E.F. Lambin et al. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 82 2000 321–331 327
useful insights into complex land-use systems, one needs to be aware that such models are no longer
within the domain of individual researchers, but are increasingly developed within the framework of large,
multidisciplinary research teams. This trend away from the simple approaches proposed in earlier mod-
els towards increasing size and complexity is perhaps best exemplified by a group of models commonly
termed Integrated Assessment Models, e.g., IMAGE Alcamo et al., 1998. Usually operating at global
scales, although still relatively finely resolved in geo- graphic space, models such as IMAGE seek to inte-
grate a wide range of sectors and process descriptions. Integrated Assessment Models are, thus, often well
placed to enhance understanding of the consequences of intensification, although seldom able to model the
management and decision-making processes of indi- viduals. This stems from their requirement to operate
at global scales which often results in simplistic treat- ment of intensification processes. It is important to
note, however, that such models were not designed to assess intensification, but are concerned more with
broad scale changes in land cover.
In the context of developing countries, increasing efforts, aimed at integrating various model elements
e.g., guided by the major population and market the- ories are obvious from even predominantly economic
modelling. An increasing awareness of the signifi- cance of spatial explicitness or regional situations,
at least is also emerging. This is obvious, e.g., from some recent modelling of subsistence agriculture at
the forest frontier in the developing world. Angelsen 1994 discusses how variables of the population
models such as fallow period and labour input can be integrated in the open economy models. As an
outcome of comparing the modelling approaches, An- gelsen 1994 suggested consideration of input price
developments e.g., price of fertilisers, risk factors and crop choices, but also the recognition of differ-
ences between settled intensive margin and frontier extensive margin agriculture when evaluating the
impact of technological change Walker, 1999.
4. Case study evidence
The Land-UseLand-Cover Change LUCC prog- ramme Turner et al., 1993, identified the importance
of using case study evidence to supplement modelling activities. This leads us to ask, what can be derived
from case study evidence to improve our ability to predict land-use intensity? For example, what vari-
ables should be included in more “realistic” mod- elling? The outcomes of two empirical case studies
aimed at testing theories and reflecting recent efforts to merge subsistence and market demands “induced
intensification” are presented below.
In a time series analysis between 1950 and 1986 of the induced intensification theory for 265 households
and five villages representing a range of agroecolog- ical and socio-economic conditions in Bangladesh,
Turner and Ali 1996 stated that the model pro- vided relatively high levels of explained variance in
cropping intensity. However, the model also indi- cated the relative impacts of other important variables
such as household class, cropping strategies, envi- ronmental constraints location and water control
and other impediments such as impoverishment, in- adequate transportation infrastructure for marketing
and unfavourable state policies e.g., no government assistance in regulating access to water pumps.
Though, during the study period, all of the small- holder farmsteads actually produced a small surplus
along the lines of induced intensification, the results were achieved under conditions of increasing social
polarisation in the course of time, with larger hold- ers accounting for surplus production and increasing
landless households suffering from production short- falls and malnutrition. Thus, adding to a broader social
or political economy understanding of land-use inten- sity changes, the authors also point to the existence
of Malthusian-like “thresholds” of intensification that constitute critical junctures in the process and create
a series of steps or staircase-like intensification pro- cess. Thresholds may serve as major impediments to
intensification and either lead to conditions of invo- lution — in the sense of production increases under
significant declines in the marginal utility of inputs Geertz, 1963 — or stagnation, i.e., no or declining
production. Thus, notwithstanding environmental and socio-economic constraints to intensification, agricul-
tural growth in Bangladesh was achieved by means of increasing land productivity in the form of intensifica-
tion through increased irrigation facilitating double and triple cropping and the use of green revolution
inputs with some thresholds suggesting responses of
328 E.F. Lambin et al. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 82 2000 321–331
involution and stagnation. The latter were adverted first in the 1960s by the adoption of high yielding rice
varieties, in the 1980s by a shift to garden crops with high market value, and later with the removal of eco-
nomic and policy barriers to irrigation technologies. Noteworthy are both the socio-economic impediments
or “distortions” Schultz, 1978 in the form of state regulations or institutional structures and similarly
operating environmental constraints Meertens et al., 1996 to the “ideal” trajectory of induced intensifi-
cation. Though the diversity of constraints will be difficult to generalise, the point is made that such
structures can be so significant as to mask the under- lying processes Turner and Ali, 1996, p. 14 986. It
is concluded that it is not the process as a whole that is less developed in conceptual terms, but more the
specifics that divert intensification into the involution and stagnation paths.
In an evaluation of survey results from 67 small farms in the Kiriyaga District of Kenya between
1981 and 1995, Dorsey 1999 provides findings that expand upon induced innovation and intensifica-
tion theory supporting the thesis that — despite claimed negative food production trends in Africa
— farmers are practising highly productive agri- cultural strategies resulting from both subsistence-
and commodity-based production. This rests on the more general observation found in Nigeria by Netting
1993, p. 32 that the main strategy for combining high production per unit area with risk reduction
and sustainability is diversification. The Kenyan case study takes the scale of agricultural production i.e.,
number of hectares under cultivation per farm to ar- rive at a better understanding, and perhaps prediction
of intensification and innovation under the constraints of declining land availability. Indicators of agricul-
tural intensification have been identified as a decrease in grazing land coupled with the effects of a govern-
ment “zero grazing” programme, rising percentage of available land under production, competition for
and fragmentation of land as measured by a decrease in farm size against rising population density, and
widespread capital availability constraints on further production increases. Especially, the latter is consid-
ered to be a crucial indicator. The author states that if the scale at which inputs and credit availability
become constraints can be specified, a more precise conception of induced intensification may be obtained
Dorsey, 1999, p. 181. Strongly correlated are com- mercial specialisation and diversification. They both
have a strong effect on net income per unit area reflecting intensification, while the latter is largely
seen as a function of how much food production goes toward consumption versus sales Dorsey, 1999,
p. 193. Variations in the interconnectedness of the latter may be explained by constraints and behaviour.
Some farmers are risk averse whilst others engage in more risk-taking behaviour. Two other conclusions
seem noteworthy. First, no significant relationship has been found between farm size and intensification and,
secondly, it is stated that the market demand path may have a greater influence on increased production than
population pressure, given that decreases in holding size do not generally lead to declining income per unit
area Dorsey, 1999, p. 192. For other compilations and reviews of studies supporting induced intensifi-
cation, see Brush and Turner, 1987, and Kates et al., 1993.
5. What is required to be able to predict land-use intensity?
