Land use modelling for sustaining multiple functions in the rural countryside with an application in the Achterhoek Region, the Netherlands

  • C. Martijn van der Heide
  • Koen P. Overmars
  • Roel A. Jongeneel


The rural countryside in Europe has many functions. Although its main function is the production of food and other primary goods, the rural countryside also provides the available space for many human activities, such as settlements, recreation and tourism, and it contributes to human well-being by providing opportunities for cultural, intellectual and spiritual inspiration. Moreover, the rural countryside has the capacity to supply essential ecological processes and services that contribute to the maintenance of a healthy environment, for example by biogeochemical cycling and by providing clean air, water and soil. The term multifunctionality encapsulates the various functions of the rural countryside. Note that although the importance of the different functions vary between localities, regions and countries, all European rural landscapes fulfil multiple functions simultaneously.


Cellular Automaton Future Land Land Claim Spatial Policy National Ecological Network 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Berger T, Couclelis H, Manson SM, Parker DC (2002) Part 1: Introduction and conceptual overview. pp. 1–6. In: Parker DC, Berger T, Manson SM (eds). Agent-Based Models of Land-Use and Land-Cover Change; Report and Review of an International Workshop, October 4–7, 2001. Indiana University, LUCC Report Series No. 6.Google Scholar
  2. Berjak SG, Hearne JW (2002). An improved cellular automaton model for simulating fire in a spatially heterogeneous Savanna system. Ecological Modelling 148: 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bockstael NE (1996) Modeling economics and ecology: the importance of a spatial perspective. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78: 1168–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. CLUE manual (2004) Available on the Internet: Scholar
  5. Costanza R (1989) Model goodness of fit: a multiple resolution procedure. Ecological Modelling 47: 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Costanza R and Ruth M (1998) Using Dynamic Modeling to Scope Environmental Problems and Build Consensus. Environmental Management 22: 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dunkerley DL (1999) Banded chenopod shrublands of arid Australia: modelling responses to interannual rainfall variability with cellular automata. Ecological Modelling 121: 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischer G, Sun L (2001) Model based analysis of future land-use development in China. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 85: 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Groot WT de (1992) Environmental science theory; Concepts and methods in a one-world, problem oriented paradigm, Amsterdam, Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Hanley N, Shogren JF, White B (1997) Environmental Economics in Theory and Practice. Houndmill-London, MacMillan Press Ltd.Google Scholar
  11. Heide CM van der (2005) An Economic Analysis of Nature Policy. Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit, Tinbergen Institute Research Series no. 356, Ph.D. thesis.Google Scholar
  12. Jongeneel R, Slangen LHG (2004) Multifunctionality in agriculture and the contestable public domain in the Netherlands. In: Brouwer F (ed) Sustaining Agriculture and the Rural Environment; Governance, Policy and Multifunctionality. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, USA, Edward Elgar, pp. 183–203Google Scholar
  13. Karafyllidis I, Thanailakis A (1997) A model for predicting forest fire spreading using cellular automata. Ecological Modelling 99: 87–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kok K, Farrow A, Veldkamp A, Verburg PH (2001) A method and application of multi-scale validation in spatial land use models. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 85: 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kooten GC van, Folmer H (2004) Land and Forest Economics. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, USA, Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  16. OECD (2001) Multifunctionality; Towards an Analytical Framework. Paris, OECD.Google Scholar
  17. Overmars KP, de Groot WT, Huigen MGA (2006) Comparing inductive and deductive modeling of land use decisions: principles, a model and an illustration from the Philippines. Human Ecology (accepted).Google Scholar
  18. Overmars KP, Verburg PH (2006) Comparison of an actor-based and an empirical approach to specify a spatially explicit land use model. Land Use Policy (in press).Google Scholar
  19. Parker CC, Berger T (2002) Part 4: Synthesis and Discussion. In: Parker DC, Berger T, Manson SM (eds) Agent-Based Models of Land-Use and Land-Cover Change; Report and Review of an International Workshop, October 4–7, 2001. Indiana University, LUCC Report Series No. 6., pp. 79–88.Google Scholar
  20. Parker DC, Manson SM, Janssen MA, Hoffman MJ, Deadman P (2003) Multi-agent systems for the simulation of land-use and land-cover change: a review. Annals of the Association of the American Geographers 93: 314–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Plantinga AJ, Miller DJ (2001) Agricultural land values and the value of rights to future land development. Land Economics 77: 56–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pontius Jr RG, Huffaker D, Denman K (2004) Useful techniques of validation for spatially explicit land-change models. Ecological Modelling 179: 445–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Proost S (1999) Public economics and environmental policy. pp. 329–338. In: JCJM van den Bergh (ed.). Handbook of Environmental and Resource Economics. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, USA, Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  24. Provincie Gelderland (2004) Gebiedsplan Natuur en Landschap Gelderland. Available on the Internet: (in Dutch).Google Scholar
  25. Verburg PH, van Eck JRR, de Nijs TCM, Visser H, de Jong K (2004a) A method to analyse neighbourhood characteristics of land use patterns. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 28: 667–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Verburg PH, Schot P, Dijst M, Velkamp A (2004b) Land-use change modelling: current practice and research priorities. GeoJournal 61: 309–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Verburg PH, Soepboer W, Veldkamp A, Limpiada R, Espaldon V, Sharifah Mastura SA (2002) Modeling the spatial dynamics of regional land use: the CLUE-S model. Environmental Management 30: 391–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Verburg PH, Veldkamp A (2004) Projecting land use transitions at forest fringes in the Philippines at two spatial scales. Landscape Ecology, 19: 77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Voinov A, Costanza R, Wainger L, Boumans R, Villa F, Maxwell T, Voinov H (1999) Patuxent landscape model: integrated ecological economic modeling of a watershed. Environmental Modelling and Software 14: 473–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wit AJW de, van der Heijden TGC, Thunnissen HAM (1999) Vervaardiging en nauwkeurigheid van het LGN3-grondgebruiksbestand. Rapport 663, DLO-Staring Centrum, Wageningen (in Dutch).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. Martijn van der Heide
    • 1
  • Koen P. Overmars
    • 2
  • Roel A. Jongeneel
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Public Issues DivisionAgricultural Economics Research Institute (LEI)The HagueThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Chair group Soil Inventory and Land Evaluation, (SIL)Wageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Agricultural Economics and Rural Policy GroupWageningen UniversityWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations