Franz W. Gatzweiler

Comparison of empirical methods for building agent-based models in land use science

The use of agent-based models (ABMs) for investigating land-use science questions has been increasing dramatically over the last decade. Modelers have moved from ‘proofs of existence’ toy models to case-specific, multi-scaled, multi-actor, and data-intensive models of land-use and land-cover change. An international workshop, titled ‘Multi-Agent Modeling and Collaborative Planning—Method2Method Workshop’, was held in Bonn in 2005 in order to bring together researchers using different data collection approaches to informing agent-based models. Participants identified a typology of five approaches to empirically inform ABMs for land use science: sample surveys, participant observation, field and laboratory experiments, companion modeling, and GIS and remotely sensed data. This paper reviews these five approaches to informing ABMs, provides a corresponding case study describing the model usage of these approaches, the types of data each approach produces, the types of questions those data can answer, and an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of those data for use in an ABM.

Marginality: Addressing the Root Causes of Extreme Poverty

The need to address extreme poverty from the perspective of marginality arises from the frustration that the number of the poorest and hungry remains unacceptably high. This triggered the call for an innovative approach from the side of science and action. The conceptual and analytical framework developed here views marginality as a root cause of extreme poverty. We define marginality as an involuntary position and condition of an individual or group at the edge of social, economic, and ecological systems, preventing the access to resources, assets, services, restraining freedom of choice, preventing the development of capabilities, and causing extreme poverty. Causal complexes tie the marginalized poor in systems from which they want to escape or in which they want to improve their lives. The rural and agricultural context is of particular relevance here, as we assume that large segments of the extreme poor live in rural areas. The poorest themselves have described their situation, for instance, as being trapped in a “complex knot which can lead to further knots if the wrong threads are pulled.” While poverty is objectively a matter of absolute deficiencies, we explain why the way in which poverty is perceived by the poor themselves requires looking at poverty as a relative, subjective, dynamic and systemic phenomenon. We conceptualize marginality as patterns of causal complexes in societal and spatial dimensions. These causal complexes can, for instance, comprise different types of livelihood systems or different types of poverty traps. They include proximate as well as underlying causes of extreme poverty and specifically address social exclusion, restrained access to assets, opportunities and transport, communication and public services infrastructure. An analytical framework is developed, outlining the various steps required for the analysis of marginality in a systematic, re‐iterative and participatory manner, involving those affected by extreme poverty themselves. From each causal complex of marginality, leverage points can be identified which match with specific intervention packages, relevant for livelihood management, policy formulation and implementation. The approach to the investigation of extreme poverty is applied and relevant for managing change towards inclusive development. Points of entry for public and private investments are being identified.

Institutional Environments for Enabling Agricultural Technology Innovations: The Role of Land Rights in Ethiopia, Ghana, India and Bangladesh

Land rights are essential assets for improving the livelihoods of the rural poor. This literature based paper shed light to some land rights issues that are crucial for the effectiveness and sustainability of implementing technological innovations in marginalized rural areas of Ethiopia, Ghana, India and Bangladesh. By analysing country specific land right regimes, this paper aims to understand what institutional conditions might constitute barriers to the effective implementation of technological innovations and how they might be overcome. Land rights issues considered in this paper include public and private ownership of land in Ethiopia, customary and statutory law in Ghana, and gender equality and land rights in India and Bangladesh. A better understanding of institutional barriers for the effective implementation of technological innovations is a precondition for complementing technological with enabling institutional innovations and for improving priority setting, targeting and sequencing in the implementation of productivity increasing development measures.

Mapping marginality hotspots and agricultural potentials in Bangladesh

Although Bangladesh made some remarkable achievements in reducing poverty and in improving social and economic outcomes in recent decades, about one-third of the rural population still lives below the upper poverty line most of whom depend on agriculture as their primary source of income. One of the reasons for their poverty is the low productivity that results from sub-optimal use of inputs and other technology. To foster agricultural productivity and rural growth, technology innovations have to reach all strata of the poor among small farming communities in rural Bangladesh. For that purpose, technology opportunities need to be brought together with systematic and location-specific actions related to technology needs, agricultural systems, ecological resources and poverty characteristics to overcome the barriers that economic, social, ecological and cultural conditions can create. The first step towards this is to identify underperforming areas, i.e. rural areas in which the prevalence of poverty and other dimensions of marginality are high and agricultural potential is also high since in such areas yield gaps (potential minus actual yields) are high and productivity gains (of main staple crops) are likely to be achieved. The marginality mapping presented in this paper has attempted to identify areas with high prevalence of societal and spatial marginality-– based on proxies for marginality dimensions representing different spheres of life-–and high (un/der utilized) agricultural (cereal) potentials. The overlap between the marginality hotspots and the high (un/der utilized) agricultural potentials shows that Rajibpur (Kurigram), Dowarabazar (Sunamgonj), Porsha (Naogaon), Damurhuda (Chuadanga), Hizla (Barisal), Mehendigonj (Barisal), Bauphal (Patuakhali) and Bhandaria (Pirojpur) are the marginal areas where most productivity gains could be achieved.

An Optimization Model for Technology Adoption of Marginalized Smallholders: Theoretical Support for Matching Technological and Institutional Innovations

The rural poor are often marginalized and restricted from access to markets, public services and information, mainly due to poor connections to transport and communication infrastructure. Despite these unfavorable conditions, agricultural technology investments are believed to unleash unused human and natural capital potentials and alleviate poverty by productivity growth in agriculture. Based on the concept of marginality we develop a theoretical model which shows that these expectations for productivity growth are conditional on human and natural capital stocks and transaction costs. Our model categorizes the rural farm households below the poverty line into four segments according to labor and land endowments. Policy recommendations for segment and location specific investments are provided. Theoretical findings indicate that adjusting rural infrastructure and institutions to reduce transaction costs is a more preferable investment strategy than adjusting agricultural technologies to marginalized production conditions.

Marginality—An Overview and Implications for Policy

The marginality concept calls for the integration of poverty concepts with those of social exclusion, geography, and ecology. The difficulties in reaching people at the margins of systems are explained by a set of distances, (i.e., physical distances such as being located in remote or harsh environments), social distances (being excluded, discriminated against, or not having rights or access to services or opportunities), but may also be related to technological and institutional infrastructure deficiencies. This chapter provides an overview of the concept of marginality and offers a synthesis of the findings of all the chapters in this volume. A review of policies intended to reduce marginality suggests that none of the marginality determinants need to be accepted as long term. Coherent policies and actions, however, need to match the systemic causality of marginality in order to be effective.

Marginality—A Framework for Analyzing Causal Complexities of Poverty

This chapter presents an interdisciplinary framework for the investigation of marginality which is inclusive of the diversity of existing poverty research approaches. Marginality is presented as a systemic and evolutionary concept with particular reference to the role of institutions that constrain or motivate actions as measured against a performance indicator such as productivity growth. Based on a brief review of marginality research in social, economic, and development fields, this chapter presents a definition of marginality and explains the differences between this conceptual framework and those of poverty. Finally, the components of the framework and its interrelationships are described and awareness for the need for further research on marginality is raised.

Biodiversity and Cultural Ecosystem Services

In the relationship between biodiversity and cultural ecosystem services, biodiversity enables the provision of “cultural ecosystem services” which are beneficial for human use and culture and its institutions provide a social lens through which ecosystem services are perceived and valued.

Institutional and Technological Innovations in Polycentric Systems: Pathways for Escaping Marginality

There is increasing consensus that institutional innovations are just as important for development as technological innovations. Polycentric systems are social systems of many autonomous decision centers operating under an overarching set of rules. The rural poor hold positions in polycentric systems, which are marginalized as a result of poverty, exclusion and degraded environments. Horizontal and vertical position changes by means of technological and institutional innovations within polycentric systems create escape routes from marginality. Productivity growth in agriculture through technological innovations is one way to enhance the wellbeing of the rural poor. Sustainable productivity growth, however, also requires institutional innovations. This contribution shows pathways for escaping marginality by means of technological and institutional innovations in polycentric systems.

Marginality from a Socio-ecological Perspective

The authors analyze the concept of marginality from an ecological perspective and provide examples of some mechanisms of marginalization. Marginalization cannot solely be described as an ecological phenomenon, but rather occurs via the interplay of ecological and social aspects of complex arrangements. Hence the use of socio-ecological systems as a conceptual unit is proposed. One way to combat marginalization is to increase the resilience and adaptability of these systems. However, multiple needs must be considered simultaneously, including: food security, income generation, or ecosystem services. Research on marginality in the context of interlinked socio-ecological, complex, and dynamic systems demands paradigm shifts in scientific disciplines that are beginning to merge.