1

CSA 6 - Chłapowski Landscape Park in Poland”

Warsaw University of Life Sciences – SGGWAgata Malak-Rawlikowska, Edward Majewski

2

CSA 6 - ChłapowskiLandscape Park

Lowland agricultural Landscape

Area: 17220 ha (172,2 km²), Flat, altitude 80 m

3

4

Contribution of landscape to regional

competitiveness,BBN network

1.Impact of the CAP to the provision

of landscape functions and services;

2. Mechanisms compatibility with

expectations

Composition and structure,

functions

Preferences and

awarness

Research questions

5

Methods

• Landscape components and structure (inventory) (Q1)– use of GIS, soil maps, other maps, indicators, synthetic index of landscape

architecture;

• Preferences of stakeholders (Q2)– VALUATION Method: Thurstone’s model of statistical judgment (pair-wise ranking

approach); survey (200 questionnaires);

• Awareness of landscape services (Q3)– Statistical analysis based on Survey: farmers, other citizens, tourists, citizens

outside the park;

• Mechanisms and governance (Q4)– Interviews with farmers (30) and local governments, studying documentation;

6

Methods

Q5. Landscape elements -> services -> benefits -> competitiveness,– Belief Network Approach (focused on probabilistic relation between landscape

elements, functions/services, benefits and competitiveness assessed by experts )

Q6. Potential impact of CAP instruments on landscape – Farm optimisation model for farms surveyed within the park area. – Scenario analysis.

7

Main Outcomes

8

Q1. what are the characteristics of two different landscapes (components, structure ) in the Park and

outside in the adjacent region?

Research questions (1)

9

Landscape in Case Study Region

TUREW - PARK Kościan – Outside the Park Czempin – Outside the Park

TUREW KOSCIAN CZEMPIN

Field-Tree borders (km)

L. Shannon index:

L. Concentration Index:(HHI)

225 km (53m/ha)

0,70

0,68

131 (39m/ha)

0,56

0,81

140 (27m/ha)

0,46

0,79

Q.1

10

Main Landscape Functions are:

Provisioning Food

Regulating Wind erosion prevention, reducing water deficit,

Cultural & amenity

Recreation/tourismAesthetic appreciationHabitat for species

Q.1

11

Research questions (2 and 3)

Q2. what are the preferences of stakeholders towards landscape components?

Q3. how good is awareness of landscape services among different groups of stakeholders?

12

Preferences towards landscape elements (1)

Forest Fields Pastures Road-treelines Shelterbelts Rivers Field ponds Architecture0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0farmerhabitant outside the parkvisitor in parkhabitant of the park

Q2 Preferences towards various Landscape elements differ significantly in various groups of stakeholders (the most distinctive in farmers group)

Q.2

13

Preferences towards landscape elements (2)

Forest Fields Pastures Road-treelines Shelterbelts Rivers Field ponds Architecture0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

p=0,02

p<0,0001

p<0,0001 p=0,16p=0,05

p=0,29

p<0,0001

p<0,0001farmerhabitant outside the parkvisitor in parkhabitant of the park

The largest differences in preferences are in case of fields, pastures, architecture

Farmers evaluate their preferences more according to economic utility whereas other groups taking into account more aesthetic appreciation

Q.2

14

Awareness of landscape services

Evaluation of importance of different shelterbelts functions by groups of respondents (1-not important; 5-very important)

Q.3

farmer habitant outside the park visitor habitant of the park3

4

5

Shelterbelts services are important but not often perceived as such by farmers Most aware are farmers and local inhabitants

(but still awareness of detailed services is low)

15

Research questions (4)

Q4. are mechanisms and governance compatible with expectations of stakeholders towards landscape?

16

• Q4 There are mechanisms which clearly target landscape elements and protection at local government level.

• Q4 Local habitants (incl. Farmers) have moderate interest in landscape protection and small expectations from local governments in this matter – it might a consequence of low awareness of landscape services

• Q4 There is an information gap between governance structures and farm/habitants concerning importance and functions of agricultural landscape.

17

Research questions (5)

Q5. what might be the potential impact of Landscape composition and structure on regional

competitiveness?

18

The BBN Model

WaterYesNo

50.050.0

ForestYesNo

50.050.0

ShelterbeltsYesNo

100 0

FieldsYesNo

50.050.0

HabitatHighLow

65.434.6

Food_productionHighLow

50.050.0

EstheticHighLow

57.542.5

ProtectionHighLow

82.517.5

YieldsHighLow

52.647.4

EmploymentHighLow

57.642.4

TourismHighLow

65.534.5

BiodiversityHighLow

55.644.4 Competitiveness

HighAverageLow

41.230.328.5

19

Q5. All considered landscape elements (fields, forests, shelterbelts, and water reservoirs) have a positive influence on regional competitiveness

Q5. The agricultural fields and pastures have the strongest, positive impact on the competitiveness of the region showing the potential to increase the chance of high competitiveness by about 20%.

Q5. Maintaining shelterbelts creates specific landscape features and increases competitiveness of the region by 5%, having an impact on productivity and profitability of the agricultural sector.

20

Research questions (6)

Q6. what might be the potential impact of CAP instruments on landscape management and

components?

21

Q6. The results show difference in economic performance of surveyed farms depending on shelterbelts existence in Chłapowski Landscape Park.

Q6. When assuming preservation of shelterbelts, Introduction of CAP „greening” has a low impact on farm incomes and production in the Park area. Recognition of landscape elements as an EFA equivalent leads to an increase of net farm income.

Q6. CAP scenarios that assume removal of shelterbelts show a strong negative influence on the level of Net Farm Incomes.

22

Thank you for your attention!