Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Competition for Land-Based Ecosystem Services: Trade-Offs and Synergies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Land Use Competition

Part of the book series: Human-Environment Interactions ((HUEN,volume 6))

Abstract

In this chapter, we define, conceptualize, and exemplify competition for ecosystem services derived from land. Competition for land-based ecosystem services arises when utilization of an ecosystem service by one actor reduces the possibility of other actors to use the same or other ecosystem services. Therefore, we focus on trade-offs and synergies between ecosystem services and argue that the functional relationships between the trade-offs are crucial in shaping how land-use competition plays out. We use this conceptualization of competition for land-based ecosystem services as well as the closely related concepts of trade-off and synergies as a framework to interpret the five case studies in this section, which provide a unique and rich overview of land-use competition in terms of actors involved, geographic coverage, spatial scale, and ecosystem services. These studies convey important insights into opportunities and challenges of intervening into competition for land-based resources and can inform efforts to improve land governance.

Daniel Müller and Helmut Haberl contributed equally to this chapter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aghion, P., Harris, C., Howitt, P., & Vickers, J. (2001). Competition, imitation and growth with step-by-step innovation. Journal Short Form Workform, 68(3), 467–492. doi:10.1111/1467-937x.00177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal, A., Nepstad, D., & Chhatre, A. (2011). Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36(1), 373–396. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-042009-094508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexandratos, N., & Bruinsma, J. (2012). World agriculture towards 2030/2050: The 2012 revision. ESA working paper, No. 12-03. FAO, Rome.

    Google Scholar 

  • Angelsen, A., Brockhaus, M., Kanninen, M., Sills, E., Sunderlin, W. D., Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., & Abdel Nour, H. O. (2009). Realising REDD+: National strategy and policy options. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azqueta, D., & Sotelsek, D. (2007). Valuing nature: From environmental impacts to natural capital. Ecological Economics, 63(1), 22–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balent, G., Alard, D., Blanfort, V., & Gibon, A. (1998). Activités de pâturage, paysages et biodiversité. Annales de Zootechnie, 47(5–6), 419–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, E. M., Peterson, G. D., & Gordon, L. J. (2009). Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters, 12(12), 1394–1404. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2009.01387.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birch, L. C. (1957). The meanings of competition. The American Naturalist, 91(856), 5–18. doi:10.2307/2458507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bromley, D. W. (2009). Formalising property relations in the developing world: The wrong prescription for the wrong malady. Land Use Policy, 26(1), 20–27. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.02.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byerlee, D., & Deininger, K. (2013). Growing resource scarcity and global farmland investment. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 5(1), 13–34. doi:10.1146/annurev-resource-091912-151849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cain, M. L., Bowman, W. D., & Hacker, S. D. (2008). Ecology. Incorporated: Sinauer Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cernea, M. M., & Schmidt-Soltau, K. (2006). Poverty risks and national parks: policy issues in conservation and resettlement. World Develepment, 34(10), 1808–1830. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2006.02.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coase, R. H. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colwell, P. F., & Sirmans, C. F. (1978). Area, time, centrality and the value of urban land. Land Economics, 54(4), 514–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corbera, E., & Schroeder, H. (2011). Governing and implementing REDD+. Environmental Science & Policy, 14(2), 89–99. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.11.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza, R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., et al. (1997). The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature, 387(6630), 253–260.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cryan, P. M., & Barclay, R. M. R. (2009). Causes of bat fatalities at wind turbines: Hypotheses and predictions. Journal of Mammalogy, 90(6), 1330–1340. doi:10.1644/09-MAMM-S-076R1.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dearing, J. A., Wang, R., Zhang, K., Dyke, J. G., Haberl, H., Hossain, M. S., et al. (2014). Safe and just operating spaces for regional social-ecological systems. Global Environmental Chang, 28, 227–238. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delbecq, B. A., Kuethe, T. H., & Borchers, A. M. (2014). Identifying the extent of the urban fringe and its impact on agricultural land values. Land Economics, 90(4), 587–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubinin, M., Potapov, P., Lushchekina, A., & Radeloff, V. C. (2010). Reconstructing long time series of burned areas in arid grasslands of southern Russia by satellite remote sensing. Remote Sensing of Environment, 114(8), 1638–1648. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2010.02.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eakin, H., DeFries, R., Kerr, S., Lambin, E. F., Liu, J., Peter J., Marcotullio, Messerli, P., Reenberg, A., Ximena, R., Swaffield, S. R., Wicke, B., & Zimmerer, K. (2014). Significance of telecoupling for exploration of land-use change. Strüngmann Forum Reports, Vol. 14. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erb, K.-H. (2012). How a socio-ecological metabolism approach can help to advance our understanding of changes in land-use intensity. Ecological Economics, 76, 8–14. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.02.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ernstson, H. (2013). The social production of ecosystem services: A framework for studying environmental justice and ecological complexity in urbanized landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 109(1), 7–17. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.10.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer-Kowalski, M., & Haberl, H. (1993). Metabolism and colonization. Modes of production and the physical exchange between societies and nature. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 6(4), 415–442. doi:10.1080/13511610.1993.9968370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer-Kowalski, M., & Haberl, H. (2007). Socioecological transitions and global change: Trajectories of social metabolism and land use. London: Edward Elgar Publishing, Incorporated.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gause, G. F. (1934). The struggle for existence. Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • GEA. (2012). Global energy assessment—Toward a sustainable future. New York, NY, USA and Laxenburg, Austria: Cambridge University Press and International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guiling, P., Brorsen, B. W., & Doye, D. (2009). Effect of urban proximity on agricultural land values. Land Economics, 85(2), 252–264. doi:10.3368/le.85.2.252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haase, D., Schwarz, N., Strohbach, M., Kroll, F. & Seppelt, R. (2012). Synergies, trade-offs, and losses of ecosystem services in urban regions: An integrated multiscale framework applied to the Leipzig-Halle region, Germany. Ecology and Society, 17 (3). doi:10.5751/ES-04853-170322

  • Haberl, H. (2015). Competition for land: A sociometabolic perspective. Ecological Economics, 119, 424–431. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.10.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haberl, H., Mbow, C., Deng, X., Irwin, E. G., Kerr, S., Kuemmerle, T., et al. (2014). Finite Land Resources and Competition. In K. Seto & A. Reenberg (Eds.), Rethinking global land use in an urban era. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harper, R. J., Okom, A. E. A., Stilwell, A. T., Tibbett, M., Dean, C., George, S. J., et al. (2012). Reforesting degraded agricultural landscapes with Eucalypts: Effects on carbon storage and soil fertility after 26 years. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 163, 3–13. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2012.03.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Havlík, P., Veysset, P., Boisson, J.-M., Lherm, M., & Jacquet, F. (2005). Joint production under uncertainty and multifunctionality of agriculture: Policy considerations and applied analysis. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 32(4), 489–515. doi:10.1093/erae/jbi027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hein, L., van Koppen, K., de Groot, R. S., & van Ierland, E. C. (2006). Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecological Economics, 57(2), 209–228. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homer-Dixon, T. F. (1994). Environmental scarcities and violent conflict: Evidence from cases. International Security, 19(1), 5–40. doi:10.2307/2539147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Homewood, K. M. (2004). Policy, environment and development in African rangelands. Environmental Science & Policy, 7(3), 125–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hornborg, A., & Jorgensen, A. K. (2010). International trade and environmental justice: Toward a global political ecology. New York: Nova Science Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Isselstein, J., Jeangros, B., & Pavlu, V. (2005). Agronomic aspects of biodiversity targeted management of temperate grasslands in Europe–A review. Agronomy Research, 3(2), 139–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaeger, W. K., Plantinga, A. J., & Grout, C. (2012). How has Oregon’s land use planning system affected property values? Land Use Policy, 29(1), 62–72. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2011.05.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. A., Runge, C. F., Senauer, B., Foley, J., & Polasky, S. (2014). Global agriculture and carbon trade-offs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(34), 12342–12347. doi:10.1073/pnas.1412835111.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Joppa, L. N., Loarie, S. R., & Pimm, S. L. (2008). On the protection of “protected areas”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(18), 6673–6678.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Josling, T. (2008). External influences on CAP reforms: An historical perspective. In J. F. M. Swinnen (Ed.), The perfect storm: The political economy of the fischler reforms of the common agricultural policy. Brussels: Centre for European Policy Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kastner, T., Erb, K.-H., & Haberl, H. (2014). Rapid growth in agricultural trade: Effects on global area efficiency and the role of management. Environmental Research Letters, 9(3), 034015. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/3/034015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lambin, E. F., & Meyfroidt, P. (2011). Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(9), 3465–3472. doi:10.1073/pnas.1100480108.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lemus, R., & Lal, R. (2005). Bioenergy crops and carbon sequestration. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 24(1), 1–21. doi:10.1080/07352680590910393.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lykke, A. M., Kristensen, M. K., & Ganaba, S. (2004). Valuation of local use and dynamics of 56 woody species in the Sahel. Biodiversity and Conservation, 13(10), 1961–1990. doi:10.1023/B:BIOC.0000035876.39587.1a.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macchi, L., Grau, H. R., Zelaya, P. V., & Marinaro, S. (2013). Trade-offs between land use intensity and avian biodiversity in the dry Chaco of Argentina: A tale of two gradients. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 174, 11–20. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2013.04.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massey, D. (2005). For Space. London: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messerli, P., Heinimann, A., Giger, M., Breu, T., & Schönweger, O. (2013). From ‘land grabbing’ to sustainable investments in land: Potential contributions by land change science. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(5), 528–534. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2013.03.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moilanen, A., Anderson, B. J., Eigenbrod, F., Heinemeyer, A., Roy, D. B., Gilling, S., et al. (2011). Balancing alternative land uses in conservation prioritization. Ecological Applications, 21(5), 1419–1426. doi:10.1890/10-1865.1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moschini, G. (1989). Normal inputs and joint production with allocatable fixed factors. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 71(4), 1021–1024. doi:10.2307/1242678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, C., Lotze-Campen, H., Huber, V., Popp, A., Svirejeva-Hopkins, A., Krause, M., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2011). Towards a great land-use transformation? In Ú. O. Spring, C. Mesjasz, J. Grin, et al. (Eds.), Coping with global environmental change, disasters and security: Threats, challenges, vulnerabilities and risks (pp. 23–28). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller, D., Sun, Z., Vongvisouk, T., Pflugmacher, D., Xu, J., & Mertz, O. (2014). Regime shifts limit the predictability of land-system change. Global Environmental Change, 28, 75–83. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.06.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, E., Mendoza, G., Regetz, J., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Cameron, D., et al. (2009). Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(1), 4–11. doi:10.1890/080023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2001). Multifunctionality: Towards an analytical framework. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, R. E., & Burgess, E. W. (1921). Introduction to the science of sociology. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pattanayak, S. K., Wunder, S., & Ferraro, P. J. (2010). Show me the money: Do payments supply environmental services in developing countries? Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy. doi:10.1093/reep/req006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petz, K., Alkemade, R., Bakkenes, M., Schulp, C. J. E., van der Velde, M., & Leemans, R. (2014). Mapping and modelling trade-offs and synergies between grazing intensity and ecosystem services in rangelands using global-scale datasets and models. Global Environmental Chaneg, 29, 223–234. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.08.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polasky, S., Nelson, E., Camm, J., Csuti, B., Fackler, P., Lonsdorf, E., et al. (2008). Where to put things? Spatial land management to sustain biodiversity and economic returns. Biological Conservation, 141(6), 1505–1524. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2008.03.022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power, A. G. (2010). Ecosystem services and agriculture: Tradeoffs and synergies. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 2959–2971. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramachandran Nair, P. K., Nair, V. D., Mohan Kumar, B., & Showalter, J. M. (2010). Carbon sequestration in agroforestry systems (Chap. 5). In L. S. Donald (ed) Advances in agronomy (Vol 108, pp. 237–307). New York: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S0065-2113(10)08005-3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray, D. K., Mueller, N. D., West, P. C., & Foley, J. A. (2013). Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050. PLoS ONE, 8(6), e66428. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066428.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rohlf, W. (2010). Introduction to economic reasoning (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruttan, V. W., & Hayami, Y. (1984). Toward a theory of induced institutional innovation. Journal of Development Studies, 20(4), 203–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabbi, A., & Salvati, L. (2014). Searching for a downward spiral? Soil erosion risk, agro-forest landscape and socioeconomic conditions in Italian local communities. Land Use Policy, 41, 388–396. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.06.023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sakai, Y. (1974). Substitution and expansion effects in production theory: The case of joint production. Journal of Economic Theory, 9(3), 255–274. doi:10.1016/0022-0531(74)90051-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlamadinger, B., Bird, N., Johns, T., Brown, S., Canadell, J., Ciccarese, L., et al. (2007). A synopsis of land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) under the Kyoto Protocol and Marrakech Accords. Environmental Science & Policy, 10(4), 271–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seto, K. C., Reenberg, A., Boone, C. G., Fragkias, M., Haase, D., Langanke, T., et al. (2012). Urban land teleconnections and sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(20), 7687–7692. doi:10.1073/pnas.1117622109.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, C. (1983). Premiums for high quality products as returns to reputations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98(4), 659–679. doi:10.2307/1881782.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharkey, W.W. (1982). The theory of natural monopoly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, R. K. (2008). Fundamentals of sociology. New Dehli: Atlantic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shumway, C. R., Pope, R. D., & Nash, E. K. (1984). Allocatable fixed inputs and jointness in agricultural production: Implications for economic modeling. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66(1), 72–78. doi:10.2307/1240617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sieferle, R. P., Krausmann, F., Schandl, H., & Winiwarter, V. (2006). Das Ende der Fläche: Zum gesellschaftlichen Stoffwechsel der Industrialisierung. Köln: Böhlau.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sieferle, R. P., & Osmann, M. (2010). The subterranean forest: Energy systems and the industrial revolution. White Horse Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sikor, T., Auld, G., Bebbington, A. J., Benjaminsen, T. A., Gentry, B. S., Hunsberger, C., Izac, A.-M., Margulis, M. E., Plieninger, T., Schroeder, H., & Upton, C. (2013). Global land governance: From territory to flow? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(5), 522–527. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2013.06.006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sikor, T., & Lund, C. (2009). Access and property: A question of power and authority. Development and Change, 40(1), 1–22. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660.2009.01503.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sikor, T., & Müller, D. (2009). The limits of state-led land reform: An introduction. World Development, 37(8), 1307–1316. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2008.08.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (1778). An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. London: Strahan and Cadell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P., Gregory, P. J., van Vuuren, D., Obersteiner, M., Havlík, P., Rounsevell, M., et al. (2010). Competition for land. Philosophical Transactions of Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 365(1554), 2941–2957. doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J., Pearce, B. D., & Wolfe, M. S. (2013). Reconciling productivity with protection of the environment: Is temperate agroforestry the answer? Renewable Agriculture Food Systems, 28(01), 80–92. doi:10.1017/S1742170511000585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spangenberg, J. H., Görg, C., Truong, D. T., Tekken, V., Bustamante, J. V. & Settele, J. (2014). Provision of ecosystem services is determined by human agency, not ecosystem functions. Four case studies. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 10(1), 40–53. doi:10.1080/21513732.2014.884166

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, R. L., Woodward, J. L., & Maxwell, M. A. (1956). Introductory sociology. J.B. Lippincott Company: Chicago, IL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swinnen, J., & Squicciarini, P. (2012). Mixed messages on prices and food security. Science, 335(6067), 405–406. doi:10.1126/science.1210806.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tilman, D., Balzer, C., Hill, J., & Befort, B. L. (2011). Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108(50), 20260–20264. doi:10.1073/pnas.1116437108.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tyner, W. E. (2008). The US ethanol and biofuels boom: Its origins, current status, and future prospects. BioScience, 58(7), 646–653. doi:10.1641/b580718.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Udawatta, R., & Jose, S. (2012). Agroforestry strategies to sequester carbon in temperate North America. Agroforestry Systems, 86(2), 225–242. doi:10.1007/s10457-012-9561-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veldkamp, A. (2009). Investigating land dynamics: Future research perspectives. Journal of Land Use Science, 4(1), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, P., Igoe, J., & Brockington, D. (2006). Parks and peoples: The social impact of protected areas. Annual Review of Anthropology, 35(1), 251–277. doi:10.1146/annurev.-anthro.35.081705.123308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, C. R. (2010). The two sides of de Soto: Property rights, land titling, and development. In E. Chamlee-Wright (Ed.), The annual proceedings of the wealth and well-being of nations, 2009–2010 (pp. 95–108). Beloit, WI: Beloit College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wratten, S., Sandhu, H., Cullen, R., & Costanza, R. (2013). Ecosystem services in agricultural and urban landscapes. New york: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wrbka, T., Erb, K.-H., Schulz, N. B., Peterseil, J., Hahn, C., & Haberl, H. (2004). Linking pattern and process in cultural landscapes. An empirical study based on spatially explicit indicators. Land Use Policy, 21(3), 289–306. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, F., Zhang, D., & Zhang, J. (2012). Will the development of bioenergy in China create a food security problem? Modeling with fuel ethanol as an example. Renewable Energy, 47, 127–134. doi:10.1016/j.renene.2012.03.039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

HH gratefully acknowledges funding by Humboldt University’s KOSMOS program, which has allowed him to spend four months in Berlin in 2014. The authors are also grateful to contributions by the EU-FP7 projects VOLANTE (FP7-ENV-2010-265104), HERCULES (FP7-ENV-2013-627), I-REDD+ (FP7-ENV-265286), German Research Foundation (DFG), and the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (01 LN 1316 A). The research contributes to the Global Land Project (GLP).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Halle (Saale) and IRI THESys, Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies, Berlin, Germany

    Daniel Müller & Florian Schierhorn

  2. Institute of Social Ecology, Alpen-Adria University, Vienna, Austria

    Helmut Haberl

  3. Department of Geography and IRI THESys, Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Patrick Hostert

  4. Governance & Sustainability Lab, Trier University, Trier, Germany

    Lara Esther Bartels

  5. Department of Geography, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Matthias Baumann & Christian Levers

  6. Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland

    Marvin Beckert & Pete Smith

  7. Institute of Socio-Economics, Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Müncheberg, Germany

    Jana Zscheischler

  8. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria

    Petr Havlik

  9. Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource Management, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Ole Mertz

Authors
  1. Daniel Müller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Helmut Haberl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lara Esther Bartels
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthias Baumann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marvin Beckert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Christian Levers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Florian Schierhorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Jana Zscheischler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Petr Havlik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Patrick Hostert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Ole Mertz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Pete Smith
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Müller .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Inst. of European Ethnology & Integrativ, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Jörg Niewöhner

  2. Governance and Sustainability Lab, Trier University, Berlin, Germany

    Antje Bruns

  3. Dept. of Geography & IRI THESys, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Patrick Hostert

  4. Dept. of Geography & IRI THESys, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Tobias Krueger

  5. Dept. of Geography & IRI THESys, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Jonas Ø. Nielsen

  6. Institute of Social Ecology, Alpen-Adria University, Vienna, Austria

    Helmut Haberl

  7. Institute of Social Ecology, Alpen-Adria University, Vienna, Austria

    Christian Lauk

  8. Institute of Social Ecology, Alpen-Adria University, Vienna, Austria

    Juliana Lutz

  9. Halle (Saale) & IRI THESys, Leibniz Ins. for Agri. Devel. Trans. Eco, Berlin, Germany

    Daniel Müller

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Müller, D. et al. (2016). Competition for Land-Based Ecosystem Services: Trade-Offs and Synergies. In: Niewöhner, J., et al. Land Use Competition. Human-Environment Interactions, vol 6. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33628-2_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation