Explorations of future land use change are important to understand potential conflicts between competing land uses, trade-offs associated with particular land change trajectories, and the effectiveness of policies to steer land systems into desirable states. Most model-based explorations and scenario studies focused on conversions in broad land use classes, but disregarded changes in land management or focused on individual sectors only. Using the European Union (EU) as a case study, we developed an approach to identifying typical combinations of land cover and management changes by combining the results of multimodel simulations in the agriculture and forest sectors for four scenarios from 2000 to 2040. We visualized land change trajectories by mapping regional hotspots of change. Land change trajectories differed in extent and spatial pattern across the EU and among scenarios, indicating trajectory-specific option spaces for alternative land system outcomes. In spite of the large variation in the area of change, similar hotspots of land change were observed among the scenarios. All scenarios indicate a stronger polarization of land use in Europe, with a loss of multifunctional landscapes. We analyzed locations subject to change by comparing location characteristics associated with certain land change trajectories. Results indicate differences in the location conditions of different land change trajectories, with diverging impacts on ecosystem service provisioning. Policy and planning for future land use needs to account for the spatial variation of land change trajectories to achieve both overarching and location-specific targets.

In this study, we assessed the economic, environmental and agricultural land use impacts in the EU of a 20% reduction in the Pillar I budget of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Union (EU) and spending the saved money via a subsidy on labour in primary agriculture. The impact of such a policy has been assessed with a computable general equilibrium (CGE) model and a partial equilibrium (PE) model. It is concluded that reallocation of Pillar I budgets to a coupled agricultural labour subsidy increased employment in agriculture, especially in agricultural sectors and regions that are relatively labour intensive. Average employment in agriculture in the EU increased with 1.6% in the CGE model and with 0.6% in the PE model. Agricultural production and environmental emissions from agriculture increased as well. At the same time, prices of agricultural outputs decreased. Value added including subsidies increased for agricultural labour, but total value added in agriculture decreased. The latter was especially explained by decreased land prices and land-related value added. Measured in terms of equivalent variation, total welfare in the EU decreased. Welfare costs equalled about 1400 € per full-time work equivalent in agriculture extra. These results show that policy makers should weigh carefully the pros and cons of the direct and indirect overall economic, environmental and land use impacts of a subsidy on agricultural labour at the expense of the Pillar I budget of the EU CAP.

As the EU is moving towards a low carbon economy and seeks to further develop its renewable energy policy, this paper quantitatively investigates the impact of plausible energy market reforms from the perspective of bio-renewables. Employing a state-of-the-art biobased variant of a computable general equilibrium model, this study assesses the perceived medium-term benefits, risks and trade-offs which arise from an advanced biofuels plan, two exploratory scenarios of a more ‘sustainable’ conventional biofuels plan and a ‘no-mandate’ scenario. Consistent with more recent studies, none of the scenarios considered present significant challenges to EU food-security or agricultural land usage. An illustrative advanced biofuels plan simulation requires non-trivial public support to implement whilst a degree of competition for biomass with (high-value) advanced biomass material industries is observed. On the other hand, it significantly alleviates land use pressures, whilst lignocellulose biomass prices are not expected to increase to unsustainable levels. Clearly, these observations are subject to assumptions on technological change, sustainable biomass limits, expected trends in fossil fuel prices and EU access to third-country trade. With these same caveats in mind, the switch to increased bioethanol production does not result in significant market tensions in biomass markets.