摘要 :
? 2022CONTEXT: The potential of marginal lands to improve food security, support bioenergy production or ecosystem services has globally got a lot of attention. Defining agricultural marginal land is a task that involves more than...
展开
? 2022CONTEXT: The potential of marginal lands to improve food security, support bioenergy production or ecosystem services has globally got a lot of attention. Defining agricultural marginal land is a task that involves more than just considering the land's quality, its definition changed a lot during the last two centuries. OBJECTIVE: Development of new technologies and policy trends require the concepts of prime land and marginal land to be renewed from time to time. Although much research has been done on the concept of marginal land, it is currently limited by the lack of a clear, globally accepted definition. METHOD: There are four major sources of criteria of marginal lands: economic (e.g., rent cost, land value), geographical (e.g., temperature, slope, precipitation), ecosystem-based (e.g., protected areas, recreation, ecosystem services), soil suitability (e.g., yield capability, physical and chemical soil properties). The categorisation of agricultural land into groups like productive, marginal or unproductive often depends on the cultivation or management type. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Since conceptions of marginal land are dynamic both in time and space, flexible policy and practical solutions are needed for their non-degrading use, which in any case shall support nature-based socioeconomic development. To maintain the socioeconomic value of these areas, it is crucial to develop rural areas that are economically or biophysically marginalised. High nature value farming, bioenergy crops by sustainable land management and afforestation are highly recommended. Choosing the right management can transform marginal land into an optimal soil condition or incorrect management can degrade prime land into marginal land (unproductive land). SIGNIFICANCE: This paper provides a review and categorisation of the historical and new developments of marginal land concepts especially those which are working with agricultural aspects, including land management and reclamation. It could give a strong basis for further research in topic of marginal land.
收起
摘要 :
The idea of using less productive or "marginal land" for energy crops is promoted as a way to overcome the previous land use controversies faced by biofuels. It is argued that marginal land use would not compete with food producti...
展开
The idea of using less productive or "marginal land" for energy crops is promoted as a way to overcome the previous land use controversies faced by biofuels. It is argued that marginal land use would not compete with food production, is widely available and would incur fewer environmental impacts. This term is notoriously vague however, as are the details of how marginal land use for energy crops would work in practice. This paper explores definitions of the term "marginal land" in academic, consultancy, NGO, government and industry documents in the UK. It identifies three separate definitions of the term: land unsuitable for food production; ambiguous lower quality land; and economically marginal land. It probes these definitions further by exploring the technical, normative and political assumptions embedded within them. It finds that the first two definitions are normatively motivated: this land should be used to overcome controversies and the latter definition is predictive: this land is likely to be used. It is important that the different advantages, disadvantages and implications of the definitions are spelled out so definitions are not conflated to create unrealistic expectations about the role of marginal land in overcoming biofuels land use controversies.
收起
摘要 :
A transparent and conceptual partial equilibrium model of global land use is used to explore long-term effects of large-scale introduction of bioenergy, under different policy cases. The transparency of the model, and the consider...
展开
A transparent and conceptual partial equilibrium model of global land use is used to explore long-term effects of large-scale introduction of bioenergy, under different policy cases. The transparency of the model, and the consideration of clear-cut policies, provides a clear picture of how main mechanisms of land-use competition work, and how they influence the food and bioenergy systems. The model is subjected to a detailed characterization, in which parameters critical to the results and conclusions are detected and their impacts depicted. A large-scale introduction of bioenergy would raise food prices in all cases/scenarios investigated, and relative price increases of extensively produced crops would be at least twice as high as compared to intensively produced crops. Banning production of bioenergy from the most productive land (limiting production to "marginal land") would reduce this price impact. However, we show that bioenergy is unlikely to ever be produced on any commercial scale only on land of low productivity. The economic incentives would be strong for owners of more productive land to grow bioenergy anyway and out-compete the more costly production on low yielding land. Large-scale deforestation would become attractive in response to increased bioenergy demand, especially for extensive production systems such as grazing.
收起
摘要 :
This study elicits willingness to supply marginal land for biomass cultivation in Southern Lower Michigan. Most of the surveyed landowners are not interested in renting land for bioenergy crop production. Those who are interested ...
展开
This study elicits willingness to supply marginal land for biomass cultivation in Southern Lower Michigan. Most of the surveyed landowners are not interested in renting land for bioenergy crop production. Those who are interested offer relatively little land for bioenergy crops, even at rental rates three times current levels. Willing landowners would prefer to grow a significant portion of these crops on cropland rather than non-crop, marginal land. Hence, the area of marginal land that owners are willing to supply for bioenergy crop production falls far short of area estimates based on remote sensing that ignore landowner preferences. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
收起
摘要 :
Marginal land provides an alternative potential for food and bioenergy production in the face of limited land resources; however, effective assessment of marginal lands is not well addressed. Concerns over environmental risks, eco...
展开
Marginal land provides an alternative potential for food and bioenergy production in the face of limited land resources; however, effective assessment of marginal lands is not well addressed. Concerns over environmental risks, ecosystem services and sustainability for marginal land have been widely raised. The objective of this study was to develop a hierarchical marginal land assessment framework for land use planning and management. We first identified major land functions linking production, environment, ecosystem services and economics, and then classified land resources into four categories of marginal land using suitability and limitations associated with major management goals, including physically marginal land, biologically marginal land, environmentally ecologically marginal land, and economically marginal land. We tested this assessment framework in southwestern Michigan, USA. Our results indicated that this marginal land assessment framework can be potentially feasible on land use planning for food and bioenergy production, and balancing multiple goals of land use management. We also compared our results with marginal land assessment from the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and land capability classes (LCC) that are used in the US. The hierarchical assessment framework has advantages of quantitatively reflecting land functions and multiple concerns. This provides a foundation upon which focused studies can be identified in order to improve the assessment framework by quantifying high-resolution land functions associated with environment and ecosystem services as well as their criteria needed to improve the assessment framework.Digital Object Identifier http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.03.002
收起
摘要 :
Marginal land provides an alternative potential for food and bioenergy production in the face of limited land resources; however, effective assessment of marginal lands is not well addressed. Concerns over environmental risks, eco...
展开
Marginal land provides an alternative potential for food and bioenergy production in the face of limited land resources; however, effective assessment of marginal lands is not well addressed. Concerns over environmental risks, ecosystem services and sustainability for marginal land have been widely raised. The objective of this study was to develop a hierarchical marginal land assessment framework for land use planning and management. We first identified major land functions linking production, environment, ecosystem services and economics, and then classified land resources into four categories of marginal land using suitability and limitations associated with major management goals, including physically marginal land, biologically marginal land, environmentally ecologically marginal land, and economically marginal land. We tested this assessment framework in southwestern Michigan, USA. Our results indicated that this marginal land assessment framework can be potentially feasible on land use planning for food and bioenergy production, and balancing multiple goals of land use management. We also compared our results with marginal land assessment from the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and land capability classes (LCC) that are used in the US. The hierarchical assessment framework has advantages of quantitatively reflecting land functions and multiple concerns. This provides a foundation upon which focused studies can be identified in order to improve the assessment framework by quantifying high-resolution land functions associated with environment and ecosystem services as well as their criteria needed to improve the assessment framework.Digital Object Identifier http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.03.002
收起
摘要 :
Growing bioenergy feedstocks can provide a long-term sustainable production system for marginal land resources and is essential for minimizing food vs. fuel competition for prime croplands. However, the term “marginal” is too of...
展开
Growing bioenergy feedstocks can provide a long-term sustainable production system for marginal land resources and is essential for minimizing food vs. fuel competition for prime croplands. However, the term “marginal” is too often used in research reports without being defined. We here suggest that clearly specifying the biophysical factors and agroeconomic context contributing to marginality will greatly enhance the utility and comparability of published research.
收起
摘要 :
The current global wave of land acquisition variously debated as land grabbing or investment in land is promoted by the World Bank and the FAO as creating win win-situations for local populations and investors alike. Common policy...
展开
The current global wave of land acquisition variously debated as land grabbing or investment in land is promoted by the World Bank and the FAO as creating win win-situations for local populations and investors alike. Common policy recommendations suggest expanding the production of export crops, by making use of marginal or unused land. Considerable potentials for such an expansion are assumed. Taking Tanzania as a case study, the evidence for such types of land is assessed by using a broad range of statistics. We will argue firstly, that the terms marginal and unused land serve as a manipulative terminology for the benefit of attempts to commercially valorize and commodify African landscapes, from biofuel to large-scale food production and tourism. However, they relate to different rationalities of domination. Unused land refers to a state-bureaucratic narrative, which excludes user groups deemed irrelevant for national development, while marginal land refers to a capitalist-economic narrative that excludes what is not profitable. Secondly, the terms are analyzed as categories central for state simplification of social relations attached to land. Modelling of these land use categories based on remote sensing is an attempt to compensate weak state capacities to enhance the legibility of the landscape by constructing it as a landscape of commercial value. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
收起
摘要 :
Safeguarding food security is one of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. When food production reaches its technological peak, a shortage of arable land will be the key factor that limits food production. Thus, how to ...
展开
Safeguarding food security is one of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. When food production reaches its technological peak, a shortage of arable land will be the key factor that limits food production. Thus, how to increase the area of arable land without ecological damage is a problem faced by the whole world. China is the world's most populous country and a traditional agricultural country. Under the pressure of rapid socioeconomic development, China has taken measures to protect its cultivated land from environmental degradation and protect its food security. By reviewing the research literature, we found several ways to increase the area of arable land while protecting this land from damage. We found that natural resources such as marginal and degraded lands could potentially be converted into arable land while still protecting the ecological environment. However, implementation of such a strategy must account for each region's unique ecological and socioeconomic conditions, and will require both support from appropriate policies and ongoing monitoring and support. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
收起
摘要 :
Glaeser and Gyourko’s method of measuring the gap between marginal and average land prices of housing lots has become a popular way of demonstrating the degree to which planning controls, or ‘regulatory taxes’, increase residen...
展开
Glaeser and Gyourko’s method of measuring the gap between marginal and average land prices of housing lots has become a popular way of demonstrating the degree to which planning controls, or ‘regulatory taxes’, increase residential land prices. This has led policy-makers across the globe to focus on town planning as a critical determinant of rising home prices. We show, however, that Glaeser and Gyourko’s method shows no such thing. Instead, the price gap is a product of the location premium of land, diminishing returns to buyers of residential land size, and historical city development patterns. Numerous shortcomings are identified in their theoretical model, including that (a) they ignore that development happens over time; (b) their ‘regulatory tax’ is simply the location value of land; (c) they reason inconsistently about the source of land prices, arguing that land at the margins is scarce but locations for whole housing lots are not; and (d) there are no optimal lot sizes nor subdivision incentives in their model. Standard price-taking models of residential land markets that recognize that locations are scarce contain none of these limitations and provide a better interpretation of land price patterns. Empirically, we show that Glaeser and Gyourko’s method finds a high ‘regulatory tax’ even in the absence of regulatory constraints using both simulated suburb development scenarios and historical land sales data from colonial Australia and ancient Mesopotamia. In short, there is no information regarding the effect of planning controls on the supply of new dwellings in a comparison of marginal and average land prices, and this method should not be relied upon to inform planning and housing policy decisions.
收起
原文获取