Land re-use, complexity and actor-networks: a framework for research

This paper will present a conceptual framework for the examination of land redevelopment based on a complex systems/networks approach. As Alvin Toffler insightfully noted, modern scientific enquiry has become exceptionally good at splitting problems into pieces but has forgotten how to put the pieces back together. Twenty-five years after his remarks, governments and corporations faced with the requirements of sustainability are struggling to promote an ‘integrated’ or ‘holistic’ approach to tackling problems. Despite the talk, both practice and research provide few platforms that allow for ‘joined up’ thinking and action. With socio-economic phenomena, such as land redevelopment, promising prospects open up when we assume that their constituents can make up complex systems whose emergent properties are more than the sum of the parts and whose behaviour is inherently difficult to predict. A review of previous research shows that it has mainly focused on idealised, ‘mechanical’ views of property development processes that fail to recognise in full the relationships between actors, the structures created and their emergent qualities. When reality failed to live up to the expectations of these theoretical constructs then somebody had to be blamed for it: planners, developers, politicians. However, from a ‘synthetic’ point of view the agents and networks involved in property development can be seen as constituents of structures that perform complex processes. These structures interact, forming new more complex structures and networks. Redevelopment then can be conceptualised as a process of transformation: a complex system, a ‘dissipative’ structure involving developers, planners, landowners, state agencies etc., unlocks the potential of previously used sites, transforms space towards a higher order of complexity and ‘consumes’ but also ‘creates’ different forms of capital in the process. Analysis of network relations point toward the ‘dualism’ of structure and agency in these processes of system transformation and change. Insights from actor network theory can be conjoined with notions of complexity and chaos to build an understanding of the ways in which actors actively seek to shape these structures and systems, whilst at the same time are recursively shaped by them in their strategies and actions. This approach transcends the blame game and allows for inter-disciplinary inputs to be placed within a broader explanatory framework that does away with many past dichotomies. Better understanding of the interactions between actors and the emergent qualities of the networks they form can improve our comprehension of the complex socio-spatial phenomena that redevelopment comprises. The insights that this framework provides when applied in UK institutional investment into redevelopment are considered to be significant.

Hyperresolution global land surface modeling: meeting a grand challenge for monitoring Earth's terrestrial water

Monitoring Earth's terrestrial water conditions is critically important to many hydrological applications such as global food production; assessing water resources sustainability; and flood, drought, and climate change prediction. These needs have motivated the development of pilot monitoring and prediction systems for terrestrial hydrologic and vegetative states, but to date only at the rather coarse spatial resolutions (∼10–100 km) over continental to global domains. Adequately addressing critical water cycle science questions and applications requires systems that are implemented globally at much higher resolutions, on the order of 1 km, resolutions referred to as hyperresolution in the context of global land surface models. This opinion paper sets forth the needs and benefits for a system that would monitor and predict the Earth's terrestrial water, energy, and biogeochemical cycles. We discuss six major challenges in developing a system: improved representation of surface‐subsurface interactions due to fine‐scale topography and vegetation; improved representation of land‐atmospheric interactions and resulting spatial information on soil moisture and evapotranspiration; inclusion of water quality as part of the biogeochemical cycle; representation of human impacts from water management; utilizing massively parallel computer systems and recent computational advances in solving hyperresolution models that will have up to 109 unknowns; and developing the required in situ and remote sensing global data sets. We deem the development of a global hyperresolution model for monitoring the terrestrial water, energy, and biogeochemical cycles a “grand challenge” to the community, and we call upon the international hydrologic community and the hydrological science support infrastructure to endorse the effort.

Understanding the land in Scot(t)land

This essay discusses ideas of landscape in nineteenth-century Scottish literature, art, photography and tourism, showing the pervasive influence of the works of Sir Walter Scott on constructions of Scotland and Scottish identity.

Multimodel estimate of the global terrestrial water balance: setup and first results

Six land surface models and five global hydrological models participate in a model intercomparison project (WaterMIP), which for the first time compares simulation results of these different classes of models in a consistent way. In this paper the simulation setup is described and aspects of the multi-model global terrestrial water balance are presented. All models were run at 0.5 degree spatial resolution for the global land areas for a 15-year period (1985-1999) using a newly-developed global meteorological dataset. Simulated global terrestrial evapotranspiration, excluding Greenland and Antarctica, ranges from 415 to 586 mm year-1 (60,000 to 85,000 km3 year-1) and simulated runoff ranges from 290 to 457 mm year-1 (42,000 to 66,000 km3 year-1). Both the mean and median runoff fractions for the land surface models are lower than those of the global hydrological models, although the range is wider. Significant simulation differences between land surface and global hydrological models are found to be caused by the snow scheme employed. The physically-based energy balance approach used by land surface models generally results in lower snow water equivalent values than the conceptual degree-day approach used by global hydrological models. Some differences in simulated runoff and evapotranspiration are explained by model parameterizations, although the processes included and parameterizations used are not distinct to either land surface models or global hydrological models. The results show that differences between model are major sources of uncertainty. Climate change impact studies thus need to use not only multiple climate models, but also some other measure of uncertainty, (e.g. multiple impact models).

Simulating dynamic crop growth with an adapted land surface model – JULES-SUCROS: model development and validation

The increasing demand for ecosystem services, in conjunction with climate change, is expected to signif- icantly alter terrestrial ecosystems. In order to evaluate the sustainability of land and water resources, there is a need for a better understanding of the relationships between crop production, land surface characteristics and the energy and water cycles. These relationships are analysed using the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES). JULES includes the full hydrological cycle and vegetation effects on the energy, water, and carbon fluxes. However, this model currently only simulates land surface processes in natural ecosystems. An adapted version of JULES for agricultural ecosystems, called JULES-SUCROS has therefore been developed. In addition to overall model improvements, JULES-SUCROS includes a dynamic crop growth structure that fully fits within and builds upon the biogeochemical modelling framework for natural vegetation. Specific agro-ecosystem features such as the development of yield-bearing organs and the phenological cycle from sowing till harvest have been included in the model. This paper describes the structure of JULES-SUCROS and evaluates the fluxes simulated with this model against FLUXNET measurements at 6 European sites. We show that JULES-SUCROS significantly improves the correlation between simulated and observed fluxes over cropland and captures well the spatial and temporal vari- ability of the growth conditions in Europe. Simulations with JULES-SUCROS highlight the importance of vegetation structure and phenology, and the impact they have on land–atmosphere interactions.

Whose land was it anyway? The Crichel Down Rules and the sale of public land

The guiding principle of compulsory purchase of interests in land in England and Wales is that of fairness, best stated in the words of Lord Justice Scott in Horn v Sunderland Corporation when he said that the owner has “the right to be put, so far as money can do it, in the same position as if his land had not been taken from him”. In many instances, land acquired by compulsion subsequently becomes surplus to the requirements of the acquiring authority. This may be because the intended development scheme was scrapped, or substantially modified, or that after the passage of time the use of the land for which the purchase took place is no longer required. More controversially it may be that for ‘operational reasons’ the acquiring authority knowingly purchased more land than was required for the scheme. Under these circumstances, the Crichel Down Rules (‘the Rules’) require government departments and other statutory bodies to offer back to the former owners or their successors, any land previously so acquired by, or under the threat of, compulsory purchase.

The Finance Acts 1998 and 2000: can the owners of agricultural land continue to gain from their capital disposals?

This paper seeks to analyse and discuss, from the perspective of the owners of agricultural land, the main changes to the Capital Gains Tax regime introduced in the Finance Act 1998 and subsequently amended in the Finance Act 2000. The replacement of indexation with a new Taper relief is examined, along with the phasing out of Retirement relief, and the interaction of Taper relief with Rollover relief. The opportunity for tax mitigation by the owners of agricultural land is critically examined.