Landscape diversity and the resilience of agricultural returns: a portfolio analysis of land-use patterns and economic returns from lowland agriculture
© Abson et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013
Received: 9 May 2012
Accepted: 2 November 2012
Published: 7 January 2013
Conventional agriculture is increasingly based on highly specialized, highly productive farms. It has been suggested that 1) this specialization leads to farms that lack resilience to changing market and environmental conditions; and 2) that by decreasing agricultural diversity, the resilience of the farming system also decreases.
We used agricultural gross margin (GM) forecasts from 1966 to 2010 and remote sensing data from agricultural landscapes in the lowland UK, in conjunction with modern portfolio theory, to test the hypothesis that decreasing land-use diversity results in landscapes that provide higher, but more volatile, economic returns. We considered the role of spatial scale on the expected levels of volatility and resilience of agricultural returns.
We found that: 1) there was a strong linear trade-off between expected GMs and the expected volatility of those GMs in real lowland agricultural landscapes in the UK; 2) land-use diversification was negatively correlated with expected GMs from agriculture, and positively correlated with decreasing expected volatility in GMs; 3) the resilience of agricultural returns was positively correlated with the diversity of agricultural land use, and the resilience of agricultural returns rose quickly with increased land-holding size at small spatial extents, but this effect diminished after landholdings reached 12,000 hectares.
Land-use diversity may have an important role in ensuring resilient agricultural returns in the face of uncertain market and environmental conditions, and land-holding size plays a pivotal role in determining the relationships between resilience and returns at a landscape scale. Creating finer-grained land-use patterns based on pre-existing local land uses may increase the resilience of individual farms, while maintaining aggregate yield across landscapes.
KeywordsResilience Agro-diversity index Agro-ecology Specialization Landscape heterogeneity Land use
Coefficient of variation
Great British pound
June Agricultural Census
Land Cover Map 2000
Modern portfolio theory
- H′ :
Shannon’s diversity index.
During the past 60 years, changes in the agricultural industry have led to a global agrifood system dominated by large, capital-intensive farms [1–3]. These farms are increasingly specialized in terms of the crops they produce, and hence are dependent on inputs from other sectors of the economy [4–6]. This change in agriculture has been driven by the search for increased economic efficiency, economies of scale, and reduced marginal costs of production. However, the homogenization of agriculture may have an unintended drawback, and some evidence suggests that these more specialized farms are also less resilient [7–12] and that they experience increased income volatility [13–15]. Hence, there may be trade-offs between agricultural returns and the resilience of those returns in modern farming systems.
We present the results of an empirical study that used data on forecasted annual average agricultural gross margins (GMs) between 1966 and 2010 and data on land-use diversity (derived from census data and satellite imagery) to examine the relationships between landscape units with different levels of agricultural diversity and the amount and volatility of the expected GMs from agriculture that each different landscape unit provided. We examined this relationship at a range of different spatial scales to address two core research questions. We investigated first, whether more specialized landscapes (that is, those with lower land-use diversity) have higher average GMs, and second, whether more specialized landscapes have more volatile returns. In addition, we examined the role of spatial scaling of land-use patterns in real landscapes on these two relationships. Together, these analyses indicate the extent to which, and at what scales, there may be a trade-off between expected GMs and the volatility and resilience of those expected GMs.
Resilience and agricultural systems
The central theoretical concept in this paper is that of ‘resilience’, derived from systems dynamics thinking, which the literature broadly describes as the tendency of a system to return to its original state following a disturbance. Resilience therefore has a number of properties: the ease with which a system can be disturbed (resistance), the way in which a system returns to its pre-disturbance state (that is, its speed and trajectory), and the propensity for a system to move to an alternative stable state following disturbance [16, 17]. Resilience is often interpreted as a measure of either the size of the perturbation required to flip a system into a new dynamically stable state (regime shifts or system identity shifts) [18, 19] or the capacity of a system to maintain its current equilibrium state in the face of perturbations .
Operationalizing resilience in many empirical situations is complex, thus system behavior typically either needs a systems model or experimental perturbation to assess the way in which the system responds. Both of these factors are difficult to simulate for large-scale, complex systems. In some extreme examples, a regime shift can be identified by very significant changes. Notable examples include the Dust Bowl period of the 1930s in North America, when a prolonged drought rendered millions of hectares of farmland unproductive, and displaced hundreds of thousands of people from their homes ; the Ethiopian Famine in the 1980s, when a relatively minor drought triggered a catastrophic famine [22–24]; or the Irish Potato Famine, when the failure of a single crop caused a permanent depopulation of western Ireland [25, 26]. Although extremely important, studying such tragedies lends itself to a qualitative case study-based research approach, and are difficult to analyze quantitatively, for a sample of other case studies see [27, 28].
Attempts to quantify resilience in the absence of clear regime shifts are hampered by the multi-dimensional nature of the concept, particularly given that the different properties of resilience may be quantified in incommensurable units. As most systems are continually disturbed and fluctuate around a quasi-equilibrium state , examining resilience as the relationship between the size of disturbance and the effect of that disturbance [29–31] is perhaps more generally useful. For most applications to agricultural systems not subject to catastrophic change, this element of resilience can be articulated as the stability of agricultural returns in the presence of different exogenous shocks . Agricultural returns are inherently volatile, and change in response to a range of exogenous (for example, disease outbreaks, climate, currency exchange rates, market forces, rapidly changing subsidy systems) and endogenous (for example, crop choice) factors [33, 34], with the returns from different agricultural sectors being sensitive to different exogenous drivers of change .
One of the key themes deriving from the resilience literature is the hypothesis that agricultural landscapes that are more heterogeneous may also be more resilient in terms of the stability of agricultural returns, as such diverse landscapes should reduce risk (defined in terms of the expected variance in returns [28, 36–41]). However, there is potentially an inherent trade-off, in that a diversified strategy reduces volatility at the cost of reduced expected mean returns. The concept of ‘bet-hedging’ captures this dichotomy; in highly variable systems, strategies that trade off the variance against mean returns can often be superior [42–44]. Hence, in this study, we were interested in determining whether land-use diversity influences the volatility and resilience of the expected GMs in agricultural landscapes.
Land-use diversification has the potential to reduce resilience (expected volatility of GM per unit of expected GM) because the returns generated from an individual land use are dependent on a relatively narrow range of weather conditions and the vagaries of commodity price. Both weather conditions and commodity markets have become increasingly erratic [45, 46], causing concerns that farm returns have become less resilient . For example, between 1990 and 2007, the average annual net income of a UK farming enterprise (excluding horticulture) was approximately £23,000; however, this averaged figure hides the significant volatility in these returns over this time period, with the average return ranging from approximately £45,000 in 2002 to just £8,700 in 2000 .
In this research, we quantified the volatility of agricultural returns in terms of the expected standard deviation (SD) of GMs and economic resilience (or rather one important aspect of economic resilience) as the coefficient of variation (CV) in expected GM. CV is a normalized measure of dispersion of a probability distribution, which is defined as the ratio of the SD to the mean. In this case, we used the ratio of the expected (mean) GMs to the expected SD of the expected GMs as our measure of resilience. We based this on the assumption that agricultural land-use portfolios (the choice of agricultural land-use investments within a landscape) that provide a lower expected variance to returns ratio would be more resilient. It should be noted that we did not address the resilience of individual farmers, which would require detailed knowledge of the assets, capacities and access to formal and informal institutional support of individual farmers; rather, we sought to investigate the potential role of land-use diversification on the volatility and resilience of returns from agriculture.
We examined this question at a range of different spatial scales (from 25 to 3600 hectares) to investigate the degree to which spatial extent would influence the results.
Modern portfolio theory (MPT) provides analytical tools for investigating the relationships between land-use choices, expected GMs, and the expected variance in those GMs on a landscape scale. MPT was developed in the field of finance in the 1950s, to quantify the optimum level of diversification that would balance risks (the expected variance in returns) and the expected mean return of a given investment portfolio . The key concept in portfolio management is that income streams are additive, whereas risks may partially cancel each other out [49, 50]. The logic is that diversification in a portfolio can reduce the risk (or the expected variance) of the portfolio’s returns to perturbations, as long as not all possible investments respond in the same way to the same shocks; that is, provided there is not perfect covariance over time in the returns from different agricultural activities. This concept can be applied to agricultural systems by considering the different land-use choices as the individual elements of a portfolio. Therefore, the key to reducing expected variance in returns is for a farmer to select a diversity of land uses that will respond differently to market, institutional, or environmental perturbations. For example, when this concept is applied to an agricultural system of wheat and oats, it is clear that the inputs needed to produce both of these crops are roughly the same (because the crops are of a similar type, namely cereals), and thus the costs of these inputs are likely to increase or decrease by the same amount (this is called a systematic risk). However, the market price of these crops is inversely correlated; wheat prices often increase at the same time as the price of oats decreases (this is called a unique risk) . Thus, by investing in both wheat and oats, the farmer can diversify away the unique risks associated with market-price volatility.
The application of MPT to natural rather than financial assets has, to date, been limited. It has been suggested that the principles of MPT could be transferable to the field of biodiversity conservation , and MPT has previously been used to quantify the risk and return profiles of individual farmers in Northern Ireland  and to the genetic diversity within cereal crops [53, 54]. It has also been suggested that MPT is an appropriate tool for assessing vulnerability of food systems through the diversification of crop production and the basket of food entitlements . However, the application of MPT to agricultural landscape patterns represents a novel approach to operationalizing agricultural ecosystem resilience.
In this study, we used published data for land use and expected average agricultural GM data in conjunction with MPT to analyze the relationships between land-use diversity, expected mean returns for agriculture, and the expected variance and resilience of those returns in three UK lowland agricultural regions. This analysis differs from previous applications of MPT to agricultural land-use investments  in that it used real land-use patterns to assess the relationships between expected returns and expected variance of returns for actual land-use portfolios.
We used published satellite-derived land-cover data and livestock estimates to quantify spatially explicit agricultural land-use patterns in each region. To assess diversity, this land-use data was used to calculate a diversity index score for each landscape unit. For assessment of expected agricultural GMs, we used published annual forecasts of expected agricultural GMs to calculate the average GMs (including income from agricultural subsidies) of the farming activities found in each region over the period 1966 to 2010. To assess the relationship between agricultural returns, resilience, and diversity, we used a number of metrics that allowed us to assess the expected mean, SD, and CV of agricultural GMs in these landscapes, using the analytic tools of MPT, and then we related these to land-use diversity.
Three lowland regions broadly representative of lowland English agriculture were selected for investigation. Each region represents a different spatial arrangement of agricultural activities. Region 1 (south-west region) is primarily (but far from exclusively) a livestock and dairy farming region. Region 2 (south central region) represents a more mixed agricultural landscape, including horticulture, arable, and dairy farming. Region 3 (in eastern England) is dominated by larger expanses of arable farming compared with the other two regions, with increasing concentrations of horticultural production in the northeast corner. Within these three regions, 353 individual sites each 1 km2 in size (the small red squares in Figure 1) and three regional sub-extents of 576 km2 each (the yellow squares in Figure 1) were selected for analysis. Using individual study sites allowed us to explore the relationship between landscape diversity, resilience, and agricultural returns between the study regions. Within the regional sub-extents, we analyzed nine portfolio sizes ranging from 25 to 3600 hectares, to reflect the range of farm land holdings typically found in UK lowland agricultural landscapes.
Data used to assess agricultural returns
We found only a single source of data that could provide consistent quantification of returns from UK agricultural activities over a suitable time frame, namely the John Nix Farm Management Pocketbook. The John Nix pocketbooks provide forecasts of annual farm GMs per hectare for different agricultural activities for the years 1966–2010 (no pocketbooks were produced for 1970, 1973, 1975, or 1982). The John Nix GM forecasts relate to the average expected margins of individual agricultural activities and not to the expected margins for individual farms. GM is defined as the difference between farm revenue (including subsides) and the associated variable costs for a given activity. Although GM does not include fixed costs and, therefore, is not a perfect measure of agricultural returns , it is a widely applied measure within the field of agricultural economics. However, it is important to note that the John Nix GM forecasts represent estimated average returns for England, and thus are likely to underestimate the actual variance in returns for individual landscapes, as they cannot account for variability in yields for a given field. Nevertheless, these data do provide an indicator of the covariance in GM for different land uses over a relatively long period (44 years), and therefore provide an insight into the role of land-use diversification as a means of reducing expected variance in returns.
Data used to assess land use
The assumptions used to select GM estimates a
Assumptions for GM from the pocketbooks
Average GM for average stocking rate (two cows per hectare) of Holstein Friesians
Managed grass (beef)
Lowland average GM for average spring and winter calving (single suckling)
Unmanaged grass (beef)
Upland average GM for average spring and winter calving (single suckling)
Lowland average GM for average spring and winter calving
Silage sales minus silage costs
Average GM for winter barley
Average GM for fodder maize
Average GM for winter-sown wheat
Average GM for spring-sown cereals (wheat, barley, and oats)
Average GM for winter-sown cereals (wheat, barley, and oats)
Field beans, peas
Average GM for winter-sown beans and dried peas
Average GM for carrots, onions, and broad beans
Average GM for linseed
Average GM for maincrop potatoes
Average GM for winter-sown oilseed rape
Average GM for sugar beet
Associating LCM2000 grassland types with the GM data was more difficult, as the LCM2000 data provides only information on land cover and not land use. For example, the LCM2000 reports managed grassland as a land cover; however, this may be used for raising different types of livestock, each of which will have different GMs. There are three primary land uses for lowland grassland: dairy, beef, and sheep production. Therefore, a number of assumptions had to be made in order to attribute GMs from these three land uses to grassland land covers. The LCM2000 data was reclassified as either managed grassland (intensive, managed calcareous, and grazing marsh) and unmanaged grass (rough grass, rough acid grass, unimproved/neutral grass, and calcareous unmanaged grass). Livestock estimates were drawn from the June Agricultural Census (JAC) for the year 2000 to estimate the livestock-based land uses for the LCM2000 grassland data. The JAC provided total livestock numbers for 4 km2 grid squares. The JAC grid square, within which each of the centroids of the 353 study sites fell, was spatially joined to the study sites using the geographic mapping system ArgGIS . This provided average per head estimates for the three livestock types in each study site. To allow for direct land-use comparisons between the three livestock types, livestock numbers were converted into livestock units (LUs). LUs represent the average land requirements for different livestock types, and we based these on LU conversion factors of 1 for dairy, 0.7 for beef and 0.12 for sheep . The LU ratios for each livestock type (based on LU values and per head estimates) was then used to estimate the proportion of grassland (identified from the LCM2000 data) used by each livestock type for each study site.
We assumed that managed grassland (70% of the total grassland extent) was used only for dairy and beef production, and that the unmanaged grass was used only for sheep and beef production. In practice, a small proportion of the lowland managed grassland is used for sheep production. However, the JAC data suggested that less than 2% of the grassland in the study regions are given over to sheep production and it is likely that only 10%  of this would be on managed grass. Therefore, we assumed that sheep would be confined only to unmanaged grasses. Through this process, four new land-use classes were created: dairy, beef (improved grass), beef (rough grazing), and sheep, for which the GM estimates from John Nix could be applied. Because of the difference in productivity between managed and unmanaged grasslands, the GM estimates for upland beef production were used to value beef on rough grazing, whereas the lowland GM estimates were applied to beef on improved grass. The lowland GM estimates were used for sheep. Table 1 details the final 16 land-use classes valued in the MPT analysis, and the assumptions used to estimate GM for each land use.
The LCM2000 land-cover map and JAC data were used in ArcGIS  to identify the agricultural land uses (including estimates of the livestock uses for grasslands) within each study site, and for each landscape in the regional and sub-regional analyses. Fragstats  was used to calculate the area covered and the percentage of the total landscape of each agricultural land use for each spatial extent. All land-use estimates were converted to per -hectare measurements when calculating annual expected returns. This allowed direct comparison between landscapes with different agricultural extents.
where P i = proportion of the landscape occupied by the land-use patch type i.
Analysis: applying modern portfolio theory to explore the relationships between productivity, resilience, and diversity
We used MPT to calculate the expected GMs, expected SD in GMs, and the CV of GMs for different land-use portfolios, where these metrics were assessed based on the inter-annual covariance of the forecast GMs of each land-use type over the analysis period (1966 to 2010). The calculations, all of which are based on the work of Sharpe , are detailed below.
The value of E p and σ p 2 were calculated for the different landscapes to allow the investigation of the relationships between agricultural land-use diversity, average expected economic GMs, and the relative resilience (that is, the CV) of those margins over time. .Here it should be noted that such measures of variance include both the ‘upside’ and ‘downside’ variances. Upside variance refers to variations above the mean, whereas where downside variance (or semi-variance) considers only deviation below the mean (in this case, the expected return Ep). There is an argument that that only downside variance should be considered, because deviations above the mean are desirable; however, semi-variance is difficult to apply to portfolios and may not be relevant. For instance, in cases where the distribution of returns is symmetric, the evaluation of portfolios based on upside and downside variance will be the same. Therefore, semi-variance was not used here. All GM values were converted to 2010 prices using the UK Treasury’s gross domestic product deflator .
Historic returns and resilience of individual land uses
Descriptive statistics of UK annual average GM per hectare (in 2010 prices) a,b
Proportion of land base across the three study regions, %
Predicted GM, GBP/hectare/year
StDev of predicted annual GMs across analysis period), GBP/hectare/year
CV of GM, %
Field beans, peas
Mean weighted by investment proportion
Historic correlations and covariance of land use, gross margins, and resilience
Correlation matrix of gross margins from different lowland agricultural land uses (1966 to 2010)
Beef (improved grass)
Beef (rough grass)
Beef (improved grass)
Beef (rough grass)
Relation between land-use diversity, expected gross margins, and expected variance in gross margins
Portfolio size, diversity, and the resilience of lowland agricultural landscapes in the UK
The expected mean GMs per hectare for the region 1 and 2 sub-extents were similar (GPB£710 and GBP£637/hectare/year, respectively; Figure 5). However, the mean CV across the sub-extents at portfolio sizes beyond 100 hectares was considerably lower in the more mixed agricultural region (sub-extent 2) than in the more heterogeneous livestock dominated region (sub-extent 1). The arable dominated regional sub-extent (region 3) had the highest mean returns per hectare (GBP£1,113/hectare/year) and the highest mean CV at all portfolio sizes (Figure 5b). All the regional sub-extents showed similar changes in mean CV with increased portfolio size. As the portfolios increased in size (thus taking in more land-use types), the mean economic resilience of the sub-extents increased (Figure 5b), with the CV dropping by around 5% as the landscape portfolios size increased from 25 to 400 hectares, and a reduction in CV of approximately 7% on average in the move from a portfolio size of 25 hectares to one of 1200 hectares. Beyond 1200 hectares, further increases in landscape portfolio extent made little difference to the mean resilience to returns structure, despite continued increases in portfolio diversity (Figure 5a,b).
It is notable that even small portfolios had CVs that were significantly lower than the weighted mean CV for individual land uses (Table 2), so even small amounts of land-use diversification can increase the resilience of agricultural returns, regardless of scale. A crucial finding here is that small increases in portfolio size dramatically decreased the CV of expected GMs in real lowland agricultural landscapes (suggesting increased economic resilience) and this held true in all three regions, with the majority of these gains occurring in the move from 25-hectare to 800-hectare landscape portfolios. This suggested that increases in diversity in lowland agricultural landscapes is likely to lead to increased economic resilience of those land-use, and that the most homogenous landscapes will benefit most from increased land-use diversity.
Agricultural GMs are often used in academic research as indicators of the economic functioning of farm enterprises [65–67] and agricultural landscapes [68, 69]. However, as shown in this paper, there are clear and statistically significant trade-offs between high expected GMs and the expected variance of those margins in the face of the constant environmental, economic, and policy perturbations in the real landscape, as studied here. Considering both the expected returns and the expected variance of agricultural returns may therefore provide a more complete understanding of the economic functioning of particular agricultural activities or agricultural landscapes.
This research suggests that one way to increase agricultural resilience would be to increase the diversity of land use within a landscape. This would provide a lower, but more stable, level of expected returns compared with a single land use, which gives high expected returns, but also high expected volatility of returns in the face of exogenous perturbations. The resilience of returns from agriculture is, in part, dependent not only on the agricultural economic resilience of individual land uses, but on the interactions of the expected returns between the different land uses present within any given landscape portfolio. More specifically, a mixture of cereal crops, livestock, dairy, and fodder crops creates a covariant returns structure that lowers the volatility of the aggregate returns, thereby increasing economic resilience across the landscape.
However, caution must be used in the interpretation of these results in terms of the resilience of individual farm enterprises, because the use of generalized estimates of GM is likely to have over-simplified the volatility of agricultural returns at the farm scale. Moreover, many other factors, such as capital assets, individual capacities, adaptive management, and institutional support, all play vital roles in increased agricultural economic resilience [70–72], and these were not assessed in this analysis. Moreover, given the trade-off between expected GM and the expected variance in GM, choices of land-use investments are likely to be determined in part by the risk to returns preferences of individual farmers [15, 53]. Nevertheless, these preliminary findings do suggest that, all other things being equal, land-use diversification may provide a means of increasing economic resilience in lowland agricultural landscapes.
Importantly, these findings are not based on theoretical idealized mixture of land uses, but on the pre-existing land use choices in real landscapes. Thus, our findings represent meaningful land-use strategies that are appropriate to the topographic, environmental, and economic contexts of the landscapes in which they occur. Future monitoring of the relationships between agricultural land-use diversification and economic resilience that draw on regional sample surveys of actual, rather than predicted, GMs may help further clarify the relations between land use, incomes, and economic resilience.
One key finding from this paper is the possibility of determining an optimal spatial extent over which the agricultural economic resilience is maximized for UK lowland agricultural landscapes. In real landscapes, increasing the physical size of the portfolio over which returns are estimated increases the mean expected economic resilience (that is, the CV). There were rapid increases in the mean resilience return ratio (as measured by the CV) as portfolios increased in size from 25 hectares (0.25 km2) to around 400 hectares (4 km2). Beyond approximately 1,200 hectares (12 km2), increasing the size of the portfolio had little effect on the portfolio performance.
These findings suggest that if the UK lowland land-use diversity found at the sizes of 1200-hectare or even 400-hectare landscape extents were to be replicated at smaller spatial extents, this would significantly increase the resilience of UK landscapes at scales more closely associated with the average farm holdings of UK farmers (57 hectares). The resilience gains obtained from such an increase in land-use diversity are likely to be greatest in the most homogenous agricultural landscapes. Nevertheless, the benefits of increasing such relatively fine-grained land-use diversity seems to occur in grassland, arable, and mixed-agriculture landscapes. Moreover, the potential benefits of increasing agricultural land-use diversity is not limited to increasing economic resilience of farmed landscapes, but is likely to also provide co-benefits for other important functions of the agricultural landscapes. For example, it has been suggested that habitat heterogeneity is a key component in biodiversity conservation [73, 74], that amenity values are positively associated with agricultural landscape diversity  and that the provision of cultural ecosystem services are greater in diverse agricultural landscapes .
It is necessary to note here that the agricultural GM data are not a perfect measure of economic returns, nor can they account for either the potential losses of economies of scale or the potential synergies that may come through increased moves towards finer-grained agricultural landscapes. Nevertheless, the relationships between land-use diversity and increased agricultural economic resilience that we found in this study are based on a sub-regional finer graining of existing land uses, rather than by the replacement of existing land uses with others that might not be suitable for local climatic or typological conditions. This, in turn, suggests that fine-scale land-use diversity managed at a sub-regional scale that takes advantage of existing local land uses can increase farming resilience without affecting the aggregate yields of agricultural goods produced by those sub-regional landscapes.
Finally, these findings suggest that there may be a role for fine-grained agricultural land-use diversification as a means of increasing the resilience of returns from agriculture. Replicating the existing the land-use diversity found within typical UK lowland agricultural extents of 400 to 1200 hectares at a farm scale would create diversified farming portfolios that might reduce the volatility of farmers’ returns. Alternatively, an increase in agricultural economic resilience could potentially be achieved within existing land-use patterns through some form of portfolio sharing or other collective approaches to economic management at landscape scales. This is an area of research that warrants further investigation. In the face of increasingly volatile commodity markets and weather patterns , enhancing economic resilience in agricultural landscapes is no longer simply a desirable goal, but an increasingly important requirement of creating sustainable agricultural ecosystems. Article 30 of the recent Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) reform proposals are intended to increase (arable) crop diversification at the farm scale as part of the CAP ‘greening’ initiative . However, the proposed CAP reforms provide no incentives to diversify the wider matrix of arable, horticultural, and livestock land uses at a landscape scale. The findings presented here provide empirical evidence for the long-standing theory of links between landscape-scale diversity and economic resilience. Landscape approaches to agricultural ecosystem management are increasingly being called for in relation to achieving objectives in conservation  and ecosystem services management [80, 81]. Although they are exploratory, these results suggest that rural-development policies that include a focus on the co-ordination of land-use management at landscape level may also be beneficial in terms of increasing the economic resilience of lowland agricultural regions.
Agricultural land-use diversification at the landscape scale might be aided by policies that facilitate the sharing of resources, thereby reducing the need for the economies of scale, and the resultant homogenization of landscapes, that are required for the use of modern agricultural machinery. Such co-operation requires the building of trust between farmers , and could be assisted by the formation of institutions such as environmental co-operatives that have multiple objectives, such as the maintenance of landscape character and biodiversity or ecosystem service conservation, or the use of collaborative agricultural environment schemes .
Our research has produced a number of key findings. First, there is a trade-off between expected mean returns and the volatility of those expected returns, such that specialization in farmscapes is associated with maximizing mean returns, but a higher volatility of those returns. Secondly, land-use diversity is positively correlated with the expected stability of returns, and negatively correlated with expected returns. Thirdly, there is considerable scale dependency in the relationships between land-use diversity and the resilience of agricultural returns. Small spatial extents (less than 400 hectares) in UK lowlands do not currently provide sufficient portfolio diversification to minimize the CV in expected returns of agricultural production.
Perhaps, most importantly, this research suggests that the resilience of agricultural returns within lowland agricultural landscapes could potentially be increased through fine-grain land-use diversification without affecting the aggregate returns or land-use portfolio at the landscape level. Given the current volatility of agricultural returns, it seems reasonable that land-use diversity and volatility or the resilience of agricultural returns should be given greater consideration in research and policy interventions on the socio-economic functions of agricultural ecosystems.
DJA was supported by an ESRC/NERC Interdisciplinary Award. We thank the two reviewers, whose comments greatly improved the manuscript.
- Healey MJ, IIbery BW: The industrialization of the countryside: an overview. In The Industrialization of the Countryside. Edited by: Healey MJ, IIbery BW. Norwich: Geo Books; 1985:1–28.
- Pretty JN: The Living Land. London: Earthscan; 1998.
- Horlings LG, Marsden TK: Towards the real green revolution? Exploring the conceptual dimensions of a new ecological modernisation of agriculture that could 'feed the world'. Glob Environ Chang 2011, 21:441–452.View Article
- Blaxter K, Robertson N: From Dearth to Plenty: The Second Agricultural Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995.View Article
- Fraser EDG: Crop diversification and trade liberalization: linking global trade and local management through a regional case study. Agr Hum Values 2006, 23:271–281.View Article
- Kim K, Chavas JP, Barham B, Foltz J: Specialization, diversification, and productivity: a panel data analysis of rice farms in Korea. Agr Econ 2012, 43:1–14.View Article
- Döös BR: Environmental degradation, global food-production, and risk for large-scale migrations. Ambio 1994, 23:124–130.
- Giampietro M: Multi-scale Integrated Analysis of Agroecosystems. Boca Raton: CRC Press; 2004.
- Trenbath B, Conway G, Craig IT: Threats to sustainability in intensified agriculture. In Agroecology: Researching the Ecological Basis for Sustainable Development. Edited by: Gliessman SR. New York: Springer-Verlang; 1990:337–365.
- Walker BH, Steffen W: An overview of the implications of global change for natural and managed terrestrial ecosystems. Conservation Ecology 1997, 1:2.
- Fraser EDG, Mabee W, Slaymaker O: Mutual dependence, mutual vulnerability: the reflexive relation between society and the environment. Glob Environ Chang 2003, 13:137–144.View Article
- Government Office for Science: Foresight. The Future of Food and Farming: Final Project Report. Final Project Report. London: The Government Office for Science; 2011.
- Blank S: Income risk varies with what you grow, where you grow it. Calif Agr 1992, 46:14–16.
- Hanson J, Johnson D, Peters S, Janke R: The profitability of sustainable agriculture on a representative grain farm in the mid-Atlantic region 1981–1989. Northeast J Agric Resour Econ 1990, 19:90–98.
- Baumgärtner S, Quaas MF: Managing increasing environmental risks through agrobiodiversity and agrienvironmental policies. Agr Econ 2010, 41:483–496.View Article
- Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C: (Eds): Navigating Social-Ecological Systems: Building Resilience for Complexity and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.
- Folke C: Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Glob Environ Chang 2006, 16:253–267.View Article
- Scheffer M, Carpenter SR: Catastrophic regime shifts in ecosystems: linking theory to observation. Trends Ecol Evol 2003, 18:648–656.View Article
- Cumming GS, Collier J: Change and identity in complex systems. Ecol Soc 2005, 10:29.
- Gunderson LH, Holling CS (Eds): Panarchy: Understanding Transformations in Human and Natural Systems. Washington: Island Press; 2001.
- Worster D: Dust Bowl: the Southern Plains in the 1930s. London: Oxford University Press; 2004.
- Haile T: Causes and characteristics of drought in Ethiopia. Ethiop J Agric Sci 1988, 10:85–97.
- Comenetz J, Caviedes C: Climate variability, political crises, and historical population displacements in Ethiopia. Global Environ Change B Environ Hazards 2002, 4:113–127.View Article
- Fraser EDG: Travelling in antique lands: using past famines to develop an adaptability/resilience framework to identify food systems vulnerable to climate change. Clim Chang 2007, 83:495–514.View Article
- Fraser EDG: Social vulnerability and ecological fragility: building bridges between social and natural sciences using the Irish Potato Famine as a case study. Conserv Ecol 2003, 7:9.
- O'Grada C: The Great Irish Famine. London: Macmillan; 1989.
- Fraser EDG, Rimas A: Empires of Food: Feast Famine and the Rise and Fall of Civilizations. New York: Free Press; 2010.
- Fraser EDG, Stringer LC: Explaining agricultural collapse: macro-forces, micro-crises and the emergence of land use vulnerability in southern Romania. Glob Environ Chang 2009, 19:45–53.View Article
- Pimm S: The complexity and stability of ecosystems. Nature 1984, 307:321–326.View Article
- Simelton E, Fraser EDG, Termansen M, Forster PM, Dougill AJ: Typologies of crop-drought vulnerability: an empirical analysis of the socio-economic factors that influence the sensitivity and resilience to drought of three major food crops in China (1961–2001). Enviro Sci Policy 2009, 12:438–452.View Article
- Simelton E, Fraser EDG, Termansen M, Benton TG, Gosling S, South A, Arnell N, Challinor A, Dougill AJ, Forster PM: The socioeconomics of food crop production and climate change vulnerability: a global scale quantitative analysis of how grain crops are sensitive to drought. Food Secur 2012, 4:163–179.View Article
- Fraser EDG, Termansen M, Sun N, Guan D, Simelton E, Dodds P, Feng K, Yu Y: Quantifying socioeconomic characteristics of drought-sensitive regions: evidence from Chinese provincial agricultural data. Comptes Rendus Geoscience 2008, 340:679–688.View Article
- Bakker MM, Govers G, Ewert F, Rounsevell M, Jones R: Variability in regional wheat yields as a function of climate, soil and economic variables: assessing the risk of confounding. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2005, 110:195–209.View Article
- Di Falco S, Chavas JP: Rainfall shocks, resilience, and the effects of crop biodiversity on agroecosystem productivity. Land Econ 2008, 84:83–96.
- van Meijl H, van Rheenen T, Tabeau A, Eickhout B: The impact of different policy environments on agricultural land use in Europe. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2006, 114:21–38.View Article
- Di Falco S, Perrings C: Crop biodiversity, risk management and the implications of agricultural assistance. Ecol Econ 2005, 55:459–466.View Article
- Elmqvist T, Folke C, Nystrom M, Peterson G, Bengtsson J, Walker B, Norberg J: Response diversity, ecosystem change, and resilience. Front Ecol Environ 2003, 1:488–494.View Article
- Fraser EDG, Mabee W, Figge F: A framework for assessing the vulnerability of food systems to future shocks. Futures 2005, 37:465–479.View Article
- Holling CS: Understanding the complexity of economic, ecological, and social systems. Ecosystems 2001, 4:390–405.View Article
- McIntosh RP: Concept and terminology of homogeneity and heterogeneity in ecology. In Ecological Heterogeneity. Edited by: Kolasa J, Pickett STA. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1991:24–46.View Article
- Baumgärtner S: The insurance value of biodiversity in the provision of ecosystem services. Nat Resour Model 2007, 20:87–127.View Article
- Philippi T, Seger J: Hedging one’s evolutionary bets, revisited. Trends Ecol Evol 1989, 4:41–44.PubMedView Article
- Sasaki AS, Ellner S: The evolutionarily stable phenotype distribution in a random environment. Evolution 1995, 49:337–350.View Article
- Tuljapurkar S: Population Dynamics in Variable Environments. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1990.
- Tansey G, Worsley T: The Food System: a Guide. London: Earthscan; 1995.
- O'Brien KL, Leichenko RM: Double exposure: assessing the impacts of climate change within the context of economic globalization. Global Environ Chang 2000, 10:221–232.View Article
- FAO: How to Feed the World in 2050. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2009.
- Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: England Farm Accounts. London: DEFRA; 2007.
- Markowitz HM: Portfolio Selection: Efficient Diversification of Investments. New York: Wiley & Sons; 1959.
- Sharpe WF: Portfolio Theory and Capital Markets. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1970.
- Figge F: Bio-folio: applying portfolio theory to biodiversity. Biodivers Conserv 2004, 13:827–849.View Article
- McKillop DG: The return-risk structure of lowland agriculture in Northern Ireland. Eur Rev Agric Econ 1989, 16:217–228.View Article
- Di Falco S, Chavas JP: Crop genetic diversity, farm productivity and the management of environmental risk in rainfed agriculture. Eur Rev Agr Econ 2006, 33:289–314.View Article
- Di Falco S, Perrings C: Crop genetic diversity, productivity and stability of agroecosystems. A theoretical and empirical investigation. Scot J Polit Econ 2003, 50:207–216.View Article
- Nix J, Hill P: The John Nix Farm Management Pocketbook, 33rd edition. 40th edition. Ashford: Wye College Press; 2010.
- Centre for Ecology and Hydrology: Land Cover Map. http://www.ceh.ac.uk/data/lcm/LCM2000/shtm
- Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: Definitions of Terms Used in Farm Business Management. London: DEFRA; 2010.
- ESRI: ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute; 2011.
- Natural England: Calculation of Stocking Rates and Recording of Grazing Livestock. Natural England; 2011.
- Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: June 2009 Survey of Agriculture and Horticulture UK Final Results. London: DEFRA; 2009.
- University of Massachusetts: FRAGSTATS: spatial pattern analysis program for categorical maps. http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/downloads/fragstats_downloads.html]
- Shannon C: The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: The University Of Illinois Press; 1949.
- Taylor LR: Bates, Williams, Hutchinson - a variety of diversities. In Diversity of Insect Faunas. Edited by: Mound LA, Waloff N. Oxford: Blackwell; 1978:1–18.
- UK Gross Domestic Product (GDP) deflatorshttp://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/data_gdp_fig.htm
- Alcock D, Hegarty RS: Effects of pasture improvement on productivity, gross margin and methane emissions of a grazing sheep enterprise. Int Congr Ser 2006, 1293:103–106.View Article
- Morse S, Bennett RM, Ismael Y: Genetically modified insect resistance in cotton: some farm level economic impacts in India. Crop Prot 2005, 24:433–440.View Article
- Pacini C, Wossink A, Giesen G, Vazzana C, Huirne R: Evaluation of sustainability of organic, integrated and conventional farming systems: a farm and field-scale analysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2003, 95:273–288.View Article
- Fezzi C, Bateman IJ: Structural agricultural land use modeling for spatial agro-environmental policy analysis. Am J Agr Econ 2011, 93:1168–1188.View Article
- Wiggering H, Dalchow C, Glemnitz M, Helming K, Muller K, Schultz A, Stachow U, Zander P: Indicators for multifunctional land use - linking socio-economic requirements with landscape potentials. Ecol Indic 2006, 6:238–249.View Article
- Anderies JM, Janssen MA, Ostrom E: A framework to analyze the robustness of social-ecological systems from an institutional perspective. Ecol Soc 2004, 9:18.
- Borron S: Buildng Resilience for an Unpredictable Future: How Organic Agriculture Can Help Farmers Adapt to Climate Change. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; 2006.
- Eakin H, Luers AL: Assessing the vulnerability of social-environmental systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 2006, 31:365–394.View Article
- Benton TG, Vickery JA, Wilson JD: Farmland biodiversity: is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends Ecol Evol 2003, 18:182–188.View Article
- Fahrig L, Baudry J, Brotons L, Burel FG, Crist TO, Fuller RJ, Sirami C, Siriwardena GM, Martin JL: Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Lett 2011, 14:101–112.PubMedView Article
- Howley P: Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics' preferences towards rural landscapes. Ecol Econ 2011, 72:161–169.View Article
- van Berkel DB, Verburg PH: Spatial quantification and valuation of cultural ecosystem services in an agricultural landscape. Ecol Indic 2012.
- Benton TG, Gallani B, Jones C, Lewis K, Tiffin R, Donohoe T: Severe Weather and UK Food Resilience. Report for UK Food Research Partnership. London: Government Office for Science; 2012.
- European Commission: Establishing Rules for Direct Payments to Farmers Under Support Schemes Within the Framework of the Common Agricultural Policy. Brussels: EC; 2011:1–105.
- Concepción ED, Díaz M, Kleijn D, Báldi A, Batáry P, Clough Y, Gabriel D, Herzog F, Holzschuh A, Knop E, et al.: Interactive effects of landscape context constrain the effectiveness of local agri-environmental management. J Appl Ecol 2012, 49:695–705.
- de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L: Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 2010, 7:260–272.View Article
- Prager K, Reed M, Scott A: Encouraging collaboration for the provision of ecosystem services at a landscape scale-Rethinking agri-environmental payments. Land Use Policy 2012, 29:244–249.View Article
- Goldman RL, Thompson BH, Daily GC: Institutional incentives for managing the landscape: Inducing cooperation for the production of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 2007, 64:333–343.View Article
- Franks JR, Mc Gloin A: Environmental co-operatives as instruments for delivering across-farm environmental and rural policy objectives: lessons for the UK. J Rural Stud 2007, 23:472–489.View Article
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.