Balancing competing land uses: a multifunctional approach

Jonathan Wentworth

Overview

Human land uses are a key driver of climate change and biodiversity loss (the variety of ecosystems and species within nature and their interactions,[1] PN 644 and PN 617). Contributions to the horizon scan highlighted that addressing food security, climate change and nature recovery are all embedded in and depend on how land uses are planned and managed (POSTbrief 42).

Land systems encompass all processes and activities related to human land uses including the social, economic, technological and organisational inputs and arrangements. This includes the benefits gained and the unintended social and ecological outcomes.[2]^,[3]Evidence suggests that addressing the interconnected challenges of public health, productivity, food system risks, climate instability and nature loss in the UK would require a transition to environmentally sustainable land systems.[4]^,[5],[6]

Future large-scale land use changes are likely to arise from economic demands for housing, infrastructure, food, energy, nature recovery and climate mitigation and adaptation.[7]

Research suggests previous policies and targets have failed to address the complexities of aligning co-benefits, or managing trade-offs where some goods and services will decrease to increase others (PN 627, POSTbrief 42). Conflicts can also arise between groups requiring different benefits from the same areas of land.[8]

The previous government committed to publishing a land use framework for England.[9] A 2024 NAO report recommended the land use framework should support integration of climate change and environmental objectives as well as other wider policy objectives.[10]

The House of Lords Land Use in England Committee 2022 report recommended establishing a land use commission to enable the development of a land use framework that would run alongside the existing town and country planning system.[11]^,[12]

Challenges and opportunities

The House of Lords committee report and the Royal Society’s 2023 Multifunctional Land Use report stated that current policies on land use are “disjointed” and an additional 4.4 million hectares of land (18% of the total country) would be needed to deliver net zero, biodiversity and development objectives by 2050 if levels of agricultural production remain similar.²^,¹¹

For example, research based on current land use trends shows that all unprotected open UK land will be converted to urban, agriculture and afforested land such that tree planting targets cannot be met after 2030.[13]

The UK is signatory to the Council of Europe Landscape Convention.[14] In 2023 the Council of Europe’s Reykjavík Declaration included a statement on the urgency of addressing the ‘triple challenge’ of averting climate change risks, reversing biodiversity loss, and supporting human wellbeing.[15] Research suggests this depends on 5 core policy approaches:[16]^{,[17],[18],[19],[20]}

reducing fossil fuel use
promoting sustainable, healthy diets
increasing food productivity and cutting food loss and waste
implementing nature-based solutions at scale
strengthening governance and management of land and waters

These involve delivery of multiple benefits from land uses. This ‘multifunctionality’ can be described as the capacity of landscapes to provide multiple social, economic and environmental benefits.¹²^,[21]

For example, to manage the extent of future expansion in renewable energy generation some governments have imposed energy exclusion zones within spatial energy policies to protect food production or the natural environment.[22]^,[23] Modelling studies suggest the introduction of these exclusion zones may increase the market costs for the energy system.⁹

In contrast, a multifunctional approach would seek to align benefits of different land uses, such as food production, wildlife protection and energy generation, and identify land use trade-offs where increases in some goods and services cannot be simultaneously achieved.

The Food, Farming and Countryside Commission, a charity, has been developing a multifunctional land use framework through pilot programmes in England, which have sought to be as inclusive and participative as possible, including mediating conflicts over land use and negotiating solutions.[24] Research suggests ‘bridging institutions’ can be created to mediate land use approaches (POSTbrief 42).

Trade-offs will result in winners and losers and may require citizen engagement dialogues at the landscape or community scale informed by research in which trade-offs are made explicit.⁷ For example, the development of approaches to quantify benefit changes and enable comparison across scales and between sectors. An OECD report suggested these can be assessed using the scoring system developed by the International Science Council for understanding interactions between sustainable development goals.[25]^,[26]

Contributors suggested another approach to integrating multiple policy objectives could be the adoption of a ‘natural capital’ approach to land use decisions that consider the goods and services society requires both with and without a market value.⁹^,[27],[28] Natural capital has been defined as the “part of nature which directly or indirectly underpins value to people, including ecosystems, species, freshwater, soils, minerals, the air and oceans, as well as natural processes and functions”.[29]^,[30]

Combining energy and natural capital spatial modelling can inform consideration of trade-offs between energy, society, and nature, along with other types of evidence, such as if local communities perceive an unfair distribution of costs and benefits of energy infrastructure.⁹^,¹⁰^,¹¹ The Nature Tool for Urban and Rural Environments has been developed to assess and manage the impact of development projects and sites on natural capital.[31]

Natural England have also developed an Environmental Benefits from Nature Tool to assess the impact of land use change on 18 environmental goods and services to work alongside the biodiversity net gain metric (PN 728).[32]

However, a study has suggested that progress on integrated approaches is likely to be minimal without effective translation into sectors required to deliver change (‘mainstreaming’), such as the built environment industry.[33]

Contributors indicated that there are emerging methods that can be used to understand the needs of local communities. For example, participatory mapping of cultural ecosystem services provided to urban communities to identify areas in green belts that are most heavily used,[34] or important for wildlife to inform planning.[35] However, one of the limitations identified was that with access primarily limited to public rights of way, it is difficult to assess the value of areas communities may not have access to.³²

The 2022 House of Lords Land Use in England Committee report recommended green belts should be used to deliver multiple benefits, such as climate mitigation and adaptation, economic development and cultural heritage.¹² In England, 183 Local Authorities in England have green belts,⁴ which the National Planning Policy Framework states has five purposes related restricting urban sprawl and encouraging regeneration within existing urban areas.

Research has set out how the multifunctional potential of green belt areas could be identified, and other countries have implemented greenbelt policies to integrate delivery of multiple policy objectives.[36]^{,[37],[38],[39],[40],[41]} Multifunctionality could inform what areas suitable for release from green belt policy. The government is consulting on a sequential test for releasing green belt land for development, including creating a new designation of “grey belt” land,[42] which has previously been developed or makes limited contribution to green belt purposes.[43]

Research has also identified that green belt policies do not cover green infrastructure and its multifunctional objectives.[44] Green infrastructure has been defined by the EU as a managed network designed to deliver multifunctional benefits across multiple scales, including landscapes.[45]^,⁴³ Research suggests the lack of strong green infrastructure policy wording in all the UK nations means it is likely to be vulnerable in planning decisions.⁴³^{,[46],[47],[48],[49],[50]}

Key uncertainties/unknowns

In England in 2018, about half the agricultural output was produced using just 30% of the total farmed area.[51] Less productive agricultural land could be used to meet other policy objectives but there is no vision for England’s landscapes over coming decades to inform such changes.[52]
Uncertainties in trends driving changes in land use such as technologies and societal preferences (PN 380). For example, the likely acceptable future expansion in the extent of renewable energy generation.
Determining the economic value of integrative approaches such as multifunctionality for delivering multiple environmental benefits.[53]^,[54],[55] Multifunctionality poses challenges such as determining how and at what scale to measure it, and may require integrating data on aligning benefits and managing trade-offs.[56] For example, capturing the economic benefits of improving water quality from investing in changing land use practices, nature based solutions, sewage treatment and sustainable urban drainage across river catchments.

Key questions for Parliament

How might the current governance framework for the built and natural environment be reformed to better address the need for integrating land uses.
How can participation in decision making by affected communities be facilitated?
How might government departments, agencies and local authorities work together to deliver multifunctional landscapes in England that deliver multiple policy objectives?
Given land use competition, are measures for UK nature recovery sufficient to meet international commitments to protect and conserve a minimum of 30% of biodiversity on land by 2030, known as 30×30 targets, and greenhouse gas emission reductions?[57]^,[58]
What are the implications of reforms to the planning system to deliver objectives relating to housing, infrastructure and economic growth for nature recovery objectives?[59]^{,[60],[61],[62]}
What are the implications of land use changes for communities and how can such change be managed in a way that is both sympathetic to local needs while simultaneously contributing to wider societal aims (PN 706)?

References

[1] POST. (2021). Systemic risks arising from escalating biodiversity loss

[2] Verburg, H. et al. (2013). Land System Science: between global challenges and local realities. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, Volume 5, Issue 5, pg 433-437

[3] European Environment Agency. (2018). Land systems at European level — analytical assessment framework

[4] Global Land Programme Scientific Steering Committee. (2023). Global Land Programme Science Plan and Implementation Strategy 2024-2028.

[5] Zhan, J. (2023). The sustainable management of land systems. Front. Sustain. Resour. Manag., Volume 2

[6] Pettorelli, N., et al. (2024). Prioritising Land Use in the Midst of a Climate and Nature Emergency – Ten Key Messages for Scientists, Civil Society, and Policy Makers. A report from the Zoological Society of London (ZSL) and the British Ecological Society (BES), London, UK

[7] Brandão, M., et al. (2021). Sustainability of Land Use: A Systems Approach. In: Food, Feed, Fuel, Timber or Carbon Sink? Towards Sustainable Land Use. SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science

[8] The Royal Society. (2024). Multifunctional landscapes Informing a long-term vision for managing the UK’s land.

[9] Defra. (2022). Government food strategy.

[10] NAO. (2024). Achieving environmental improvement and responding to climate change

[11] House of Lords Library. (2023). Making the most out of England’s land: Land Use in England Committee report

[12] House of Lords Land Use in England Committee. (2022). Making the most out of England’s land. Report of Session 2022–23

[13] Smith, A., et al. (2023). Sustainable pathways towards climate and biodiversity goals in the UK: the importance of managing land-use synergies and trade-offs. Sustain Sci 18, 521–538

[14] The Council of Europe Landscape Convention

[15] The Council of Europe. (2023). Reykjavík Summit, United around our values. Reykjavík Summit 4th Summit of Heads of State and Government of the Council of Europe. Appendix V The Council of Europe and the environment.

[16] Baldwin-Cantello, W., et al. (2023). The Triple Challenge: synergies, trade-offs and integrated responses for climate, biodiversity, and human wellbeing goals. Climate policy, 23(6), pp.782-799

[17] UK Health Alliance on Climate Change. (2023). Biodiversity, climate change and health.

[18] Dunlop, T, et al. (2024). The evolution and future of research on Nature-based Solutions to address societal challenges. Communications Earth & Environment volume 5, Article number: 132

[19] Baste, I., et al. (2022). Tackling the climate, biodiversity and pollution emergencies by making peace with nature 50 years after the Stockholm Conference. Global Environmental Change Volume 73, 102466

[20] Convention on Biological Diversity Subsidiary body on scientific, technical and technological advice (2022). Expert input to the post-2020 global biodiversity framework: transformative actions on all drivers of biodiversity loss are urgently required to achieve the global goals by 2050.

[21] Holting, L., Beckmann, M., Volk, M., Cord, A. 2019. Multifunctionality assessments – more than assessing multiple ecosystem functions and services? A quantitative literature review. Ecol. Indic. 103, 226-235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.04.009

[22] Welsh Government. (2019). Future Wales: the national plan 2040.

[23] Delafield, G., et al. (2023). The Financial and Environmental Consequences of Renewable Energy Exclusion Zones. Environmental and Resource Economics 1–30.

[24] Food, Farming and Countryside Commission. (2023). The Multifunctional Land Use Framework The key to better land use decisions

[25] OECD. (2020). Towards sustainable land use: key issues, interactions and trade-offs in the land-use nexus.

[26] Nilsson, M., et al. (2016). A draft framework for understanding SDG interactions. ICSU – International Council for Science

[27] Delafield, G., et al., (2023). Spatial context matters: Assessing how future renewable energy pathways will impact nature and society. Renewable Energy 119385.

[28] Donnison, C., et al. (2020). Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS): Finding the win–wins for energy, negative emissions and ecosystem services—size matters. GCB Bioenergy gcbb.12695.

[29] Kirby, M., et al. 2023. Multifunctional Green Belts: A planning policy assessment of Green Belts wider functions in England. Land Use Policy, 132: 106799

[30] Natural Capital Committee. (2019). Natural Capital Terminology

[31] Nature Tool 2.0

[32] Natural England. (2021). The Environmental Benefits from Nature Tool

[33] Scott., A., et al. (2022). Mainstreaming the Environment: Exploring pathways and narratives to improve policy and decision-making. People and Nature, Volume 4, Issue 1, pg. 201-217

[34] Maptionnaire. (2023). Participatory Mapping for Studying the Social and Cultural Values of the Green Belt in England

[35] Kirby, M., et al. (2023). Translating policy to place: exploring cultural ecosystem services in areas of Green Belt through participatory mapping. Ecosystems and People, 19:1, 2276752

[36] Macdonald, S., et al. (2021). Rethinking the governance and planning of a new generation of greenbelts. Regional Studies, Volume 55, Issue 5.

[37] Kirby M., et al. (2024) Ecosystem service multifunctionality and trade-offs in English Green Belt peri-urban planning. Ecosystem Services 67, 101620

[38] Kirby, M., et al. (2023) Translating policy to place: exploring cultural ecosystem services in areas of Green Belt through participatory mapping. Ecosystems and People, 19:1

[39] Kirby M., et al. (2023). Multifunctional Green Belts: A planning policy assessment of Green Belts wider functions in England. Land Use Policy, 132 106799

[40] Kirby, M., et al. (2023). Beyond growth management: A review of the wider functions & effects of urban growth management policies. Landscape & Urban Planning 230 104635

[41] CPRE and the King’s Foundation. (2024). Perspectives on the Urban Edge

[42] Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. (2024). Proposed reforms to the National Planning Policy Framework and other changes to the planning system

[43] Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. (2012). National Planning Policy Framework, 13. Protecting Green Belt land

[44] Scott, A., et al. (2024). What does good green and blue infrastructure policy look like: A comparative assessment of UK national planning guidance. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening Volume 99, 128440

[45] Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. (2013). Green Infrastructure (GI) — Enhancing Europe’s Natural Capital

[46] Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. (2016). Guidance Natural environment

[47] Natural England. (2023). Introduction to the Green Infrastructure Framework – Principles and Standards for England

[48] Scottish Government. (2023). National Planning Framework 4

[49] Central Scotland Green Network. Transforming places for people and nature

[50] Green Infrastructure Partnership. GI Policy in the UK.

[51] Defra and the Government Statistical Service. (2018). The Future Farming and Environment Evidence Compendium.

[52] National Food Strategy. (2021). The Plan

[53] Scherzinger, F., et al. (2024). Sustainable land management enhances ecological and economic multifunctionality under ambient and future climate. Nature Communications volume 15, Article number: 4930

[54] Peng, R., et al. (2023). Valuating Multifunctionality of Land Use for Sustainable Development: Framework, Method, and Application. Land, 12(1), 222

[55] Sun, H., et al. (2022). A land-use benefit evaluation system with case study verification. PLoS One;17(7):e0271557

[56] DSIT and the Geospatial Commission. (2023). Finding common ground: Integrating data, science and innovation for better use of land.

[57] Newcastle University. Centre for Rural Economy policy notes