Table 1.
Descriptions of the main parameters in the model.
Figure 1.
Variation in productivity capitals across the modelled arena.
Crop productivity is shown on the left and natural capital on the right. Both are maximised on the right-hand-side of the arena in order to allow separation of agent types while generating competition for the most productive cells.
Table 2.
Descriptions and rationales for the experiments.
Table 3.
Parameter settings used in the experiments.
Table 4.
Capital sensitivities and production levels for each agent type used in the experiments.
Table 5.
Summary of the dominant effects of each form of behavioural variation investigated in the experiments (see Table 2 for further information on behavioural variations).
Figure 2.
Baseline land use and supply levels results (Experiment 1) under constant levels of demand for services.
Land use maps are shown for for Experiments 1a (a) and 1c (b) along with the corresponding supply of food produced in each (c).
Figure 3.
Baseline results (Experiment 1) following drop in demand for recreation.
Final land use maps are shown for Experiments 1b (a) and 1d (b), following a drop in demand for recreation. The corresponding levels of demand and supply of food and recreation services are shown in (c) and (d) respectively. The distribution of conservationist agents in capital space is shown for Experiment 1b in (e) and for Experiment 1d in (f). Uniform grey areas of capital space in (e) and (f) do not occur in the modelled arena.
Figure 4.
Effects of variation in abandonment thresholds (Experiments 2 & 3) on response to drop in demand for recreation.
Final land use maps are shown for Experiments 2c (a), 2d (b), 3b (c) and 3d (d), showing the responses of conservationists to a drop in demand for recreation under different abandonment thresholds. Farmer agents have higher abandonment thresholds in Experiment 2 and conservationists in Experiment 3, respectively producing dispersed and concentrated patterns of conservationist land use.
Figure 5.
Global and regional supply levels under decreased sensitivity to demand levels (Experiment 8).
Global supply of food (a) and recreation (b) under dynamic recreation demand levels in Experiments 8b and 8d, and regional supply of food (c) and recreation (d) in Experiment 8d. Decreased sensitivity to demand levels is modelled through exponential utility functions, and resulted in overproduction in the most productive regions. Red lines are demand levels, which are shown following the drop in recreation demand in (c) and (d).
Figure 6.
Supply levels and land use maps following the introduction of multifunctional agents.
Supply of food in Experiment 10 under static demand (a) and dynamic demand for recreation (b), and final land use maps under global dynamic demand in Experiments 10b (c) and 11b (d), showing the difference in the response of conservationists to the drop in demand for recreation as their abandonment thresholds are varied.
Figure 7.
Demand and supply levels with agent multifunctionality and reduced sensitivity to demand (Experiment 19).
Food supply under static demand in Experiments 19a and 19c (a) and nature supply under dynamic demand in Experiments 19b and 19d (b). Supply of services exceeded demand throughout Experiment 19 except for regionalised supply of recreation under static demand.
Figure 8.
Agent locations in capital space in Experiment 19a.
High-intensity farmers (a), mid-intensity farmers (b), low-intensity farmers (c) and conservationists (d), showing appropriate distributions relative to capital levels. Uniform grey areas do not occur in the modelled arena.