensive landscape projectsreduced the present loss by up to 30%. In both cases, the pesticide free areas weredoubled. In general, the bottom-up approaches had a lesser effect on reducingnitrogen losses than did the top-down approaches.

Keywords: landscape scenario; land use; nitrogen leaching; groundwater;stakeholder interview

1. Introduction

In many rural regions of the world, groundwater is extracted for the supply ofdrinking water to cities. This is the case for Denmark, where the water supplysystem, according to political decisions, is entirely reliant on groundwater(Thomsen et al. 2004). Being dependent on aquifers for drinking water supply, itis vital to protect them against pollutants. The major pollution threats to aquifersin the countryside comprise activities pertaining to agriculture, including thehandling of pesticides and fertilisers (see, e.g. Li et al. 2006, Webb et al. 2008),which may cause leaching losses to the groundwater, and rural settlements havingunsealed wells and borings (Groundwater Protection Program 2009). In Denmark,the nitrate concentration has been increasing in many aquifers, causing smallerdrinking water borings to be closed. Furthermore, pesticides and pesticidebreakdown products have been found in aquifers in a number of cases (Jørgensenand Stockmarr 2008).

*Corresponding author. Email: hv@life.ku.dk

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

Vol. 54, No. 9, November 2011, 1169–1187

ISSN 0964-0568 print/ISSN 1360-0559 online

� 2011 University of Newcastle upon Tyne

DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2011.560782

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Det

Kgl

Bib

l Nat

l bib

l og

Kbh

Uni

v bi

bl]

at 0

4:44

14

Febr

uary

201

2

Against this background, Danish drinking water supply companies are facedwith three options for ensuring the future supply of clean water: (1) improvingprotection policy measures in the landscapes above the aquifers; (2) introducingcleaning facilities at the water treatment plants; or (3) moving the borings tolocations above unpolluted aquifers. Although the latter option has been chosenmany times in recent decades, it is not a real option in the long term. In Denmark,the national strategy has been to safeguard the aquifers rather than clean the water.The goal here is to supply the users with clean, untreated water (apart from aeration,which removes metals such as Fe and Mn from the water (Jørgensen and Stockmarr2008)). This strategy reflects the ambition to protect a significant natural resource,and the pragmatic calculation of alternative costs to clean the water, or the costs ofestablishing a parallel supply system where customers become dependent on bottledwater.

The priority on protecting aquifers is of vital importance for the supply ofdomestic water in Denmark and has led to comprehensive planning andenvironmental regulation initiatives aimed at reducing the threat to groundwaterfrom land use activities (Thomsen et al. 2004), not least from agricultural use ofnitrate and pesticides. In addition, the implementation of the EU Water FrameworkDirective (Kallis and Butler 2001) has led to several measures aimed at groundwaterprotection. At present, more than one-thirds of the Danish land territory has beendesignated as groundwater protection zones in 1997–2001 as part of these processes(Thomsen et al. 2004).

The water supply system based on groundwater from rural areas causes a numberof potential as well as actual conflicts between the urban demand for clean andaffordable drinking water, on the one hand, and key rural functions such asagriculture and housing, on the other. In addition, within the rural landscape,conflicts occur over local drinking water supply and intensive agriculture. Anincreasing number of private wells and private water works are being closed bypublic authorities due to excessive levels of nitrate and/or pesticide residuals, forcingrural households to be connected to the public water supply. On a regional scale,conflicts related to drinking water extraction may have significant consequences. Forexample, irrigation permits for agricultural crops around Copenhagen are verylimited due to competition with the urban drinking water supply.

In Denmark, the designation of groundwater protection areas entails theformulation of action plans and mapping of the areas, including land use,delineation of well head areas and catchments areas, assessments of pollutionsources, identification of vulnerable areas and areas where action is required(Thomsen et al. 2004). Consequently, agricultural farms are being regulated througha number of measures, and within the groundwater protection zones additionalmeasures will follow. These measures comprise an array of instruments, rangingfrom advising and information programmes to voluntary incentive schemes, tocompulsory regulatory measures. In addition, expropriation of existing land use andmanagement rights has been announced by the Parliament in case existing measuresdo not ensure sufficient protection of drinking water resources (Ministry ofEnvironment 1998).

Although the issue of agricultural impacts on the groundwater resources indeedrepresents a common policy issue within a European context, the specific impacts aswell as policy options available are, in practice, highly contextual, dependent on localconditions in terms of agricultural production, landscape and legislation.

1170 H. Vejre et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Det

Kgl

Bib

l Nat

l bib

l og

Kbh

Uni

v bi

bl]

at 0

4:44

14

Febr

uary

201

2

Against this background, we have analysed ways to reduce the impacts ongroundwater from agriculture using a specific case from Denmark. In order toscrutinise the options of balancing the conflicting interests in a countryside planningperspective of agricultural landscapes, we explored alternative pathways tosafeguard a high groundwater quality within a designated groundwater protectionzone, while maintaining or enhancing other landscape functions of interest to citizensof the local landscape. The pathways were elucidated by formulation of landscapescenarios describing alternative strategies for land use and land cover changes inorder to protect groundwater. The scenarios included both farmers’ opinionsrepresenting the local viewpoint and expert knowledge and guidance, withthe intention of integrating public interests into the planning of the future of thelandscapes. The direct involvement of farmers in the scenario formulation is themost unique contribution of this study.

In the following we present a brief overview of scenarios as a tool, with emphasison landscape scenarios, followed by a presentation of the case area used in theconcrete scenario formulation. We also present inputs to scenarios, comprisingfarmers’ inputs, nitrogen leaching models and model assumptions. Finally, wepresent a sequence of scenarios describing alternative pathways for the case area, allleading to a reduction of pressure on the groundwater resource.

2. Methods and case area

2.1. Scenario studies

A scenario is basically a projection of the future and hence the (unknown)development of one or more variables. Kahn (2010) described scenarios as‘‘narrative descriptions of possible futures that focus attention on causal processesand decision points’’. As such, scenario studies have been employed in a number ofscientific disciplines, including ecology, economics and the other social sciences (seee.g. Schoute et al. 1995). Scenarios may be divided into two major types: forecastingand backcasting (see, e.g. Borjeson et al. 2006). The forecasting scenario answers‘what if’ questions, whereas the backcasting scenario explores alternative pathwaysleading to the same fixed aim, or to a number of alternative aims. Backcasting isparticularly suitable in complex problems where dominant trends are part of theproblem, and when the problems pertain to some kind of externalities, i.e. side effectsof production (Dreborg 1996).

Scenario techniques have been used extensively in the landscape sciences(Primdahl 1990, Emmelin 1996, Kurz et al. 2000, Hawkins and Selman 2002,Nassauer et al. 2002, Tress and Tress 2003, Nassauer and Corry 2004). Mostscenarios explore futures of the landscape based on developmental trends and onexperts’ choices. However, participatory approaches to landscape scenarios havealso been utilised (e.g. Buchecker et al. 2003, Tress and Tress 2003, Kok et al. 2006,Sisk et al. 2006).

The scenarios developed in the present study contain elements of both forecastingand backcasting while taking a participatory approach. The primary aim of thescenarios is to explore alternative pathways to the same future conditions:adequately protected aquifers, bringing a backcast element in the scenarios. Thescenarios project the existing situations and are based on farmers’ preferencesconcerning land use alternatives, partly on ‘expert based’ developments, adding aforecasting element in the scenarios as well.

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1171

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Det

Kgl

Bib

l Nat

l bib

l og

Kbh

Uni

v bi

bl]

at 0

4:44

14

Febr

uary

201

2

In contrast to the other landscape scenario studies cited above, this studyintegrates farmers’ inputs, which have been obtained from comprehensive interviewsurveys. Therefore, the scenarios represent ‘realistic’ futures, each of which is framedby different preconditions, including farmers’ plans and preferences.

When formulating scenarios for landscapes, it should be borne in mind thatlandscapes are highly multivariate entities. In landscape scenarios, therefore, there isa general requirement to fix some variables, while allowing other variables be subjectto changes (Tress and Tress 2003) (see Table 1 for the specific variables held as fixedand those subject to change in this study).

2.2. Scenario inputs

In the scenarios of this study, land-use-related policy, land cover and farmmanagement regime are variables that we allow to change. Conditions such asclimate and geological characteristics, legal ownership and general agriculturalstructure (the mix of owned and leased land and of husbandry and crop farmers inthe same landscape) are held as fixed variables (see Table 1).

2.3. The case area

The case area of 3442 ha is located in Horsens Municipality, in western Denmark(see Figure 1). The central part of the case area comprises a moraine plateau100–120 m above sea level (asl) surrounded by deeply cut fluvial valleys withbottoms 20–30 m asl. The edge of the plateau is dissected by smaller, steep ravines.The soil types are sands, sandy loams and loams on the plateau. Organic soils arefound in the valleys and in depressions on the plateau. Apart from one largerdepression, the plateau is generally well drained, whereas the valley bottoms aredominated by wetlands. Small streams drain the plateau and the valleys. Moststreams are strongly manipulated, canalised or put in tiles.

The climate is characterised as sub-Atlantic, with an annual average temperatureof 8.58 and an annual precipitation of 750 mm (Scharling and Kern-Hansen 2002).

Most of the case area is farmland in rotation (approximately 2400 ha; seeFigure 2a); the remaining part is covered by forest (approximately 600 ha), and

Table 1. Scenario inputs, and data source.

Fixed variablesClimate (Danish Meteorological Institute)Soil (digital soil maps, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences,

Aarhus University)Farm type (crop, husbandry, pigs) (Danish Agricultural Databases, interviews)Farm structure (general sizedistribution and ownership)

(cadastral maps and Danish Agricultural Databases)

Changeable variablesLand cover (aerial photos, area information systems, interviews)Fertiliser regime (Danish Agricultural Databases)Pesticide use (Danish Agricultural Databases, information from

local agricultural advisors)Livestock density (Danish Agricultural Databases, interviews)Policy instruments

1172 H. Vejre et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Det

Kgl

Bib

l Nat

l bib

l og

Kbh

Uni

v bi

bl]

at 0

4:44

14

Febr

uary

201

2

managed wet and dry pastures. In addition, hedgerows, ponds and small thickets arecommon elements throughout the landscape.

At the time of the analysis, the case area contained approximately 140 farms. Ofthese, 30 farms were large production units typically managed by full- time farmers,whereas the remaining farms were smaller, run by hobby or part-time farmers. Mostof the forest land belonged to a single farm. The livestock density of the area is high,with almost 1000 dairy cows on 15 farms, along with 1800 other types of cattle. Eightfarms housed a total of almost 3000 sows and 50,000 piglets.

In the 1997 regional plan, the area was designated as a ‘groundwater protectionarea’. The central part was further designated as vulnerable to nitrate leaching due tothe specific soil conditions and geology in this area. Groundwater is extracted in thearea for local and regional supply.

2.4. Interviews of farmers

All owners of farms with more than 2 ha of agricultural land were contacted, and ofa potential of 146 farmers in the entire case area, 138 (94%) agreed to participate inthe study. A structured face-to-face interview with each individual farmer wascarried out on the farm. The interviews covered four main topics: (1) farm-specificquestions, such as ownership, the management regime, animal stock, land cover andbuilding structures, including all changes in these variables during the preceding fiveyears; (2) plans for land use and land cover changes (e.g. planting and removal ofhedgerows, afforestation), or farming regime (e.g. conversion to organic farming,initiation, termination, contraction or extension of animal production); and (3) theirparticipation in various policy schemes, including agri-environmental schemes, direct

Figure 1. Map showing the case area and the location in a Danish context.

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Det

Kgl

Bib

l Nat

l bib

l og

Kbh

Uni

v bi

bl]

at 0

4:44

14

Febr

uary

201

2

payments, support schemes for hedgerow planting and other landscape relatedsubsidy schemes.

Finally, the farmers were asked about their preferences in terms of future landuse and land cover in the context of groundwater protection. Specifically, they wereasked to select one of three alternative land use changes – new forest, permanent set-aside or extensification (i.e. continued farming but with reduced fertiliser or pesticideuse) – on the premise that some type of land use change would occur, but that theywould receive full compensation for lost income. In this way, the farmer would beselecting a future landscape character without risking any economic loss. The threealternatives are all of relevance to policy incentives available in the CommonAgricultural Policy of the EU or in national Danish measures: extensification offarming (reduced inputs of nitrogen and pesticides), afforestation or permanentfallowing. The farmers’ responses were used as inputs to the scenarios. Thecombination of farmers’ interviews and cadastral data allowed for an exact area-related output of the farmers’ response. This is the background for the scenariooutputs, as presented in Figures 2 and 3.

The interviews were carried out in 2007. Since then, there have beenmodifications in the agricultural policy, but all the regulatory instruments of thescenarios are still of relevance. Of course, there have been developments in theagricultural sector, but the farming practices and farm structure have not changed inways which would make our results outdated in terms of the current situation.

Table 2 shows the preferences among farmers for the three land use/land coveralternatives. Almost half the farmers chose to continue farming with a reduction infertiliser and pesticide use (the extensification option). The afforestation option wasthe second most popular choice, preferred by almost one-third of the farmers.Finally, the set-aside alternative was chosen by only 17% of the farmers. Theseresults are used in those scenarios that are based on farmers’ preferences: the farmersare not supposed to accept a land cover or land use change that has not been selectedas their preferred alternative.

2.5. Choice of indicators

All scenarios were evaluated with reference to their effects on groundwater comparedto the present situation. Based on farmers’ preferences and combinations ofregulatory instruments and land cover changes, eight scenarios were generated andanalysed. The primary indicator was nitrate leaching, expressed as kg nitrate–Nleaving the root zone per year and hectare, aggregated to a general figure as the totalamount of nitrogen being lost in the entire case area of 3442 ha. This output wasregarded as the best estimate for nitrate leaching on a landscape level. Additionalindicators included ‘average leaching per ha in the total area’, and ‘average leachingper ha in the areas undergoing changes in land use and land cover’. Pesticide use wasalso included as an indicator, namely as ‘sprayed or non-sprayed area’. As aneconomic indicator of the effect of the scenarios, the gross margin of the farmenterprises was chosen. For details regarding the calculation of indicators, see below.

2.6. Modelling assumptions

Nitrate leaching was calculated by use of the Nless3 model (Kristensen et al. 2003).Data input for running the model comprised type of fertiliser and amount of

1174 H. Vejre et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Det

Kgl

Bib

l Nat

l bib

l og

Kbh

Uni

v bi

bl]

at 0

4:44

14

Febr

uary

201

2

Figure 2. Maps showing the land cover in the eight scenarios. The first column containsmaps a–d, and the second column contains maps e–h.Note: See online colour version for full interpretation.

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1175

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Det

Kgl

Bib

l Nat

l bib

l og

Kbh

Uni

v bi

bl]

at 0

4:44

14

Febr

uary

201

2

Figure 3. Maps showing the leaching on the field level in the eight scenarios. The first columncontains maps a–d, and the second column contains maps e–h.Note: See online colour version for full interpretation.

1176 H. Vejre et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Det

Kgl

Bib

l Nat

l bib

l og

Kbh

Uni

v bi

bl]

at 0

4:44

14

Febr

uary

201

2

fertiliser used by farmers, climate, soil type and crop type. Crop type was based onstandard crop rotation systems in the case area, verified using aerial photographs.Amount and ratio of manure and commercial fertiliser was based on farm type(crop, pig, dairy or a mix of these). The assumptions regarding crop and fertiliserregime were validated through interviews with farm owners.

Testing of nitrate leaching models has shown that results obtained throughapplication of the Nless3 model are on the same level as the other models, with theFasset model estimating slightly lower and the Daisy model estimating slightlyhigher reactions to increased fertilisation (Jørgensen and Østergaard 2005).

Concerning pesticide use, no detailed model describing loss of pesticide orpesticide breakdown products has been available for this scenario study. Conse-quently, the simple variable ‘pesticide free area’ was chosen, defined as farmlandcultivated by organic farmers, nature areas, forests (apart from Christmas treeareas), and extensive grassland. This is based on the assumption that pesticides areeither banned or usually not used on these areas.

Economic consequences have been calculated based on gross margin ofcultivation patterns as described by Ørum (2003). The gross margin is differentiatedbased on soil type (loamy vs. sandy) and farm type (crop, pig, dairy or a mix ofthese) and includes any subsidy paid through the EU Common Agricultural Policyor other sources. Due to lower output, the gross margin for organic farming has beenreduced by 25%, based on Rasmussen (2003). Livestock was included based onrecorded livestock at the time of the interview multiplied by the gross marginaccording to 2006 prices with no deduction for organic farms (Institute of Food andResource Economics 2007). Furthermore, a deduction for economic surplus basedon manure capacity in the area and manure production has been added. Thisdeduction reflects the costs of exporting manure to neighbouring areas according tounpublished calculations by the Danish Forest and Nature Agency. It is aprerequisite for all three scenarios that farmers are compensated, and that they donot suffer any income loss. The economic analysis comprises only the farm economy.All values have been indexed according to the baseline scenario (see Table 3).

2.7. Choice of scenarios

Eight scenarios were formulated to explore alternative developments of the casearea. The scenarios were divided into voluntary scenarios and expert-guidedscenarios, bracketed by a reference scenario and an ultimate scenario. The scenarioswere based on the assumptions that farmers, as per governmental regulation, need toundertake some type of land use change in order to protect the groundwater. Thescenarios were formulated as a sequence of land use and land cover changes based onthe following rationales: in the first scenario, the near future was explored, based on

Table 2. Farmers’ preferences in terms of preferred land use change in percent (n ¼ 101).

Future management and land use Priority

1st 2nd 3rd

Reduced input of fertiliser and pesticides 47 21 32Afforestation 31 42 27Fallowing and natural succession 17 38 45

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1177

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Det

Kgl

Bib

l Nat

l bib

l og

Kbh

Uni

v bi

bl]

at 0

4:44

14

Febr

uary

201

2

Table

3.

Summary

ofscenariocontents

andoutputs.

Scenariotitle

Description

Outputs

NO

3–��N

total

amount

[T]

Average

leachingper

hain

the

whole

area

3400ha

[KgN*ha7

1]

Areas

withland

use

changes

[ha]

Contribution

toreduced

leachingper

hawith

changes

[KgN*ha7

1]

Pesticide-

free

[ha]

Economy

1.282

mill¼

index

100

1.Baselinescenario

Existinglanduse.Changeoflanduse

asindicatedbyownerþ

5years

152

45

00

781

100

2.Organic

farm

ing

Allfarm

ersto

whom

extensification

ispreferable

havebeenconverted

toorganic

farm

ing.Whole

farm

accordingto

Danishregulation

147

43

524

10

1235

99

3.Farm

ingwithagri-

environmental

schem

es(A

ES)

Farm

ersin

favourofAES.Only

indesignatedESAs(Environmentally

SensitiveAreas)

146

43

190

32

936

98

4.Farm

ingand

Forestry

Forestsestablished

onfarm

swhere

thisisthepreferred

meansofland

use

change.

Min.5ha,in

connectionto

existingforest,

4100m

from

residences,notin

sensitiveareas.

144

42

214

37

969

96

5.Farm

ingwithall

voluntary

solutions

Set-aside,

afforestation,AESand

organic

farm

ing

135

40

848

20

1525

94

6.Set-aside

Strategicallylocatedset-aside

142

42

371

27

1152

97

7.Afforestationand

nature

projects

Forestcorridorbetweenthevalleysto

thenorthandwest.Nature

areas

enhancedin

andaroundNatura

2000area

130

38

604

36

1344

91

8.Ultim

ate

groundwater

protection

Extensivegrasslandin

nitrate

vulnerable

areaandorganic

farm

ing

106

31

1437

32

3442

78

1178 H. Vejre et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Det

Kgl

Bib

l Nat

l bib

l og

Kbh

Uni

v bi

bl]

at 0

4:44

14

Febr

uary

201

2

the farmers own specific plans at the time of the interview and with no explicitreference to groundwater. The second scenario explored the effects of anextensification of farming practices with no change in land use. In the third andfourth scenarios, we explored the effects of employment of agri-environmentalschemes (AES) and afforestation. The effects of scenarios 2, 3 and 4 are integratedinto scenario 5.

In the final scenarios, the voluntary changes were supplemented with expert-guided land cover changes: strategic set-aside and afforestation. Scenarios 6 and7 represent mainstream Danish landscape and environmental projects aimingat strengthening nature qualities, water quality and recreational opportunities.The set-aside scenario 6 represents the policy of the Danish Government on set-aside of Danish farmland (Ministry of Environment 2009). Finally, an ultimatescenario was formulated where land use was optimised with one overarchingobjective – the ultimate groundwater protection of that part of the case areadesignated as vulnerable towards nitrate leaching, while still maintaining farming inthe area.

3. Results – scenario formulation and outcome

The eight scenarios are summarised in Figures 2 and 3 and in Table 3, and describedin detail below.

The aggregated effects of the land use and land cover changes are given as nitrateleaching, kg Nitrate–N for the entire case area, as leaching of N as an average figureper ha, and as average leaching in the areas subjected to land cover change. Further,the total area undergoing change in ha is given, along with total pesticide free area inha and farm economy expressed as total gross margin of all farms in the case area(baseline scenario is set to index 100). The effect on land cover is presented in themap sequence of Figure 2, and the spatial distribution of nitrate loss in Figure 3.

3.1. Scenario 1: the baseline

The baseline scenario depicts the present situation of the area. The scenario is basedon the farmers’ inputs in terms of their present land cover, agricultural managementregime, animal husbandry (number and type of animals) and the farmers’ plans forthe next five years after the interview (e.g. plans for plantings, extension of animalhousehold etc. with no explicit links made to groundwater protection). The baselinescenario is needed as a reference for all other scenarios and the effects of the otherscenarios are evaluated with this scenario as benchmark. The baseline scenario 1,indicating the present situation, implies a leaching of 152 T N in the entire area of3440 ha, corresponding to 45 kg ha71 (Table 3). An area of 781 ha of forest andnature areas is regarded as a pesticide free area. The gross margin of this scenarioequals e1.282 mill (index 100).

The dominance of fields in rotation is visible in the reference scenario mapFigure 2a; the forests are located primarily in the periphery of the case area, and onlya few patches of permanent pastures and fallow lands are scattered in the otherwiseintensively managed farmland.

The leaching of nitrogen in the baseline scenario 1 (Figure 3a) shows a veryscattered pattern. The central part of the area is generally subjected to quite highleaching rates, in general above 60 kg N ha71.

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1179

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Det

Kgl

Bib

l Nat

l bib

l og

Kbh

Uni

v bi

bl]

at 0

4:44

14

Febr

uary

201

2

3.2. Scenario 2: organic farming

The scenario is based on the assumption that when farmers in the interview surveyclaimed extensification as their preferred means of land use change, conversion toorganic farming is an appropriate option. In this scenario, the whole farm isconverted to organic farming, keeping the farm type (crop growers, pigs, dairy) asfixed. The scenario is based on Danish regulations for organic farming with fixednorms for fertiliser use, fodder production and a ban on pesticides. The scenariodiffers from the others, as the agricultural production area is maintained, and thenumber of farms is held constant. The scenario follows the farmers’ land usepreferences, assuming that the farmers are being compensated through existingpolicy instruments.

The extensive conversion to organic farming (524 ha in total) of scenario 2 willcause an estimated reduction of nitrate leaching by approximately 3% (from 152 to147 T N, the average leaching decreased from 45 to 43 kg ha71). The effect on thepesticide-free area is more significant, as 1235 ha, in comparison to the 781 ha of thereference scenario, are relieved from pesticide impact. If the ultimate scenario ismaintained as a benchmark for the potential reduction, leaving only the naturalbackground nitrate leaching, the organic scenario achieves 11% of the potentialreduction. The gross margin is reduced by 1% to index 99; hence, the economy offarming does not deteriorate.

The land use does not change to any significant degree (Figure 2b), as the organicfarms use the same proportion of land in rotation. With regard to nitrate leaching(Figure 3b), the major change is seen in some single fields where the organic farmingmethods significantly reduce leaching. In terms of average leaching (10 kg ha71), theeffect of organic farming is not as strong as some of the other land use changes.

3.3. Scenario 3: agri-environment schemes

This scenario maintains farming as a key activity in the area, but places emphasis onthe introduction of agri-environmental schemes aiming at extending the farmmanagement in certain designated areas.

The scenario is based on the prerequisite that all farmers who express a positiveattitude towards AES in the interviews are offered an agreement that includes apartial conversion of their farmland to permanent grassland. The ordinaryrequirements of the Danish Ministry of Food are applied. The scenario differsfrom the others, inasmuch as the AES under Danish regulation can only beimplemented in certain designated environmentally sensitive areas, and thatcompared with scenario 2, only a fraction of the farmed area is converted. Thefraction of the farm covered by the AE agreement in the scenario corresponds to theaverage Danish situation. A total of 38 areas were included, with an average of 5 haon each farm, totalling 190 ha.

The concrete land cover change (Figure. 2c) comprises permanent grasslandwithout pesticide use on 190 ha, and a maximum fertilisation input of 80 kg ha71.This scenario implies land use change in a much smaller area in comparison toscenario 2. However, the conversion in terms of land cover is more comprehensivethan in scenario 2. Despite this, the reduction in N loss is of the same magnitude,approximately 3.5%. The potential reduction in N loss reached 13% compared tothe ultimate scenario. Gross margin is reduced by 2%.

1180 H. Vejre et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Det

Kgl

Bib

l Nat

l bib

l og

Kbh

Uni

v bi

bl]

at 0

4:44

14

Febr

uary

201

2

The land cover changes are not dramatic (Figure 2c) and comprise a number ofrotation fields that are converted into pastures. The leaching reduction is visible inFigure 3c, which shows the spot wise reduction resulting from the conversion fromarable to pasture on the AES fields.

3.4. Scenario 4: farming and forestry

This scenario depicts the impact of implementing an extensive afforestation strategy.The scenario entails planting of forest on all farms where the owners, during theinterviews, expressed a preference for afforestation if a land use change was to occur.The establishment of forest in the scenario followed the prerequisites set by Danishregulations in relation to public co-financed afforestation projects. At least 5 hashould be planted on each farm, but not closer than 100 m from residentialbuildings. Forests were not allowed in protected nature areas and in aestheticallysensitive areas.

The scenario implied planting of 214 ha of new forest (Figure 2d). Of the threescenarios building on voluntary solutions, the afforestation scenario brings about thelargest reduction in nitrate leaching: 5% of the value of the baseline scenario 1 is cutand 15% of the potential reduction, expressed in the ultimate scenario 8, is achieved.The increase in pesticide-free area is solely a consequence of the increase in forestarea. However, because minor patches of forest are located on organic farms, thepesticide free area counts up to 188 ha only. Gross margin is reduced by 4%.

In terms of landscape, the consequences of this strategy are a scattered pattern offorest patches (Figure 2d). The reduction in nitrate leaching is shown in Figure 3d,with the reduction being prominent under the new forest.

3.5. Scenario 5: aggregated effect of scenarios 2, 3 and 4

This scenario combines scenarios 2, 3 and 4. Each of these three scenarios entailscommon land use or land cover changes (organic farming, AES and afforestationrespectively), which are used as regulatory tools for voluntary landscape manage-ment projects in Denmark. If the three solutions are combined, a realistic impressionof how far voluntary solutions can bring us is accomplished. Hence, the scenariopresents a situation where almost all farmers are engaged in some type of voluntarymeasure to protect groundwater, without any compulsory solutions. If land coverchanges overlap among the scenarios, pastures established with agri-environmentschemes, were, as a rule, prioritised higher than forests.

Evaluated as a whole, the three voluntary scenarios 2–4 imply a relatively modestdecrease in nitrate leaching. In terms of pesticides, the voluntary solution thatincludes organic farming is the most favourable, as almost one-third of the area isrelieved from pesticide impacts. Combining the effects of the organic farming,(scenario 2), the agri-environment schemes (scenario 3) and the afforestation(scenario 4), as carried out in scenario 5 (Figures 2e, 3e), leads to an 11% reductionof the total leaching, and a 37% possible reduction in N loss. A total of 848 ha areaffected in this scenario.

The gross margin losses are relatively low, up to 4%. The maps in Figures 2e and3e show the strong fragmentation of the land cover changes, which is the inevitableresult of the bottom-up approach, in which farmers’ individual preferences are theguiding principle for location.

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1181

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Det

Kgl

Bib

l Nat

l bib

l og

Kbh

Uni

v bi

bl]

at 0

4:44

14

Febr

uary

201

2

The final three scenarios, 6, 7 and 8, are based on experts’ views as to how larger-scale public landscape management projects can be employed strategically in orderto protect groundwater, using set-aside, afforestation, nature restoration and AES astools.

3.6. Scenario 6: set-aside

The scenario depicts possible consequences of strategic use of setting aside ofagricultural land. This was based on the compulsory EU set-aside rules requiringapproximately 15% set-aside with variation on a yearly basis, combined with astrategic guidance on the specific location of the set-aside areas. Even though set-aside obligations and payments have been removed as part of the CAP in 2007, thisscenario is still of relevance since the Danish Government, for environmentalpurposes, has announced new measures to take land out of agricultural use. In thisscenario, set-aside is concentrated on larger consecutive units above the mostvulnerable aquifers.

The contributions to set-aside land come from the individual farmers having set-aside as a preferred means of land use change, along with the strategic layout of aset-aside corridor from the western part of the area towards east above the mostvulnerable aquifer. In addition, 10 m wide buffer zones along all watercourses arelaid out, bringing the total area of set-aside land to 371 ha (Table 3).

3.7. Scenario 7: afforestation and nature projects

This scenario evaluates the effects of two larger projects: an afforestation project anda nature restoration project. The point of departure for both projects is currentDanish legislation and planning practice. Afforestation is modelled as a projecttypically including 100–500 ha with forests planted in larger units with a low edge/area ratio. The nature restoration project includes the central wetland of the casearea and the establishment of a buffer zone of 300 m, which is now required aroundNature 2000 areas. In the nature and afforestation scenario 7, a total of 330 ha forestis planted and 274 ha of ‘new’ nature areas are established. The extent of new forestis not dramatic in comparison to other large-scale afforestation projects in Denmark.The scenario maintains the opportunities for the present farm structure, leavingsufficient space for a continued farm production.

Both scenarios 6 þ 7 represent significant reductions of nitrate leaching. Inparticular, scenario 7 implies a strong reduction that is 10% higher than in thevoluntary scenarios (Table 3, Figures 3f and Figure 3g). Compared with thevoluntary scenarios which produced a scattered pattern of land use/cover changes,the land use/cover changes of scenarios 6 and 7 are more concentrated, as publicauthorities in these projects typically acquire larger, consecutive land areas. Theimpact of nitrate leaching is thus concentrated in the project areas, deliberatelyplaced on the hotspots of groundwater vulnerability.

3.8. Scenario 8: ultimate groundwater protection

This scenario is based on the assumption that a radical solution in terms of land useand land cover is chosen as a protection strategy. The concrete changes arecomprehensive, including the layout of extensive grassland in the central part of the

1182 H. Vejre et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Det

Kgl

Bib

l Nat

l bib

l og

Kbh

Uni

v bi

bl]

at 0

4:44

14

Febr

uary

201

2

areas, covering the most vulnerable aquifer of 1437 ha. In the remaining area, allfarms are converted to organic farming, maintaining the present land coverbut relieving aquifers from pesticides and slightly reducing the N leaching. Thescenario may not be realistic, at least not on a shorter time scale. The rationalebehind the inclusion is to illustrate the actual, physical options for approaching amaximum reduction of nitrate leaching through land use/cover change. This is bothan illustration of the range of the leaching model and an illustration of amanagement model where the drinking water interests outweigh any other interests.In addition, it is in accordance with restrictive reservoir protection in other parts ofthe world.

In the ultimate scenario 8, the N loss is reduced by approximately 30% to 106 TN, corresponding to 31 kg ha71, whereas the pesticide-free area covers the entirearea of 3442 ha. The gross margin is reduced to index 78, that is 22% of the farmincome is lost.

4. Discussion and conclusion

4.1. Scenario outputs

The farmer survey and the scenario study provided useful insights into thepreferences and opinions among farmers regarding future land uses and the resultingprotection of groundwater in the local case area. The scenario studies stress the valueof including local actors’ preferences in the environmental planning and manage-ment of agricultural landscapes. However, the study also reveals that environmentalstandards may not be achieved solely by voluntary solutions. Therefore, both theactor guided bottom-up scenarios and the expert-guided top-down scenarios providevaluable insights into the prospects of using landscape changes in a groundwaterprotection strategy.

Comparing the top-down and the bottom-up approach, a drawback of thevoluntary solutions is that they cannot be concentrated where the problems are mostprominent, i.e. leaching hotspots with a damaging combination of crop manage-ment, soil composition and fertiliser regime. The voluntary AES strategy results in avery fragmented effect, which is not optimal with regard to a reduction in nitrateleaching, and in particular pesticide use.

Afforestation is effective in alleviating nitrate leaching, but with the scatteredpattern, other negative effects of afforestation on groundwater formation may beexpected. Edge effects concentrating the nitrate leaching in the forest margins maycause increased leaching (Gundersen 2008).

In contrast, the top-down strategy opens up the opportunity to target the actionsof land cover changes to leaching problem areas, to achieve other public aims, suchas nature conservation and recreation, and to enhance the attractiveness of thelandscape for potential settlers. A drawback of the top-down strategies is thatfarmers are unevenly affected. Although farmers are fully compensated for the arealost and their decrease in production, the larger projects will inevitably affect somefarmers more than others.

A targeted effort on leaching hotspots would be a cost-effective approach inmany cases (e.g. Wendland et al. 2009). The voluntary solutions for the reduction ofnitrate leaching may be concentrated on the leaching hotspots if campaigns aredirected towards farmers and farms in these areas. However, this type of solutionwas not tested in the study.

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1183

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Det

Kgl

Bib

l Nat

l bib

l og

Kbh

Uni

v bi

bl]

at 0

4:44

14

Febr

uary

201

2

Organic farming is not the major reducer of nitrate leaching, as the intensivefarming operations continue. The effect on pesticides, however, is prominent. If theaim is groundwater protection, land cover changes to permanent pastures with lowinput of fertiliser is a better solution than organic farming.

The scenarios presented here employed the most common regulatory tools of theDanish public landscape management and the most common land use/land coverchange strategies for nitrate leaching reduction (Di and Cameron 2000, Dinnes et al.2002). Hence, the scenarios do not rely on extreme changes in the development of thecase area, and with the exception of the ultimate scenario, they build on a highdegree of realism. The extent of changes, both in the voluntary and in the expert-guided scenarios, is not unusual in Danish landscapes subject to public landscapeprojects or to the actions of farmers who have decided on changes of their land use.

All scenarios imply a reduction in gross margin, but organic farming proves to bea favourable measure. It is a prerequisite for all scenarios that farmers arecompensated, and that the farmers do not suffer any loss of income. The economicanalysis comprises only the farm economy. Thus, if a more comprehensive economicanalysis were to be applied, the value of ecosystem services, such as clean water, thebiodiversity and the amenity values of a more attractive landscape, would have to beincluded.

4.2. Methodology

The interview survey revealed knowledge of the groundwater issue among the casearea’s farmers. Against this background, the interviews were successful in terms ofengaging farmers in addressing hypothetical questions, which comprised the futureland use change. Interviews have been used extensively in other scenario studies (e.g.Palang et al. 2000, Soliva and Hunziker 2008), but this has usually been in relation topreferences about already formulated scenarios. The rating exercise performed inthis study engaged stakeholders at an earlier stage, and it proved possible to involvefarmers in ‘What if . . .’ speculations regarding the future of their farms and aboutthe local landscape. Of course, the responses in this context may be regarded as a‘free ride’ for the farmers, as there were no real consequences of the statedpreferences. Strategic concerns of the farmer, however, are limited, as the questionsdid not include concerns for the magnitude of compensation. Nevertheless, a motivefor preferring afforestation on other people’s land could be increased prices on landdue to the requirement of agricultural land for manure spreading. Further, there isalways a risk that the interviewee might exaggerate or augment their responses inorder to please the interviewer. Therefore, the reliability of the answers may belimited, but generally the farmers were enthusiastic and gave prompt opinions aboutthe land use alternatives in question.

The scenario studies provided the opportunity to generate a number ofalternative futures with improved protection of groundwater as the commonobjective. The scenarios comprise futures which are likely to happen, with politicallyacceptable solutions, effective in terms of relieving the pressure on the groundwater.The proposed alternatives could be further improved and detailed in the politicalsystem, including negotiations between landowners and public authorities, as alsopromoted by Wollenburg et al. (2000).

The study suggests that the generation of appealing and locally adaptable policyalternatives may be improved through research based on preference studies and

1184 H. Vejre et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Det

Kgl

Bib

l Nat

l bib

l og

Kbh

Uni

v bi

bl]

at 0

4:44

14

Febr

uary

201

2

scenarios. This is in line with conclusions from earlier scenario studies (e.g. Palanget al. 2000, Tress and Tress 2003, Sisk et al. 2006). In a comprehensive landscapemanagement perspective, additional landscape functions could be included in thescenarios, such as habitat protection, climate regulation, settlement etc.

Numerous reservations must be taken into account, however. First, the scenariosin this study are a decision-support means of exploring possible consequences ofalternative solutions to a problem, and should not be confused with actual actionson specific farms in the future. In terms of the variables and the inputs to thescenarios, alternatives could have been chosen, and altering the rules of theindividual scenarios would have generated different results. The present situationand the ultimate scenario are both good benchmarks in the scenario evaluation, butall the scenarios in between are open for discussion.

Regardless of the scenario alternatives that could have been chosen, the studyreveals that adequate groundwater protection is not being reached by voluntarysolutions, but must be combined with larger projects that alter land cover and landuse. For this to be achieved there is still a need to target the projects to groundwaterprotection areas.

The scenarios combine qualitative inputs in terms of preferences withquantitative modelling. This implied combination may compromise the reliabilityof the alternative scenarios. We chose this combination to increase the credibility ofthe scenario studies. The quantitative models are the best proxy to detect effect ofland cover changes on groundwater. No quantitative model rivals the direct on-farmqualitative interview when it comes to reliability regarding the farmers’ preferences.The two methodologies fulfil very different purposes, but are a good combination.

4.3. Policy related perspectives

The scenario studies provide valuable input at a more general policy level. Severalkey messages are relevant as inputs to a strategy that is aiming at an enduringprotection of the Danish aquifers. First, a combination of numerous types of coverchanges may contribute to the effect. Second, numerous tools may be relevant,including voluntary agreements, direct support, expropriation and land- re-allotment. The study demonstrates how a combination of instruments is essentialfor achieving best possible outcomes based on voluntary participation, as differentinstruments may appeal to different farmer types.

The effects of the expert-guided scenarios demonstrate how local co-ordinationand expert involvement, in addition to the voluntary participants, is central toachieving the desired outcomes in the landscape from a societal point of view. Thisresembles the effect of voluntary-based policy intervention on private actors in localproject contexts, as often undertaken by national and regional authorities inlandscape planning.

Agri-environmental schemes and other short-term, voluntary measures may notbe the most appropriate means of protecting the water resources, but may work incombination with more compulsory means such as regulatory measures, expropria-tion of users’ rights and public purchases. With the effective use of voluntarymeasures, mandatory requirements (compensated or non-compensated) may be asecond step in securing obtained values.

With regard to the ‘right’ combination of land cover and land use, it is difficult togeneralise. A combination of groundwater protection and protected nature areas has

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1185

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Det

Kgl

Bib

l Nat

l bib

l og

Kbh

Uni

v bi

bl]

at 0

4:44

14

Febr

uary

201

2

proven to be a well-functioning approach. This is in line with current natureprotection policies, all of which have a secondary aim of protecting water resources,as well as with long-term priorities in Danish environmental policy.

In conclusion, a management plan for land use should be formulated using acombination of voluntary participation and mandatory expert-guided interventions,employing top-down and bottom-up approaches, with the inclusion of all possibleeconomic means to generate the best possible project portfolio.

Acknowledgments

This work was partially financed by the Danish Ministry of Environment and carried outpartly under the ‘Multiland’ project under the Danish Ministry for Food.

References

Borjeson, L., et al., 2006. Scenario types and techniques: towards a users’ guide. Futures, 38,723–739.

Buchecker, M., Hunziker, M., and Kienast, F., 2003. Participatory landscape development:overcoming social barriers to public involvement. Landscape and urban planning, 64, 29–46.

Di, H.J. and Cameron, K.C., 2000. Nitrate leaching in temperate agroecosystems: sources,factors and mitigating strategies. Nutrient cycling in agroecosystems, 46, 237–256.

Dinnes, D.L., Karlen, D.L., Jaynes, D.B., Kaspar, T.C. Hatfield, J.L., Colvin, T.S.,Cambardella, C.A., 2002. Nitrogen Management Strategies to reduce nitrate leaching intile-drained midwestern soils. Agronomy journal, 94 (1), 153–171.

Dreborg, K.-H., 1996. Essence of backcasting. Futures, 28, 813–828.Emmelin, L., 1996. Landscape impact analysis: a systematic approach to landscape impacts of

policy. Landscape research, 21, 13–34.Groundwater protection program, 2009.McHenryCounty, Illinois, US. [online] Available from:

http://www.co.mchenry.il.us/departments/countyboard/MtgDocs/200911/1113nerc/1113nerc5_1.pdf [Accessed 9 March 2010].

Gundersen, P., 2008. Nitratudvaskning fra skovarealer – model til risikovurdering. Workingreport 46, Forest & Landscape, University of Copenhagen (in Danish). [online] Availablefrom: http://www.sl.life.ku.dk/publikationer/programmer/*/media/si/Resultater-Outreach-Publications/Programmes/skovnitrat/ar_s146.asbx [Accessed 1 March 2010].

Hawkins, V. and Selman, P., 2002. Landscape scale planning: exploring alternative land usescenarios. Landscape and urban planning, 60, 211–224.

Institute of Food and Resource Economics, 2007. Økonomien i landbrugets driftsgrene 2005.Economics of agricultural enterprises 2005. Series B no. 90, Copenhagen.

Jørgensen, U. and Østergaard, H.S., 2005. Udvaskningsmodeller. Sammenligning afudvaskningens niveau og af respons ved driftsændringer, Plantekongres 2005, 11.2.3Gødskning og planteernæring (in Danish). [online] Available from: http://www.lr.dk/planteavl/diverse/PLK05_11_2_3_U_jorgensen.pdf [Accessed 26 January 2010].

Jørgensen, L.F. and Stockmarr, J., 2008. Groundwater monitoring in Denmark: character-istics, perspectives and comparison with other countries. Hydrogeology journal, 17, 827–842.

Kahn, H., 2010 [1965]. On escalation, metaphor and scenario. New York: Praeger.Kallis, G. and Butler, D., 2001. The EU Water Framework Directive, measures and

implications. Water policy, 3, 125–142.Kok, K., et al., 2006. Multi-scale narratives from an IA perspective: Part II. Participatory

local scenario development. Futures, 38, 285–311.Kristensen, K., Jørgensen, U., and Grant, R., 2003. Genberegning af modellen N-LESS,

Baggrundsnotat til Vandmiljøplan II - slutevaluering, Miljøninisteriet (in Danish). [online]Available from: http://www2.dmu.dk/1_viden/2_publikationer/3_ovrige/rapporter/VMPII/Genberegning_af_modellen_NLES.pdf [Accessed 9 March 2010].

Kurz, W.A., et al., 2000. TELSA: the tool for explorative landscape scenario analysis.Computers and electronics in agriculture, 27, 227–242.

1186 H. Vejre et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Det

Kgl

Bib

l Nat

l bib

l og

Kbh

Uni

v bi

bl]

at 0

4:44

14

Febr

uary

201

2

Li, C., et al., 2006. Modelling nitrate leaching with a biogeochemical model modified based onobservations in a row-crop field in Iowa. Ecological modelling, 196, 116–130.

Ministry of Environment, 1998. [online] Available from: http://www.blst.dk/Lovomraader/NytOmNBL/nov98_215_225.htm [Accessed 9 March 2010].

Ministry of Environment, 2009. Agreement on green growth. [online] Available from: http://www.mim.dk/NR/rdonlyres/54887891-D450-4CD7-B823-CD5B12C6867A/0/DanishAgreementonGreenGrowth_300909.pdf [Accessed 9 March 2010].

Nassauer, J.I. and Corry, R.L., 2004. Using normative scenarios in landscape ecology.Landscape ecology, 19, 343–356.

Nassauer, J.I., Corry, R.C., and Cruse, R.M., 2002. The landscape in 2025: alternativelandscape future scenarios: a means to consider agricultural policy. Journal of soil waterconservation, 57, 44–53.

Palang, H., Alumae, H., and Mander, U., 2000. Holistic aspects in landscape development: ascenario approach. Landscape and urban planning, 50, 85–94.

Primdahl, J., 1990. Heterogeneity in agriculture and landscape: from segregation tointegration. Landscape and urban planning, 18, 221–228.

Rasmussen, S., 2003. Driftsøkonomiske tab ved pesticidfri dyrkning af landbrugsafgrøder – etcasestudium. [Farm economic losses in pesticide free farming – a case study] (in Danish).Copenhagen: Department of Economics, Royal Danish Veterinary College.

Scharling, M. and Kern-Hansen, C., 2002. Klimagrid Danmark. Nedbør og fordampning 1990–2000 (in Danish). Technical Report 02-03. Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut.

Schoute, J.F.T., et al., 1995. Scenario studies for the rural environment. Dordrecht: KluwerAcademic Publishers.

Sisk, T.D., et al., 2006. Participatory landscape analysis to guide restoration of ponderosa pineecosystems in the American Southwest. Landscape and urban planning, 78, 300–310.

Soliva, R. and Hunziker, M., 2008. Beyond the visual dimension: using ideal type narratives toanalyse people’s assessments of landscape scenarios. Land use policy, 26, 284–294.

Thomsen, R., Søndergard,V.H., and Sørensen, K.I., 2004. Hydrogeological mapping asa basis for establishing site-specific groundwater protection zones in Denmark.Hydrogeology journal, 12, 550–562.

Tress, B. and Tress, G., 2003. Scenario visualization for participatory landscape planning – astudy for Denmark. Landscape and urban planning, 64, 161–178.

Webb, R.M.T., et al., 2008. Variations in pesticide leaching related to land use, pesticideproperties, and unsaturated zone thickness. Journal of environmental quality, 37, 1145–1157.

Wendland, F., et al., 2009. Determination of nitrogen reduction levels necessary to reachgroundwater quality targets in large river basins: the Weser basin case study, Germany.Nutrient cycling in agroecosystems, 85, 63–78.

Wollenburg, E., Edmunds, D., and Buck, L., 2000. Using scenarios to make decisions aboutthe future: anticipatory learning for the adaptive co-management of community forests.Landscape and urban planning, 47, 65–77.

Ørum, J.E., 2003. Driftsøkonomisk analyse af reduceret pesticidanvendelse i dansk landbrug – enopdatering af Bicheludvalgets analyser [Farm economic potential for reduced use of pesticidesin Danish agriculture]. Report no 163 in Danish Copenhagen: FødevareøkonomiskInstitut, Ministeriet for Fødevarer, Landbrug og Fiskeri [Ministry for Food, Agricultureand Fishing].

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1187

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Det

Kgl

Bib

l Nat

l bib

l og

Kbh

Uni

v bi

bl]

at 0

4:44

14

Febr

uary

201

2