An assessment of the elaboration of Multifunctional Land Consolidation in Denmark

1st semester, Surveying and Planning (SP) & Surveying, Planning and Land Management (SPLM) Semester project

An assessment of the elaboration of Multifunctional Land Consolidation in Denmark Group 3 Alfredo Alvarez Curran, Dahlia Dahan, Johan Victor Mayner Petersen, Nicklas Halberg Nielsen, & Tobias Damtoft Nowak Andersen

Title: An assessment of the elaboration of Multifunctional Land Consolidation in Denmark Theme: Borders and boundaries Project period: 01-09-2021 to 07-01-2022 Project group: 3

Synopsis: Ud fra semesterets overordmede temaramme vil dette project belyse multifunktionel jordfordeling (MUFJO) i en dansk kontekst.

Det er et relativt nyt koncept, der i øjeblikket udøvers gennem en pilotordning, hvori kommunerne har kunnet ansøge om tildeling af midler til at gennemføre et MUFJO-projekt.

Målet for dette projekt er en nærmere undersøgelse af arbejdet med MUFJO særligt de tidlige stadier af processen, hvor blandt andet projektområder skal udpeges og afgrænses. Dertil er der opstillet arbejdsspørgsmål for at strukturere analysen. Først vil der blive redegjort for MUFJO og pilotordningen særligt med henblik på de krav og interesser, der skal implementeres ved ansøgningen. Dernæst vil medarbejdere i fire kommuner rund om i Danmark blive interviewet for at blive klogere på deres erfarringer med MUFJO og deres igangværende projekter indtil videre.

Dette vil give nyt kendskab til emnet og lede til proejktets sidste analysedel. Denne del vil være en vurdering af, hvordan GIS og tilhørende værktøjer, hovedsageligt Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA), kan bidrage til MUFJO og de tidlige stadier i processen med mere.

Til sidst i projektet vil der foreligge en diskussion baseret på de hovedelementer, der er opstået kendskab til i løbet af arbejdet med dette projekt.

Participants:

Alfredo Alvarez Curran

Dahlia Dahan

Johan Victor Mayner Petersen

Nicklas Halberg Nielsen

Tobias Damtoft Nowak Andersen Supervisors: Main supervisor: Daniel Galland Co-supervisor: Irma Kveladze Number of pages: 52 Turned in: January 6, 2022

i

Preface This project is composed by group 3 consisting of five students from the first semester of the master program Surveying, Planning and Land Management (SPLM) and Surveying and Planning (SP) at Aalborg University, Copenhagen. The project is chosen to be interdisciplinary with the knowledge from the two courses Managing the Use of Land and Geocomputation and Spatial Analytics. The project period ran from September 1, 2021 to January 7, 2022. The overall project theme is Borders and Boundaries, where it is chosen for this project report to focus on multifunctional land consolidation. The Danish abbreviation of multifunctional land consolidation (MUFJO) will be used throughout the project.

We would like to thank our supervisor Daniel Galland for guidance throughout the process of working with the project. Also, we would like to thank our co-supervisor Irma Kveladze for staying available for us and answering questions when needed. A special thank you is also given to Karsten WillebergNielsen for taking time for a short talk with us at the very beginning of the project period about the theme and to share some of his thoughts with us. Finally, we would like to thank Jørgen, Hanne, Annie and Mette from the representative municipalities for taking time to participate in our interviews about ongoing MUFJO projects.

ii

Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 Problem statement and research/investigation questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.2 Structure of the project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 2 3

2 Theory 2.1 Multifunctional land consolidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.2 Delineation of suitable areas for land consolidation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.3 The potential of GIS for Multifunctional Land Consolidation . . . . . . . . . . .

2.4 Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

5 5 5 6 7

3 Method 9 3.1 Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.2 Research Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 3.3 Embedded Case Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 3.4 Interview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 3.5 MCDA and GIS workflow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 4 Analysis 4.1 The basis of MUFJO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.1.1 The process of land consolidation in Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.1.2 The process of applying for MUFJO grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.1.3 The process of approving MUFJO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.1.4 National interests and directives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.1.5 MUFJO’s contribution to the EU Sustainable Development Goals . . . . . . . .

4.2 The assessment of potential areas for MUFJO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.2.1 The midway evaluation of MUFJO by the Agricultural Agency . . . . . . . . . .

4.2.2 Four ongoing projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.3 GIS for potential project areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.3.1 Selection of criteria and weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.3.2 Data presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.3.3 Assessment of map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.3.4 Technical limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4.3.5 Comparing to selected areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 14 14 15 16 19 20 22 22 25 32 32 32 33 38 38

5 Discussion

45

6 Conclusion

48

Bibliography

49 iii

List of Figures

51

List of Tables

51

Appendix

52

iv

Introduction

1 Introduction Defining Borders and Boundaries is an important part of planning solutions as they can be in many forms and can be used in several contexts. It can be used for many purposes from delimiting administrative borders like countries, municipalities etc. and be an important indicator of who owns what, to show sea level rise or fall, borders and boundaries, visible as invisible. Furthermore, borders and boundaries can be used as an important term to be aware of in regard to the use of data. Said data could as an example be Geographical Information System (GIS) data. This might be in the case of delimiting relevant data for a given purpose and visualising it through mapping solutions. One purpose in which borders and boundaries play a role is for example in the rural areas where borders are redefined when plots of land are moved and reclassified to contain multiple functions, termed Multifunctional Land Consolidation (MUFJO). It is a quite contemporary topic for land administration and planning in rural areas as more and more projects from national as well as international perspectives need to be implemented.

However, land consolidation is not a new concept in the Danish planning context. Land consolidation has shaped the Danish cultural landscape for more than 250 years. The method was first mentioned as being used in the 18th century as an instrument in the process of increasing agricultural productivity by redistributing land. It even has its own act which was adopted in Denmark in 1924 and was applied exclusively for the region in southern Jutland which Denmark gained back from Germany after World War 1 (WWI). The need for this action was due to the fact that the land reforms in southern Jutland were much older and therefore more outdated than in the rest of the country which resulted in a poorer outcome. In 1941 the act was extended to the rest of the country. From WWII onwards, land consolidation was primarily focused on gathering plots of agricultural land around residences and thereby avoiding fragmentation of land (Hartvigsen, 2014, p. 51-53). Nowadays the rural areas share other interests than agricultural purposes. As the focus on climate and global warming becomes more and more important, there is a need to implement sustainable solutions in the context of administrating and developing land. To secure the implementation of these solutions UN has developed some sustainable development goals (SDGs) for the member countries to implement in their national strategies through directives.

One of the main planning challenges in rural Denmark is the lack of space. In newer time the Danish government just reached an agreement with the parliament about reducing the greenhouse gas emission in the agricultural sector by 55-65% as a part of Denmark’s overall objective to reduce national emissions by 70% before 2030. This agreement was landed in the autumn of 2021. The plan will result in converting cultivated land into different types of nature. This is just one example of a plan which requires changes in the use of land. Throughout the years there has been several plans and ambitions for what the land should be used for,

Figure 1.0.1: 140% of Denmark is needed Source: (Willeberg-Nielsen, 2020, p. 19)

Page 1 of 52

Introduction

which poses a constant struggle. A Danish study from 2017 states that if all plans, interests, and obligations were taken into consideration, it would take 140% of all land in Denmark to reach these objectives (illustrated on figure 1.0.1). According to the study there is a need to think in other ways to handle this problem, one of them being MUFJO (Willeberg-Nielsen, 2020). In Denmark a new land reform built on MUFJO is going to be implemented gradually over the next couple of years starting from next year. The vision is that land consolidation in future will focus on multifunctionality and will play a central role (Collective Impact, 2021).

1.1

Problem statement and research/investigation questions

A pilot phase testing the use of MUFJO which started in 2019 after having received an allocation of funds from the Danish parliament in 2018, has recently finished its application periods. During the pilot phase, municipalities across Denmark could apply to be a part of this pilot program in one of four rounds, the last of which ended this autumn in 2021.

Since this new pilot scheme started its course in 2019 and the final application period has just ended, the use of MUFJO is still in the early stages. In these early stages, the pilot scheme aims to gain insight into how the process of application of MUFJO grants may be executed with a specific focus on the use of modern technology to delineate the areas of action.

Main research question How are Multifunctional Land Consolidation (MUFJO) projects in Denmark elaborated and how can GIS contribute to ease the process of delineating potential project areas?

Sub research questions 1. What does the MUFJO Pilot Scheme consist of and what processes are being applied?

MUFJO is a recent tool and as such, it is at first being used in a pilot scheme. In order to start our research, there is a need to understand exactly how this procedure works; timeline, stakeholders involved, main actors and decision makers, the role of National and EU directives.

Case studies will also be used so that specific examples can be provided.

2. How do the municipalities assess potential areas for MUFJO and how is MUFJO being facilitated?

In order to answer this question, there will be a focus on one element of analysis inside case studies, this is the delineating process. Using online literature as well as information provided by interviews that will be carried out in the case studies, the process of application of MUFJO will be studied with a focus on how the boundaries of the project were delimited and which tools were used in the process.

3. What opportunities and limitations can be identified when applying GIS in the process of delineation?

MUFJO is a process in which several different interests converge to achieve a common objective. Modern tools such as Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in combination with GIS can provide a highly reliable solution to identify potential areas in contrast to traditional methods. These methods will be studied in detail and a MCDA model for the case studies will be designed. Finally, a comparison of the results with the actual areas that have been selected for the MUFJO projects will be made. Data selection will also be discussed and presented.

Page 2 of 52

Introduction

1.2

Structure of the project

The following section is a brief overview of the structure of the project, which will also be explained graphically with a small diagram, see figure 1.2.1.

The project starts with an introduction of the theme, which will set the overall framework for the project expressed by problem statement and conducted research questions in order to structure the analysis. After the introduction, several theoretical concepts will be defined and described in order to provide a solid background that will contribute to the understanding of the basis of the research topic. Furthermore, the methodology chapter will explain the use of the different strategies and tools used throughout the project, which together with the theoretical basis will set the approaches for choices throughout the project.

After this first part, the project will now dive into the analysis chapter, which is divided into three parts - one for each research question. The first part will define the basis of MUFJO - how land consolidation has been applied in Denmark and how has the multifunctional perspective has come into play, focusing mainly on the initial part of the process: application and approval of such projects.

Part two of the analysis will focus on the current situation of the program around Denmark. The midway evaluation made by the Danish Agriculture Agency will be discussed so that a general understanding of the status of the program can be provided. Moreover, the four case studies selected for this project will be introduced in this section providing valuable on-site information gathered throughout the interviews with direct staff involved in each project, adding more specific information to the midway evaluation, thus sharing a clear understanding of the status of MUFJO at the present moment. A comparison between the four cases will also provide further insight into key aspects that may determine the outcome of a MUFJO project. Finally, the last part of the analysis will focus on the potential of GIS for the assessment of potential project areas for MUFJO. This will be done by performing Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) through ArcMap for two of the case studies: Slagelse and Viborg. The results from the first and second analysis will be used in order to define criteria and weights for the model. The result of this analysis will be a suitability model for performing MUFJO for each municipality. Before performing this analysis, a clear description of what data is to be used for this purpose will be offered, as well as a description of how it will be processed and used inside the chosen GIS software. The assessment of these maps, and therefore of the potential, which is believed GIS has for MUFJO, will be evaluated by comparing them with the actual project areas for each municipality.

Following the analysis the results or any relevant findings will be discussed by putting things into perspective - what can other cases expect? and the future aspect. At the very end of the project, a conclusion will summarise the whole project.

Page 3 of 52

Introduction

Figure 1.2.1: Illustration of the structure of the project Source: Self-produced Page 4 of 52

Theory

2 Theory In order to provide a solid background for the understanding of the project, the following concepts have been selected to be defined prior to the analyses. These concepts are considered to be key to the research project, as they provide the necessary theoretical framework that will allow us to dive deep into the subject and precisely answer the research questions.

2.1

Multifunctional land consolidation

The distinction between traditional and multifunctional land consolidation is not described explicitly in international literature. Likewise, the term “multifunctional land consolidation” is not used in any systematic matter. However, several research papers have addressed the multifunctional properties of land consolidation and its potential as a tool for implementing multiple distinctive objectives.

The Food and Agricultural Organisation of United Nations (FAO) is in this instance important to mention. FAO have worked active for implementing land consolidation particular in former east block countries and they have conducted multiple analysis and guides on the matter. Consequently, FAO developed the international framework and a common terminology for land consolidation. They describe the multifunctional nature of land consolidation and argue that the rural space is no longer regarded as exclusively for agrarian production. Successful land consolidation must therefore take other interests into account, for instance village renewal and environmental issues (FAO, 2003, chap.

3).

The multifunctional aspects has also been addressed in danish literature, in particular by the private Danish organisation Realdania.They are strong advocates for the use of land consolidation for solving the land management issues faced in the rural environment. They have conducted three pilot projects across Denmark in order to analyse potential benefits from multifunctional land consolidation. That has resulted in several analyses and articles about land consolidation in Denmark and how it can be used for implementing environmental and climate related projects. Realdania’s understanding of the potential for land consolidation differs from the traditional danish and international perspective. FAO mostly describe land consolidation as a way of developing areas with high fragmentation of land ownership, as it practically has been done in Denmark for more than 200 years. Realdania’s “multifunctional land consolidation” approach is more focused on implementing climate and environment projects which better reflects the new challenges in Danish rural area. The pilot scheme MUFJO is derived from the results Realdania has done (Collective-Impact, 2021).

2.2

Delineation of suitable areas for land consolidation

It has not been possible to find much literature regarding the delineation of suitable areas, and therefore the project does not have a lot of existing literature to support the project. However, one paper exists that describes a comprehensive analysis of different European countries’ land consolidation practices. The paper aims at finding universal criteria for land consolidation to make a decisionmaking framework that can facilitate the delineation process on different scales (Pašakarnisa et al., 2020). The criteria are defined by analysing different countries’ practices especially from relevant Page 5 of 52

Theory

literature and comments from experts. Weights are defined by a survey involving experts from 39 European countries. The criteria and their weights are thereafter applied in an MCDA analysis. GIS is used for the visualisation of the data. Subsequently, the analysis and the data visualisation are demonstrated for a province in Lithuania.

In the analysis, 26 relevant criteria are defined for use in a project-level analysis. The top five highest weighted criteria are: Average parcel size, land fragmentation index, bad drainage index, distance from farmstead to the fields, and bad road infrastructure. Amongst the lowest weighted criterias are average area for afforestation, average area for natural habitat, and average area for re-naturalisation.

It is important to note that participating countries are at different stages in their rural development, and therefore weight the criteria very differently (Pašakarnisa et al., 2020). Overall, agricultural development is by far the most dominant factor for most countries especially in relation to the issue of the fragmentation of land ownership. Environmental and climate-related issues have the lowest prioritisation.

This paper is important as it describes how the delimitation process can be facilitated in a projectlevel analysis and it has inspired this project to have a similar approach when it comes to the use of MCDA and GIS. The chosen criterias and weights tell us that this analysis is mostly focused on more traditional aspects of land consolidation. It therefore still has room for a model that fits the objectives of MUFJO better. The paper does not go into detail with MCDA and GIS, and they will therefore be described in the following sections.

2.3

The potential of GIS for Multifunctional Land Consolidation

As discussed, multifunctional land consolidation is an important tool for stimulating economic development, protecting the environment and providing public access to natural spaces. Some areas of land have more potential for multifunctional land consolidation than others. For this reason, land management instruments should rely on solid methods to identify areas with a high potential of becoming part of a multifunctional land consolidation project. Nowadays, thanks to the use of GIS technology, we are seeing how multipurpose land databanks integrate information that relates to resources, planning, land use, land value and land titles, thus making it possible to use for a wide range of land administration and business purposes. This is how modern tools are helping land administration systems to support sustainable development (Williamson, 2010).

Regarding land consolidation itself, several decisions come into conflict such as why and where, whether to compensate ecological needs with environmental and agrarian efficiency in order to contribute to rural development. The traditional method involved groups of people related to the specific area of action as well as people from administrative groups, attempting to come up with the best possible solution. However, when we are also dealing with factors which are both quantitative and qualitative, such as economic, social and environmental factors (all which play a significant role in MUFJO), a more objective and scientific method is required. Several researchers are pointing out MCDA as the most suitable evaluation technique in these cases (Mulliner E., 2016). A GIS database with a MCDA system is a tool full of potential for MUFJO as it will save time as well as providing more objectivity and transparency into the whole process from the beginning (identification of potential areas) to the end (redistribution of property and spatial design).

Page 6 of 52

Theory

2.4

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is a tool to support decision making. It is a powerful analysis method that allows to systematically assess different scenarios deriving from defined criteria.

MCDA offers the possibility of combining several variables that may be either of qualitative or quantitative value as well as defining the preferences and priorities of the stakeholders involved (Esmail and Geneletti, 2018).

Because of these reasons, MCDA has been widely used in environmental science. The aim of MCDA is to integrate factual information that may have been collected from surveys or modeling tools, together with value-based information. Therefore, it is normally used together with a variety of tools. The main advantage of combining MCDA with GIS is the ability to easily create flexible models that can respond to different scenarios depending on defined criteria.

Although there are different MCDA approaches, it could be argued that most of them involve three main stages, which is also illustrated in figure 2.4.1 (Ferretti and Geneletti, 2015): 1. Decision context and structuring: This first stage aims to provide a definition of objectives, possible alternatives to achieve them and criteria to assess each alternative. This is generally achieved by structuring the problem and establishing a clear understanding of the decision context.

2. Analysis: MCDA analysis is carried through several steps; criteria assessment, weighting, criteria aggregation and sensitivity analysis.

Criteria assessment takes into account the different sets of criteria defined in the first stage and compares its performance amongst each other.

Weighting consists of establishing a degree of importance of the criteria to the decision. A weight is a value assigned to a criterion that indicates its relative importance with respect to the other criteria under consideration (Malczewski, 1999, p. 67).

Criteria aggregation applies a rule to combine the outcome of criteria assessment and weighting and assess the general performance for each scenario. Finally, a sensitivity analysis can explore the outcome considering the uncertainty factors that relate to each of the steps of the MCDA process.

3. Decision: At last, all information is gathered, ultimately leading to the final decision.

Page 7 of 52

Theory

Figure 2.4.1: Generalised scheme of the main stages of MCDA Source: (Ferretti and Geneletti, 2015)

Page 8 of 52

Method

3 Method This chapter explains how the research has been carried out throughout the semester. Furthermore, the choice of a case study approach is justified and the type of case study method that will be applied is described. As part of each case study, interviews had been carried out in order to get more in depth knowledge. These will also be explained in this chapter. The selection of this method and research design has been carefully planned during the first period of the semester.

Finally, as an important part of this investigation is based on working with MCDA in a GIS environment this analysis method will be introduced so that the reader has a clear idea of how MCDA has been approached.

3.1

Literature

Throughout the project literature and documents are used as primary sources to ensure proper documentation for findings and claims, for instance, to back up the results from the interviews. The method and strategy used in the interviews can be found in section 3.4.

In order to find proper literature, a literature search is conducted, starting broad with simple terms while slowly narrowing the search as more knowledge about the subject. When sources are found, they would be saved to a shared folder to be organised where notes and markings are taken. Sources are mainly found through recommendations from Aalborg University Library (AUB), Google Scholar, and official channels for MUFJO, e.g. The Danish Agricultural Agency website.

In order to ensure that the sources are relevant for Danish MUFJO certain criteria is used. The search is limited to Europe as land consolidation in China or the U.S. is vastly different. When reading documents and reports, further research is conducted in order to validate the publisher and how recent the literature is.

3.2

Research Strategy

During the early period of the semester, in order to plan a suitable research strategy, we focused on determining the questions that are most relevant to our topic (Yin, 2003). For this purpose, we reviewed literature available on the internet mainly on the Agricultural Agency website (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021c), as well as consulted a professional chartered surveyor. In order to answer the research questions explained above, we designed our research strategy.

The main research question of this project is exploratory, the goal of it being to develop a pertinent hypothesis and propositions for further inquiry (Yin, 2003). Therefore, the aim of this project is to gain further insight into the process of the MUFJO program, with a specific focus on the early stages of the process. However, due to the lack of literature or historical archives available, we have chosen to carry out multiple case studies as research strategy for our project.

Currently, there are four ongoing MUFJO projects across Denmark: One in Zealand, one in Funen and two in Jutland. The four projects together, not only cover a wide range of the Danish territory but also address a variety of national interests. We expect that although these projects are taking Page 9 of 52

Method

place in different parts of Denmark, similar issues will be addressed by the different municipalities, hence providing a more thorough understanding of MUFJO through replication logic (Yin, 2003).

For this reason, we believe that a multiple case study approach is most suitable for the project rather than a single case-study approach.

Once the research strategy is decided, a plan or research design is to be defined (Yin, 2003, P. 19).

This plan will be a guide on how to get from our initial research questions to our conclusion. This plan will contain the following components: 1. Research Questions: Already explained in section 1.1.

2. Purpose: The aim of this project is to deepen the understanding of MUFJO, with a focus on the delineation of project areas and the process of application. This purpose will guide us through the gathering of data and define a specific field of study.

3. Units of analysis: As mentioned, four different case studies are selected. Data will be gathered by researching available literature on each case as well as conducting personal interviews with professionals involved in the projects. Interviews will be carefully designed so that they focus on our specific interests, this is, the early stages of the process when municipalities apply for a grant for a MUFJO project.

4. Evaluation of the link between initial purpose and final result: At this point, we will assess how the collected data contributes to the present knowledge and understanding of MUFJO. 5. Sharing the new findings: Finally, we will share our discussions on relevant findings from our research.

3.3

Embedded Case Studies

As explained, the most suitable research strategy for this project is a multiple-case studies approach.

In this section, the type of case study that is going to be applied will be described. In distinction to ‘holistic’ case studies, we will make use of ‘embedded’ case studies (Yin, 2003, p. 41).

While a holistic design would be most suitable when studying the global nature of a specific unit of study, an embedded case study design is most suitable when the research project requires the unit of a study to be divided into sub-units. The theme of our investigation is a governmental program (MUFJO) taking place across all of Denmark. We have chosen to analyse the approach used in four different municipalities, each one of them being a single case study. For each case study, we have determined two main sub-units of study: The delineation of project areas and the process of application.

Once the units of analysis for each case are identified, we design a workflow following the case study method shown in figure 3.3.1, that will help us gather all our findings and draw ‘cross-case conclusions’. This step is of great importance as it takes us back to the overall study object, which is the MUFJO program, instead of ending with separate individual conclusions per case.

Page 10 of 52

Method

Figure 3.3.1: Case Study Method Source: (Yin, 2003, p. 50)

3.4

Interview

Semi-structured interviews are conducted to gain deeper insight into how the municipalities are working with MUFJO, taking special consideration on how they have delineated the project areas.

An interview guide is used to set the overall framework for the interview. The guide contains a list of topics that are to be discussed as well as potential questions (Doing interviews – scripting the interviews). The interview guide is shown in Appendix A. The questions are asked in an openended way to allow the interviewee to talk more freely and get into new unprepared topics. Finally, the interviews are transcribed for later processing. All the interviews are conducted online over teams or zoom to prevent using time on traveling. Spoken interviews are preferred over written correspondences such as email because it allows more in-depth descriptions and more information.

The interviews were conducted at the beginning of the project and were therefore very general and touched on other topics that have no direct relevance. Consequently, some parts of the interviews were left out of the transcription to save time.

Page 11 of 52

Method

3.5

MCDA and GIS workflow

Following the steps shown in figure 3.3.1, after we have selected our case studies, we design a data collection protocol in order to perform MCDA in our case studies.

Choice of criteria and weights In the first two sections of the analysis, 4.1: The basis of MUFJO and 4.2: The assessment of potential areas for MUFJO, the criteria are identified by defining essential aspects of the delineation process of a MUFJO project. The case study involving four existing projects and other relevant literature used to find relevant information and to assess which criteria to include and their weights.

Especially the point system in the existing guidance of the application for MUFJO projects (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021g) sets the starting point in the search for relevant criteria and weights. In the overview of the point system it is possible to determine which factors contribute to the final assessment of the application for MUFJO. Data gathering The relevant data for our analysis is mainly geographic information in a geographic database format.

This is in the form of layers (shapefiles) or raster (images) to be included in our maps and models.

As further explained in this project, the mentioned layers of information are selected based on the chosen criteria. For every dataset downloaded for the MCDA, it is secured that it is downloaded from the distributors who are the main agencies for the given sector and responsible for updating the data. There is only used existing open source data from Danish data portals. If the documentation for the data was unavailable, the Geodata information website from Agency for Data Supply and Efficiency is used to ensure data is used correctly. Lack of data means in some cases, that some relevant criteria are not possible to include. More about how this data is used can be found in section 4.3.2.

Performing the MCDA and geographical delineation of analysis After the data is collected, the MCDA is performed in a GIS environment through the ‘Model-Builder’ inside the program ArcMap. The model combines the data through an MCDA geoprocessing tool and gives as a result a new layer that shows in a defined scale, a suitability map for MUFJO inside the municipality. While most data available for the suitability model cover whole regions or all of Denmark, a decision to limit the area of the model is taken even though the process for making a model covering all of Denmark would be identical. This is in part due to the time and resources needed to identify data for all regions and the CPU resources needed to run the a MCDA model for the entire county. Due to the amount of time and effort required for each data collection and analysis, the analysis is performed for two of our case studies instead of all four studies. The two selected case studies are focused on two different interests. The other two have similar interests as the first two, and they, thereby, do not add any new information. To get an understanding of how the maps are created, the more technical approach is described later in section 4.3.3, but a small part of the Model-Builder can be seen on figure 3.5.1.

Page 12 of 52

Method

Natura 2000

Feature to Raster

Reclassify

Bioscore (local)

Feature to Raster

Reclassify

§3 nature

Feature to Raster

Reclassify

Weighted Overlay

Weighted Overlay Lowland CO2

Feature to Raster

Reclassify

Sea flooding risk

Resample

Reclassify

Stream flooding risk

Suitability Map

Weighted Overlay

Weighted Overlay Resample

Reclassify

Figure 3.5.1: Example of Model Builder performing MCDA inside ArcMAP Source: Self-produced Validation The performance of the model is validated through two assessments. The first is a comparison with the location of two ongoing projects located in Viborg and Slagelse municipality respectively. The location of the existing projects is visualised on a map and compared to the output of the model.

The assessment tells whether the model can find opportunities for a MUFJO project within the existing project area. It is expected that the model can do that to some degree. However, it is not expected that the model finds 100% of the project area suitable, duo to the nature of a MCDA model on this scale. The weight of the criteria is set to be equal.

The second assessment is a sensitivity analysis where changes in the weights are applied in order to assess how sensitive the model is. The sensitivity analysis is carried out on the two chosen cases by changing the weights, so they better reflect the specific objectives of each project they are compared to. The new output of the model is compared to the equal weight output and the new weights are compared to the project area to assess, whether they better reflect reality. It is expected that a MCDA model is somewhat sensitive but too much sensitivity can be an issue. Both assessments are based on visual comparisons.

Page 13 of 52

Analysis

4 Analysis In the Analysis, the sub research questions are examined. They are analysed systematically, by first examining the pilot scheme and the processes that are applied regarding MUFJO. With a starting point in the interviews made with the four selected municipalities, it is examined how the municipalities work with MUFJO and which problems they have encountered so far. With MUFJO still being a pilot scheme in Denmark, it is limited how much the municipalities have worked with this analysis method. Therefore, the interviews are mostly focused on the initial part of the MUFJO pilot process, and the issues encountered in the municipalities within the application and first year of the pilot scheme.

Lastly, it is examined how GIS can be an asset in streamlining the process of exploring the areas analysed in the project and for applying for a MUFJO grant. Furthermore, the demands of applying for MUFJO have their limitations which are also examined through the data selection for the GIS maps.

The GIS maps are examined and produced through a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis in two chosen municipalities. These maps are then compared to the project areas in the same municipalities.

4.1

The basis of MUFJO

In order to understand the meaning of MUFJO, it is fundamentally important to know how traditional land consolidation is applied in Denmark, as this is a central part of MUFJO. Therefore, the process of land consolidation is explained in the following section. Next, the process of applying for a MUFJO grant is explained to further understand the necessary requirements for applying for participation in the pilot scheme. Lastly, to understand the process of MUFJO grants from start to finish, the process of approving and completing the project is described.

4.1.1

The process of land consolidation in Denmark

Land consolidation is in its essence divided into three parts as shown in figure 4.1.1. The first part is a pre-study of a selected area. In this part, the main focus is to map the area, interview the landowners, and assess the general interest from landowners and the cost of the project. The interest and support from landowners are especially important, as the participation and involvement in the project are largely voluntary. If the landowners are not on board with the project, it is highly unlikely that a project will be realised. This first part is expected to last between 2-4 months and if the assessment overall is positive, it moves on to the next part of land consolidation.

The second part focuses on planning the re-allotment and negotiations with landowners and other involved parties. A meeting with the involved parties is held in which important decisions such as the area to be covered by the project and the date of implementation is decided. This meeting also informs the participants about the entire process and procedure from start to end. Then the planning of re-allotment begins. In the initial part of the re-allotment planning, it is settled which landowners are interested in selling land, purchasing more land and those interested in exchanging existing land with similarly valued land. Equally the value of each cadaster is assessed based on the current market price. With this in place, the planning for re-allotment can begin to take shape.

Page 14 of 52

Analysis

The planner then must have a draft for the re-allotment ready three months before the scheduled date of implementation agreed upon at the first meeting of this second part of the process. This reallotment draft consists of two plans: Plan 1 is a map that shows the participating landownerships prior to the re-allotment, while Plan 2 shows the landownership after the implementation of the re-allotment plan. Other documents that form part of the draft e.g., include legally binding offers from the participating landowners.

The re-allotment draft is evaluated by a land consolidation commission as well as the public at a second meeting. When the project is approved by the land consolidation commission and is ready for implementation, 6-18 months have usually passed. On the date of implementation, all agreed changes in land ownership in the project will ensue. This is also the date where all transactions regarding the land re-allotment will occur.

At last, the third and final part of the land consolidation will begin. This part focuses on surveying and preparing new boundaries to be registered in the land register and cadaster. This final part of the process usually takes a further 6-18 months to finalise (Hartvigsen, 2014).

Figure 4.1.1: Visualisation of time effort for land consolidation in Denmark Source: Self-produced

4.1.2

The process of applying for MUFJO grants

Multifunctional land consolidation (MUFJO) is a process in Denmark where areas of land are being traded in order to optimise the land use. The object of MUFJO is to optimise farming while also Page 15 of 52

Analysis

improving nature and the environmental conditions by e.g. protecting wetlands, afforestation or improving the biodiversity (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021a).

The process of MUFJO is currently used in a pilot scheme in Denmark. It is decided that it is possible for either municipalities or the regional nature agencies to apply for grants for and own MUFJO projects. The pilot scheme secures the right for free land consolidation when applying for MUFJO grants. This part is managed and executed by the Danish Agricultural Agency. In contrary to traditional land consolidation in Denmark, MUFJO is a completely voluntary process and if a landowner is not willing to participate no expropriation can be executed to utilise a parcel of that landowner (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2020).

The first application period of the MUFJO pilot scheme began in 2020 and the fourth and last period ended in November of 2021 (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021a). In order for a MUFJO project to be accepted in Denmark, there are a few practical and legal requirements that must be met. These are listed and described below.

• National directives and interests: The project must involve at least three national interests with one or more of the interests originating from an EU directive. This could e.g. be clean drinking water or implementation of Natura 2000.

• Feasibility: The project must be realistic to complete using land conservation. Feasibility is investigated by the Danish Agricultural Agency through a feasibility study.

• Size of the projects: The area of interest has to be between 100 - 1.000 ha.

• Financing of projects: The project must either be financed or a plan for financing must be secured. This is done through a financial plan in which the budget of the project is explained including the financial sources. This is however not including the land consolidation which will be free of charge as the Danish Agricultural Agency is responsible for this.

• Locally based project: The project has to be locally based. This entails involvement in the project mainly from landowners and other local interests. It is the owner of the project who decides whether the project is locally based. However, it must be documented in the application for MUFJO projects. This requirement is thought to ensure that national and local interests both are brought into the project.

• Permanent difference in the land use: The project must make a permanent change in the land use. This ensures that the project elements are permanent solutions. However, some interests cannot be ensured to be permanent, especially the national interests that are not bound by a directive. Such interests may for example be ecological farming. To ensure the changes in land use are permanent, easements can be made (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021a).

4.1.3

The process of approving MUFJO

The process of applying for a MUFJO project is as explained in the previous section somewhat comprehensive.

When the application is finalised, it is sent to and processed by the Agricultural Agency. This process is divided into three parts, conditional approval, final approval and the execution of land consolidation and project (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021g). To better understand the process, figure 4.1.2 visualises the steps applied by the Agricultural Agency.

Page 16 of 52

Analysis

Figure 4.1.2: Visualisation of the process of MUFJO through the Agricultural Agency Source: Self-produced Page 17 of 52

Analysis

When the application is initially delivered to the Agricultural Agency, the content of the project is examined by an expert group. They evaluate whether the project fulfills the minimum requirements as required for the application (see table 4.1). Next, the expert group scores the project according to predetermined parameters and national interests (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021g).

Points 3 2 1 0

Criteria The project is highly focused on the national interest The project is very feasible The project area is between 500-1000 ha The project is focused on the national interest The project is somewhat feasible The project area is between 200-499 ha The project is less focused on the national interest The project is less feasible The project area is between 100-199 ha The project has no focus on the national interest The project is not feasible

Table 4.1: Criteria for minimum requirements in a MUFJO project Source: (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021g) Each interest and parameter is weighted from one to three with directive-bound interests being weighted higher than other interests. One factor which is also weighted high is the feasibility of the project. The points are summarised and the project is evaluated based on the points. The expert group first looks at the minimum requirements for the project, mainly whether the project fulfills the demand for three national interests as this is fundamental for the project to be considered multifunctional. Equally important is it to fulfill the criteria of feasibility. If these parameters are met, it comes down to the summarised points. These are compared with other projects that have been applied within the same application period. Projects are then conditionally approved, starting with the projects with the highest points until all funds are used up. This entails that certain projects may fulfill the minimum requirements for a MUFJO grant but may still not be approved, as other projects might score higher and the funds for MUFJO grants is limited (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021g).

This is the first part of the approval process and if a project is conditionally approved, it will then move on to the second part of the approval. If a project has been declined, the municipality or the Nature Agency in charge of the project will then be made aware of the reason for declining the project. They can then consider trying to improve the conditions of the project that were lacking and try re-applying for a grant in the following application period.

The projects that have been conditionally approved proceed to the pre-analysis by the Agricultural Agency. The pre-analysis is based on a proprietary assessment whereas the conclusion is based on whether the project is feasible. If the project is still considered feasible, the application will receive a final approval. With this in place, the Agricultural Agency will begin the land consolidation. This process is set to take a maximum of two years. When the land consolidation is done, the owner has additionally two years to complete the project.

Once the project is finished, a report must be drafted and sent to the Agricultural Agency (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021g).

Page 18 of 52

Analysis

4.1.4

National interests and directives

As mentioned in section 4.1.2, a MUFJO project must contain at least three national interests. The Agricultural Agency has 11 listed interests which are divided into three groups: Directive-bound interests, high priority interests and other national interests (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021g) Projects can however contain elements that support any of the interests the Agricultural Agency has listed.

If the feasibility of a project is in question, it is an advantage to list several elements in the project description that support the directive-bound interests. With this, the minimum requirements are more likely to be met when applying for a MUFJO grant (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021g).

The 11 national interests listed by the Agricultural Agency: Clean aquatic environment: For a project to either contain this interest or an element that supports it, it must improve or protect the condition of the ecosystem of the water. This can be achieved by e.g. improving the condition of lakes or streams within the project area. By employing this interest, the project will subsequently contribute to the Water Framework directive (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021g).

Clean drinking water: With this interest, a project must protect not only existing groundwater but also the formation of new groundwater. This contributes to either the Water Framework directive or the Groundwater directive (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021g).

Natura 2000 and Annex IV species: By improving the state of nature in defined Natura 2000 areas, the project consequently secures Annex IV species and habitats. With elements in the project that support this interest also one or more of the Nature Protection directives are secured (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021g).

Greenhouse gas reduction: A project can implement this national interest by ensuring the reduction of greenhouse gasses. This can be done with different approaches e.g. afforestation or establishment of renewable energy. The effect of greenhouse gas reduction is predicted for each year, and is valued upon the amount of yearly reduction (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021g).

Climate adaption: A project can implement this interest by reducing the risk of flooding in order to protect societal values or coastal areas. A project can implement climate adaption by various measures, e.g. establishment of wetlands or construction of dikes along streams or coastal areas (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021g).

Nature and Biodiversity: A project must improve areas of nature and habitats and there is a variety of measures that can be implemented in order of a project to support this interest, however the measure(s) must result in either a permanent or a long lasting effect (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021g).

Afforestation: In order to implement this interest, a new area of forest or natural succession of a forest must be established. If afforestation is funded by a private sector, the area of afforestation is measured by the registered forest reserve. If afforestation is financed by the public sector it is measured by the guidelines of good forestation by the Nature Agency. Afforestation will often contribute to other national interests (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021g).

Organic agriculture: Within a project, the organic agriculture must either be expanded or converted from conventional agriculture to relate to this national interest. By implementing this national interest, also the interest of allotment will be implemented (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021g).

Page 19 of 52

Analysis

Outdoor living: If a project improves the access to outdoor living and nature exploration, this national interest will be relevant for the project. This can be done e.g. by expanding the amount of paths, marking routes passing through nature areas within the project area or placing benches in nature (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021g).

Rural development: For a project to support this interest, it must have a positive effect on the development of rural areas. It is however important that the project makes a comprehensive description that elaborates on the necessity of rural development (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021g).

Allotment of agricultural land: This national interest is very dependent on landowners within and surrounding the project area. In order to implement this interest, it has to be documented how many landowners who are interested in the allotment. By improving the allotment of agricultural land, landowners now have a more fitting placement of parcels which improves the economy and convenience for the landowners (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021g).

4.1.5

MUFJO’s contribution to the EU Sustainable Development Goals

As mentioned above, for a MUFJO project to be approved, it needs to address at least three of Denmark’s national interests, one of which must be clearly related to a national directive. Those can easily be related to several Sustainable Development Goals set by the UN for 2030 and focus on the targets and indicators for each goal in order to assess how MUFJO is contributing, or not, to the achievement of these goals. For this section 3 out of the 17 SDG goals (UN, 2018) are selected in which a close relationship between the targets and indicators of each goal, with the strategies implemented from the MUFJO program: • Goal 6: Clean Water and Sanitation: – in relation to – two of the National Directives: ‘Clean drinking water’ and ‘Clean aquatic environment’.

– Targets 6.3 and 6.6 with their corresponding indicators 6.3.2. and 6.6.1, aim to protect water quality as well as water-related ecosystems.

• Goal 13: Climate Action – in relation to – one National Directive: ‘Greenhouse gas reduction’ and one national interest of high priority: ‘Climate adaptation’.

– Target 13.1 and 13.2 with their corresponding indicators 13.1.3 and 13.2.1, aim to improve resilience and adaption to natural hazards, encouraging and supporting national policies that work in this direction.

• Goal 15: Life on Land – in relation to – one National Directive: ‘Natura 2000’ and two national interests of high priority: ‘Nature and Biodiversity’ and ‘Afforestation’.

– Target 15.2, 15.3 and 15.10 with their corresponding indicators 15.2.1, 15.3.1 and 15.10.1 aim to protect and restore wildlife and increase financial support for sustainable management of natural resources and ecosystems of all kinds.

Regarding Goal 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), several examples of MUFJO projects that are being currently developed a focus on underground water protection from toxic products used in agriculture. For this purpose, organic farmlands are promoted, hence larger areas of land are offered to the landowners so that high production levels are guaranteed even without the use of chemical fertilisers.

Page 20 of 52

Analysis

Regarding Goal 13 (Climate Action), flooding issues are also addressed by creating new wetlands in the surroundings of existing water-streams that usually overflood with heavy rains and damage the farmlands nearby. Furthermore, reforestation is also a main task in MUFJO projects, this means the reduction of greenhouse effect gasses as well as other contributions to goal 15.

Regarding Goal 15 (Life on Land), reforestation projects can also be incorporated in MUFJO projects to replace unused or misused farmland with new forests, allowing for more biodiversity and life on land. In addition, data is provided in the official webpage of the Danish Agricultural Agency regarding government’s expenditure on these projects (Landbrugstyrelsen, 2019).

To sum up, there are several ways in which MUFJO can contribute to the achievement of the SDGs. In order to assess how effectively are they contributing to the targets mentioned, the indicators described in this section are a good starting point. However, it is necessary to gather specific and official data on the outcomes of the MUFJO projects so that this assessment is as precise as possible.

Page 21 of 52

Analysis

4.2

The assessment of potential areas for MUFJO

The following section focuses on the only existing evaluation of MUFJO and four interviews performed by the project group. These interviews are made with four of the first projects that were conditionally and later finally approved for MUFJO. Focus will be on evaluating the emphasis and the reasons used by the municipalities in their application for a MUFJO grant and how this impacts the chance for approval. This is done with perspectives for section 4.1 in which the process of land consolidation and requirements for MUFJO grants is explained.

4.2.1

The midway evaluation of MUFJO by the Agricultural Agency

On May 10, 2021 the Agricultural Agency published a midway evaluation of the pilot scheme of MUFJO projects. The evaluation is based on the first two application periods and is focused on all received applications for a grant and only to a limited extend on the process after they have conditionally approved some of the applications.

In each of the application periods, seven applications were received where two of the applications from the first period were reapplied in the second period. This means that 12 different projects in total applied for a grant in the first two application periods. In each period projects of up to 2.000 ha of land consolidation were approved (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021b). The projects and their score are illustrated in table 4.2.

The two projects that were reapplied, were in the first application period rejected based on the lack of points scored by the expert group. To secure a higher score in the second application period, both projects implemented more national interests and succeeded in both cases as they both scored 22 more points each. The general amount of points given in each project was considerably lower in the first application period compared to the second period. The maximum amount of points a project can receive is 114 points. The three projects that were conditionally approved in the first period were graded with respectively 67, 72 and 76 points in total. These were also the highest amount of points given in the first application period.

In the second application period, the projects that were conditionally approved received respectively 86, 90 and 91 points in total. This resulted in only one of the two projects that reapplied being conditionally approved in the second application period. In the first period, they each received 64 and 55 points. With the addition of more national interests, they each received 86 and 79 points in the second application period (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021b). At this point in time, it is however not possible to know whether the points needed for MUFJO approval will continue to increase.

Each of the projects have been compared in relation to which directive-bound interests, national interests and other interests were in scope. From this comparison, it is clear which interests are more often applied and which interests have proved more difficult to apply to a project if applying for a MUFJO grant.

Outdoor living and allotment of agricultural land are two interests that have been included in the application of all projects. The expert group that has assessed and graded each project has given at least two points for each of these interests.

All projects also included the interests of clean drinking water and nature and biodiversity. Only the project from Samsø was given 0 points in both categories whereas all other projects received at least two points.

Page 22 of 52

Svendborg

Viborg

Tønder

Samsø

Slagelse (1. round)

Slagelse (2. round)

Esbjerg (1. round)

Esbjerg (2. round)

Assens

Århus

Hedensted

Hjørring

Vesthimmerland

Analysis

6 6 6 4 6 6 2

9 9 3 9 4 4 2 4

6 3 6 6 6 2 6 0 4

0 0 9 6 0 0 2 2 0 4

6 0 0 6 2 6 6 2 6 0 6

6 9 0 9 2 6 6 4 6 4 6

6 9 6 2 0 4

6 9 6 2 6 6 6 0 6

9 9 0 9 6 4 6 4 2 0 6

6 9 6 9 6 6 6 2 6 0 6

3 0 9 6 2 2 0 6

6 9 6 0 6 4 4 2 4 6

6 6 0 1 3 2 0 6

Feasibility Ha land consolidation Rural development

12 12 12

8 12 12

12 8 8

4 12 0

8 8 8

8 8 12

12 12 4

12 12 8

12 12 12

8 12 8

12 12 4

8 12 12

4 8 8

Total score

72

76

67

39

64

86

55

79

91

90

56

79

48

National interests Clean aquatic environment Clean drinking water Natura 2000 Greenhouse gas reduction Climate adaption Nature and biodiversity Afforestation Organic agriculture Outdoor living Rural development Allotment of agricultural land

Table 4.2: The table shows the points each project was assessed to. The conditionally approved projects are highlighted in blue.

Source: (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021b) However, the interests of Natura 2000 and Annex IV species and rural development have proven to be more difficult to apply in projects. Regarding to Natura 200 and Annex IV species, ten projects included this interest in their application. However, four out of ten projects received zero points for this interest. This made the Agricultural Agency change the requirements for this interest from having to have a Natura 2000 area within the project area to now approving the interest if the project area is in relation to a Natura 2000 area. In the case of rural development, eleven projects applied this as one of their interests but only two projects were graded more than zero points (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021b). The requirements for rural development have shown not to be well described within the guide for applying for a MUFJO grant. The midway evaluation does not come up with a solution for this but does acknowledge the issue.

As mentioned previously, it is a requirement that the project is feasible. One project in each of the two application periods was given four points on the account of feasibility as neither project had a secured plan for financing the project. One of the projects had about 1 % of the financing secured while the other project did not have an exact financing plan. All other projects received 8 or 12 points in this category. One project received zero points in this category for multiple reasons. The plan for financing the project was largely unfinished as well as the documentation for the project was lacking (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021b). None of these three projects were approved.

Page 23 of 52

Analysis

It has been possible to apply with a somewhat unfinished application. This entails that some parameters or interests will receive a lower number of points. Some of these projects have been conditionally approved. It becomes clear that it is very important which part of the project is unfinished. If the project is mostly finished and only lacking on one account such as exact actions to be implemented regarding a clean aquatic environment, the project can still be approved. The evaluation also concludes that it is unlikely that most of the applications will not have some part of the application that is somewhat unfinished. If the project is still considered feasible and preanalysis is possible, the project can be conditionally approved given it has received enough points (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021b).

When applying for MUFJO, a specific proposal has not been provided by the Agricultural Agency as to how the application material should be collected and sent. This is in particular a challenge regarding the assessment of feasibility and whether the project is locally based. It is considered from the Agricultural Agency that the application material at least for these two parameters should be streamlined in some way. It is assumed to make the assessment and pre-analysis easier to conduct (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021b). This is the primary suggestion for change that is presented in the midway evaluation which shows the importance of a streamlined application method.

Throughout the evaluation, the importance of applying multiple interests and parameters is emphasised. The more interests that are applied, the higher score the project will receive and the more likely the project is to be conditionally approved. Therefore, those who consider applying for a MUFJO grant should be very aware of how every interest potentially could be implemented to their project as this will increase the likeliness for more points and thereby for the application to be conditionally approved.

Page 24 of 52

Analysis

4.2.2

Four ongoing projects

To get a better understanding of how the current situation is when the municipalities are working with MUFJO projects, four chosen projects across Denmark from the pilot scheme are further analysed. This analysis is mainly based on interviews of representatives from each municipality (the full transcription of each interview is shown in Appendix B, C, D, and E) and focuses on the early stages of the processes, the motivation, and the selection of project areas. Furthermore, their experiences so far working with the pilot scheme will be taken into consideration. Thus, the focus of this analysis will be: • The selection of project areas - which factors have influenced the selection • How MUFJO has contributed to the projects • The work with MUFJO so far - opportunities and challenges The four chosen projects are presented in figure 4.2.1 below. Each of the cases are then presented based on the conducted interviews.

Figure 4.2.1: The four chosen MUFJO projects Source: Self-produced with basemap from Datafordeleren.dk Page 25 of 52

Analysis

Nørreådalen - Viborg municipality Nørreådalen is a long river valley stretching across three municipalities: Viborg, Randers and Favrskov. The core project area with expected land consolidation is about 700 ha (see figure 4.2.2). The project contributes to EU directive-bound requirements such as clean drinking water, implementation of Natura 2000 and greenhouse gas reduction, and national interests like the improvement of nature and biodiversity, among others (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021f). The project started before MUFJO and the pilot scheme was introduced as part of a major landscape strategy based on LIFE Natureman, which is a subsidy scheme containing certain kinds of nature projects supported by the EU. When MUFJO was introduced nationwide they focused the project on a smaller area of Figure 4.2.2: Project area in Viborg marked by the red square Nørreådalen and applied for that specific area in Source: Self-produced with basemap from the pilot scheme. It was a wish to get a more Datafordeleren.dk locally based strategy with more focused development in that specific area instead of the more general approach about developing the entire area of Nørreådalen. Since the project was started prior to the implementation of the pilot scheme it already contributed to many of the factors in the point system to apply for a MUFJO grant. Besides Viborg municipality, the Agricultural- and Nature Agencies also cooperate in this project. It is necessary to make cooperations because the municipality itself is not financially strong enough alone for these kinds of projects. How the pilot scheme of MUFJO has contributed to the overall project is too early to evaluate, but no new goals were added to this project with the application of a MUFJO grant. Besides the financial support in connection with land consolidation, MUFJO is now a tool to be used in projects related to nature conservation. Nature conservation was not commonly applied earlier, but with MUFJO it makes it easier to cooperate with landowners and other stakeholders on such projects. MUFJO is thought to contribute positively to nature conservation projects because a tool is now available which is more about the people who own the land as it considers their needs.

It might change the general attitude of affected people to be more positive about land consolidation and may thus ease the process. However, there is a concern about MUFJO being able to stand alone with no strategy to lean on. Furthermore, the pilot scheme does not contain a specific way of dealing with compensation e.g. in nature conservation projects compared to other kinds of projects (Appendix B).

Margrethe-Kog Nord - Tønder municipality Margrethe Kog is a large dammed area in the western part of Tønder municipality, adjacent to the ocean. This MUFJO project is focused on the northern part of that area and the core project area is roughly 685 ha (see figure 4.2.3). At the moment, the area is mainly cultivated for intensive farming but with the MUFJO project the vision is to take those areas out of use and make nature restoration.

Page 26 of 52

Analysis

The project will contribute to EU directivebound requirements such as the implementation of Natura 2000 and greenhouse gas reduction and national interests like climate adaptation, among others (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021d). The project started as a part of a bigger project called Tøndermarskinitiativet back in 2016, which was before MUFJO and the pilot scheme was introduced. In this project, Tønder municipality worked together with several funds and they applied for EU financial support through their LIFE subsidy scheme. At first, the application was rejected but then the municipally shaped the application to be focused on Margrethe Kog, because they wanted to implement climate adaptation to prevent flooding and to make the area Figure 4.2.3: Project area in Tønder marked by suitable for a nesting habitat area. Just before the red square resending their LIFE-application, MUFJO was Source: Self-produced with basemap from introduced in Denmark. A general rule for the Datafordeleren.dk LIFE-program in the EU is that it will not give financial support if a project can be funded by a national subsidy scheme. Therefore, Tønder municipality applied for a MUFJO grant instead since most of their plans with the project fits into the point system of the pilot scheme. Since the project Magrethe-Kog Nord was supposed to be applied for another scheme, it was not thought to contain multi-functional solutions in the way it should. The project leader explains that the implementation of MUFJO made it necessary to think in new working approaches. The pilot scheme did not add anything particularly new to the project besides the fact that a statement was needed from a local farmers’ association according to one of the requirements from the Agricultural Agency for receiving funding for the MUFJO project. The overall experience working with MUFJO has been positive as the land consolidation part is crucial to succeed with such projects. However, the project leader tells that they would not have been able to make the application ready in time for the pilot scheme application if it were not because they already had a project that was almost fully planned. The material needed for the application was quite comprehensive and they were under time pressure. It might be difficult to build a project from scratch for the pilot scheme due to the long-time impact demanded for a project. Furthermore, it is challenging to deal with the land for compensation. There is a concern that the pilot scheme does not contain the required elements to succeed with this aspect. The project leader thus finds that this might be the biggest challenge (Appendix C).

Afforestation in Svendborg - Svendborg municipality This afforestation project is located northeast of Svendborg municipality and the core project area is roughly 675 ha (see figure 4.2.4). The idea is to take out productive arable land and turn it into forest to be used as a recreational area for the citizens of Svendborg city. The project contributes to EU directive-bound requirements like clean drinking water and greenhouse gas reduction and national interests such as the improvement of nature and biodiversity, among others (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021h). The project area was chosen based on the idea of raising forest close to town, making Svendborg city more attractive for newcomers and also to support the national interests.

Page 27 of 52

Analysis

For financial support, Svendborg municipality cooperated with other stakeholders including the subdivision of the Nature Agency Nature Agency Funen and the local water supply companies.

Originally the project area was intended to be located west of Svendborg city, but the involved water supply companies required another location based on their interests in ground water protection in order to provide financial support.

The location and size of the project area was thus based on common interests from the stakeholders. Furthermore, the boundary was determined based on a screening of the area especially focused on existing use and restrictions. Such afforestation projects have a long term implementation horizon with an implementation period of up to 20 years. The long term horizon is Figure 4.2.4: Project area in Svendborg marked by the red square because the project must be on a voluntary baSource: Self-produced with basemap from sis as there is no legal basis for expropriation for Datafordeleren.dk such afforestation projects. This specific project started roughly one and a half years before the pilot scheme of MUFJO was introduced. The introduction of MUFJO did not change the size or boundary of the project, but the financial support for the land consolidation part was advantageous even though it provided a minor contribution to the overall budget. Therefore, the application for a MUFJO grant already met several of the necessary criteria. The application for a MUFJO project itself was found administratively difficult to make, as a lot of material had to be included. The advantage was that the project was close to being started and extensive knowledge about it had already been gained. One new thing that the pilot scheme required was feasibility, which meant that the municipality had to speak to all landowners and ask them if they would take part in buying and selling land for the project. One of the challenges with the pilot scheme is the short period of two years in which the land consolidation has to be finished because it can cause a lot of time pressure. Furthermore, it is not completely clear in the pilot scheme how to deal with the loss of property value in the compensation part in the project. Aside from this, the pilot scheme of MUFJO is a great tool for implementing more functions in a project such as allotments in an afforestation project, which might not have been included in the project due to financial limitations had the pilot scheme not been introduced (Appendix D).

Nordskoven - Slagelse municipality Just north of Slagelse a project called Nordskoven, which is focused on establishing approximately 60 ha forest near Slagelse city, is located. The core project area is about 650 ha (see figure 4.2.5) and besides afforestation, the project is focused on nature restoration of a stream called Gudum Å. The project contributes to EU directive-bound requirements including clean drinking water and greenhouse gas reduction and national interests such as afforestation and rural development (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021e). The idea behind this project was formed back in 2012 with a total project duration of 30 years and is a cooperation between Slagelse municipality and the Nature Agency.

The project area was chosen to balance interests between the stakeholders within the municipality with the main interests being afforestation and groundwater protection. Slagelse municipality had a climate strategy containing goals they planned to achieve with this project. When the piPage 28 of 52

Analysis

lot scheme of MUFJO was introduced they had to extend the project to fulfill all requirements.

They still kept the main goal to plant a forest close to Slagelse city but added further elements such as nature conservation amongst others when they applied for a MUFJO grant.

The overall experience with MUFJO is found positive. Until the introduction of MUFJO the project had faced challenges with the land consolidation part, but MUFJO helped push the project to find more land and gather the land they already had purchased. With more elements implemented in the project, MUFJO has strengthened the work and cooperation with local stakeholders and communities such as institutions and councils in the small villages around Slagelse as part of the rural development. One challenge they have experienced so far is in the Figure 4.2.5: Project area in Slagelse marked by case where landowners wish to take part in the the red square project but do not want to sell their land. FurSource: Self-produced with basemap from thermore, there is a lack of a scheme to deal Datafordeleren.dk with compensation (Appendix E).

Comparing the four cases Based on the analysis of the four cases above it is now possible to compare them and find common patterns based on the three focus points mentioned in the introduction. In the following sections, it will therefore be described which factors influenced the selection, what MUFJO has done to contribute to the projects and opportunities and challenges it brought as well.

The selection of project areas In all four cases, the projects were initiated quite some time before the pilot scheme of MUFJO was introduced in Denmark. Therefore, the project areas were already chosen for the specific projects when the project ideas were defined in the MUFJO applications. In Tønder and especially Viborg, the core project areas which were in focus for the MUFJO applications, are smaller parts of much bigger areas for which the municipalities have made action plans and strategies. For all four cases, the selection of project areas is based on a balance of interests. Even though the main focus of interests comes from a national perspective, the interests are also determined locally in each of the municipalities. In two of the cases, Svendborg and Slagelse, the municipalities had the idea of establishing forests close to town, which delimit the possible areas compared to the general national interest in establishing more forests. Other stakeholders with specific interests also had a high influence on the balance of interests. In all four projects, the municipalities were not the only actors and in some cases, the municipality was not even the project leader. The Nature Agency has taken part in each of the four projects since they are stronger both financially and in buying up land.

The case of Svendborg is interesting because they changed the original location of the project area because of one of the main stakeholders. In that case, it was the local water supply company who claimed that they wanted to change the location to be more supportive of their interests in order to invest in the project. To summarise, the selection of project areas is a balancing approach with all Page 29 of 52

Analysis

the stakeholders involved. However, it seems like national interests are a great starting point when implementing interests for a MUFJO project.

How MUFJO has contributed to the projects What the pilot scheme of MUFJO can offer in the projects, is facilitating the planning and paying the expenses regarding land consolidation. Because all projects started before the pilot scheme was introduced, the municipalities already had plans for the financial part with funding, etc. In three of the cases, they had initially prepared for application for EU support through the EU LIFE program, while Slagelse was the only municipality to make financial cooperation with the Nature Agency.

However, due to the EU rules for the LIFE program, all cases had to apply for MUFJO funds when this possibility was introduced as it is a national scheme. The overall experience with MUFJO is positive because it not only contributes to financial support but also assists with the administrative part of the land consolidation performed by the Agricultural Agency. In most cases, the introduction of the pilot scheme of MUFJO did not add or change much to the project because it was already planned and close to being initiated. Many of the goals and achievements of the projects fit well into the application requirements for the MUFJO program. Only a few smaller additions were needed to fulfill all the requirements such as the statement needed from a local farmers’ association in Tønder.

Slagelse was the only municipality to mention the implementation of more elements and goals which were expected to help them stand stronger in their application, while still keeping their main goal of afforestation. In that case, they extended the project to also contain nature conservation and use the afforestation to be central in rural development to make the smaller surrounding villages more connected. Viborg also expressed the view that a MUFJO grant may be a tool to support other multifunctional projects than wetland projects, and especially see the planning part useful in making conversations and trading with landowners more efficient. To summarise, the pilot scheme contributes with positive effects which the municipalities appreciate. The municipalities have not in the previous project incorporated the idea of multifunctionality at the same level as it is now incorporated through the MUFJO pilot scheme. This gives the planners in the municipalities new opportunities of planning rural areas etc. with multiple purposes.

The work with MUFJO so far Currently, all four projects are in the early stages of buying up land as a part of the land consolidation, and it is too early to evaluate the pilot scheme. However, the work of the municipalities with the scheme so far has provided the first experiences. First of all, three of the cases stated that the material they had to prepare for the application was very extensive and time consuming. Two of the interviewees state that if they had not already had a planned project, they would not have been able to deliver the required material for the application in time. For Svendborg, the short period of two years in which land consolidation must be finished was seen as almost impossible if the project had not already been initiated. In Tønder it was noted that it would not have been possible for them to apply for a MUFJO grant if they had to start from scratch because of the requirements for finding suitable areas and making the project feasible. Also in Viborg, there is a concern that the MUFJO program may not be ready to stand on its own without leaning on planning strategies from prepared projects. Only the interviewee from Slagelse is positive and thinks it is possible to be able to make the MUFJO application with a project starting from scratch. Besides the time perspective of the process, all four cases find compensation difficult, as there seems to be a lack of method/scheme to deal with this topic in the pilot scheme. To summarise, the material needed for the MUFJO application is found to be very comprehensive and has set some of the municipalities under time Page 30 of 52

Analysis

pressure. Furthermore, the time needed for identifying potential areas for the MUFJO project and for making the project feasible for the application is extensive.

Notable for this analysis of the four cases is that none are mentioning GIS as a method or tool to be used in the process. However, Tønder and Slagelse thought that GIS is widely used by the Agricultural Agency in the process. They are also positive about the idea of GIS being more implemented in the process as it can contribute to multiple purposes especially for mapping common interests and for visualisation purposes.

Page 31 of 52

Analysis

4.3

GIS for potential project areas

In the following section, it is demonstrated how a model can be constructed in GIS to delimit suitable areas for MUFJO. The chosen criteria are initially presented with the associated data, followed by a description of the processing of the data. Eventually, the performance of the model is validated as explained in section 3.5. The results of this section lead to a discussion of the opportunities and limitations regarding the use of GIS as a tool to delimit suitable areas.

For this part of the analysis two of the four ongoing projects presented in section 4.2.2 are used as representative for all four projects due to the time-consuming process of gathering data and making it feasible. Also, the four projects are pairwise quite similar with e.g. two afforestation projects and it is therefore not necessary to have all projects analysed and compared.

4.3.1

Selection of criteria and weights

The national interests mentioned in section 4.1.4 are chosen as the criteria for the model. This is done as they are used directly in order to evaluate the potential of an application by the Agricultural Agency. Additionally, the project needs to include four of those interests. The weights from table 4.1 are applied as well.

However, choices and simplifications regarding the objectives are needed, in order to apply the existing data. As described in section 2.2, an existing paper has already made a similar suitability analysis evolving MCDA and GIS. Having “the average parcel size” and “the average distance from farmstead to the fields” as the highest weighted criteria, the analysis was mainly about finding areas with high fragmentation of land ownership. Land fragmentation is indeed also a part of MUFJO but is not necessarily essential when it comes to the selection of suitable areas, as mentioned in section 4.2.2. The selection of areas seems to be motivated by other aspects mainly the municipalities’ objectives regarding nature restoration, climate adaption, etc. Additionally, there exist no data explicitly showing areas with a significant amount of land fragmentation, and it is, therefore, necessary to build a model providing that. Such a model can be done in multiple ways evolving different criteria as explained in section 2.2. Because it is believed to have less importance when it comes to the selection of suitable areas for MUFJO, only a simplified analysis of land ownership will be conducted, in order to indicate land fragmentation. The method is described in section 4.3.3.

The size of a public land bank is another important criterion mentioned in the paper described in section 2.2. The importance of the land banks was also mentioned in some of the interviews as well as the challenges that can occur when land from a land bank is located too far from the project area. There is, therefore, a good reason to include land banks as a criterion in the analysis, however, it will not be possible to get the necessary data. It will therefore not be included.

4.3.2

Data presentation

The search of the data will be based on what data is relevant for the selected national interests presented in section 4.1.4. The focus for this section will be to present data gathered to do the MCDA. As previously described in section 3.5 the data is gathered in connection to the national interests and downloaded from the responsible distributors. The datasets are either gathered from the responsible agency itself e.g., the Agricultural Agency, or from the national platforms which are available for Page 32 of 52

Analysis

everyone e.g., the Danish platform for environmental information for areas which is called Miljøportalen.dk. All the data used for this purpose in the MCDA are presented in table 4.3. Several names of datasets are abbreviated with the use of Danish abbreviations. In accordance with this the following abbreviations are used: the Danish River Basin Management Plans (abbreviated as VP), Areas where action is needed (IO), Drilling protection areas (BNBO), Areas of special drinking water interests (OSD) and two kinds of sensitive catchments respectively to nitrate (NFI) and pesticide (SFI). Not all national interests are presented in table 4.3. The national interests of outdoor living and rural development are excluded in the further process of developing the GIS-model. The reason for the exclusion of these interests is due to the challenges of gathering suitable data as it is not obvious which kind of data that could contribute to the national interests and if such data even exists. In the case of outdoor living the midway evaluation presented in section 4.2.1 also revealed that all the MUFJO projects in the first two rounds of MUFJO applications have implemented outdoor living as one of the interests. It is then reasonable to presume, that outdoor living will not add anything to differ from the GIS model.

National interest Clean aquatic environment Clean drinking water Natura 2000 and Annex IV species Greenhouse gas reduction Climate adaption Nature and biodiversity Afforestation Organic agriculture and allotment of fields

Data-set VP2 Lakes VP2 Streams IO BNBO OSD NFI/SFI Natura 2000 Bioscore (local) §3 nature Wetland areas and CO2 Flooding risk from streams Flooding risk from sea Potential ecological areas Potential nature areas Existing forests Existing wetlands Afforestation / Deforestation Organic fields All other fields

Distributor Statens IT Statens IT Miljøportalen.dk Miljøportalen.dk Miljøportalen.dk Miljøportalen.dk Statens IT Miljøportalen.dk Miljøportalen.dk Staten IT Kystdirektoratet The Danish Nature Agency Miljøportalen.dk Miljøportalen.dk Kortforsyningen.dk Kortforsyningen.dk Plandata.dk The Danish Agricultural Agency The Danish Agricultural Agency

Table 4.3: Overview of the data used in the MCDA in connection to the national interests

4.3.3

Assessment of map

As described in section 3.5 a decision to make suitability maps for only two municipalities is made.

Slagelse and Viborg municipality are chosen since these two projects have different focus areas.

Slagelse is focused afforestation while Viborg is focused on securing wetlands around Nørreådalen.

A more detailed description of these projects can be found in section 4.2.2. The procedure as how the suitability maps gets created will be presented to give a better understanding how GIS is used.

Furthermore, the choices made in regards to the creation will be presented and explained.

Page 33 of 52

Analysis

Choice of representation, logic and limitations With datasets for each national interest varying in type, resolution and accuracy, the first task is to have a common format to work from. One important aspect is how the data should be visually represented. The most common format for data collected is vector representation, with lines and polygons being created from vertices, which is a point with a given exact X,Y coordinate and value.

Another format is raster representation to which a cell occupies a small area, which is defined by the cellsize within a grid. These two formats are very different ways of representing data and impact which tools are applicable when creating the suitability model. Raster is chosen as the datatype because of the nature of the datasets varying in detail and number of measurements, with most tools used in the MCDA analysis only working with raster.

The quality of data that is assessed as data of lower quality can negatively impact the suitability model when working with several datasets. Following the guide for spatial analysis (Smith et al., 2018), datasets are analysed according to how accurate they represent the real world, what scale is measured and how complete they are. Small misalignments, errors and missing features could stack up and result in an area being rated worse than it would otherwise have been with a higher quality of data. To avoid these errors to stack up, the borders of the municipality are converted from a polygon feature to a raster with a cell size of 20 x 20 meters. 20 meters is chosen as it has a nice balance between performance and resolution, which will set the foundation for all other processes. The cell grid for this raster layer will be set as the Processing Extent - Snap Raster in ArcMap to align subsequent datasets (see figure 4.3.1) (ESRI, 2021a).

Data is categorised into groups corresponding with the national interests shown in table 4.3. If a naFigure 4.3.1: Snapped extent tional interest has multiple subsets of data, a priSource: (ESRI, 2021a) ority is given. Regarding clean drinking water IO, BNBO, OSD, and NFI/SFI all relate to the same goal but have different values with some datasets overlapping. To make the suitability as detailed as possible the guide for MUFJO is used to weight the subsets according to the point system used (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021g, pp. 48-52). With a base raster, the municipality and working order fixed the suitability model can be done.

Unifying data Since raster with a cellsize of 20 x 20 meters is chosen some conversions is needed and rasterising the data is the first step. For vectordata consisting of lines or polygons apply tool Feature to Raster as shown in figure 4.3.2. The Output cellsize and Snap Raster is based on the municipality-raster.

A new Value field is created to which a value from the existing dataset is selected. The value selected differs from each dataset, but refers to the MUFJO significance. With Processing Extent set beforehand, this new rasterdata is aligned and clipped to municipality-raster.

Page 34 of 52

Analysis

Figure 4.3.2: Simplified part of the ModelBuilder Source: Self-produced in ArcMap If the dataset is raster already, some conversions is still needed to ensure a proper representation of the given data. Here Resample is used (ESRI, 2021b). Output cellsize and Snap Raster is set with the municipality-raster and Resampling Techique is set to NEAREST. This will result in a resampling of the rasterdata that also is aligning and clipped to the municipality-raster. The new Value field is assigned a number to each new cell based on the input dataraster. This is repeated for each dataset for the national interests shown in table 4.3 and the result is 19 new rastersets which all having the same cellsize and alignment to the municipality.

One exception to this approach is field data. One goal of MUFJO or land consolidation in general is to rearrange fragmented land parcels to form larger and more rational fields. To achieve this, landowner fields must be identified and separated from each other. Firstly, a Buffer and Multipart to Singlepart function is used with a 100 meter radius over the value field Journalnr. This dissolves landowner fields into one entity if they are within 100 meters from each other, otherwise they become two or more. With the buffer the fields need to be reclipped to fit their true size. Lastly to count the number of fields who share neighbors with other farmers land, a Spatial Join is used, which joins the buffered version to the original with a Math Option of HAVE THEIR CENTER IN and have that value added to Count (see an example on figure 4.3.3).

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

3

1

0

0

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

1

1

1

1

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

0

1

8

1

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

2

4

4

4

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

3

6

5

5

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

Field

1

3

2

1

Goal after rearrangement

Current layout of fields

ArcMap number of neighbors

Figure 4.3.3: Logic and goal for the ArcMap fields-data Source: Self-produced

Page 35 of 52

Analysis

The result of this operation is a shapefile with a number showing how many fields are within 100 meters, but still from other landowners. This is done for organic fields and all other fields datasets and are likewise converted to a raster when done. A modelbuilder workflow of this process can be seen on figure 4.3.4 Reclassification and weights With all the national interests in a common uniform raster format, reclassification can be made.

To represent the different data a reclassification is needed to ensure uniform and equal ground for all datasets. For this a 1-10 scale is applied, where NoData is set to 0 to ensure data is used in the entire processing extent. With this data will have overlapping values, which can be combined and compared in the Weighted Overlay later. Going forward, 1 is least suitable, while 10 is the most suitable value for MUFJO. Not all datasets have 10 different values and will be reclassified accordingly. Two of the most useful examples for this are wetland areas and Bioscore (Local).

Wetland only have two values about CO2 levels> 12%. Areas with 6 − 12% and areas with > 12%.

Here the Reclassify tool is used with the best value being 10 for > 12% while the medium value is 5 which applied for 6 − 12%, meaning > 12% is favored above 6 − 12% areas. For Bioscore (Local) the problem is vice versa. The scale for bioscore is 1-20 so simplification is needed. Here values 1 and 2 is reclassified to 1, while 3-4 is reclassified to 2 and so forth. This logic is applied for all natural interests, favoring values in accordance to the guide for MUFJO (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021g, pp. 48-52).

With all the different datasets reclassified, they can be combined and weighted with the Weighted Overlay tool. The data is weighted twice to make the suitability model more flexible and give the user more options, when selecting areas for MUFJO. First, datasets is weighted for each natural interest. E.g. the Nature and Biodiversity interest is combined, but consist of both forests and wetlands. One MUFJO scenario might only wish for wetlands, making forests undesirable for that area. In this case the weight for forest can be set lower or removed, while other interests still counts towards desirable areas. The layout of Weighted Overlays can be seen in figure 4.3.4.

With overlays for each of the natural interests, they will be combined again into the final overlay, which acts as a master-knob for weighting. From here one interest can be weighted above others, enabling customisation of suitability model to favor themes like afforestation, wetlands or anything the user wishes. Finally a map will be produced from these weights, ranking areas on a scale from 1 (Red) to 10 (Green) highlighting areas where MUFJO might be possible to do. For the sake of comparison maps have been created for Slagelse and Viborg municipality, where existing MUFJO is highlighted. The suitability model is run multiple times for each area with different weights prioritised. The themes for afforestation, wetland and Natura2000 are each weighted above the other interests which is later analysed in section 4.3.5.

Page 36 of 52

Analysis

VP2 Lakes

Feature to Raster

Reclassify Weighted Overlay 1

VP2 Streams

Feature to Raster

Reclassify

GV OSD

Feature to Raster

Reclassify

GV IOL

Feature to Raster

Reclassify Weighted Overlay 2

GV BNBO

Feature to Raster

Reclassify

GV SFI & NFI

Feature to Raster

Reclassify

Natura 2000

Feature to Raster

Reclassify

Bioscore (local)

Feature to Raster

Reclassify

§3 nature

Feature to Raster

Reclassify

Weighted Overlay 3

Weighted Overlay Lowland CO2 Wetlands

Feature to Raster

Reclassify

Sea flooding risk

Resample

Reclassify

Weighted Overlay 4

Weighted Overlay 5

Stream flooding risk

Resample

Reclassify

Pot. ecological areas

Feature to Raster

Reclassify

Pot. nature areas

Feature to Raster

Reclassify Weighted Overlay 6

Existing forests

Feature to Raster

Reclassify

Existing wetlands

Feature to Raster

Reclassify

Afforestation Deforestation

Feature to Raster

Reclassify

Weighted Overlay 7

Buffer

Feature to Raster

Weighted Overlay 8

Multipart to Singlepart

Spatial Join

Clip

Feature to Polygon

Organic fields

Suitability Map

All other fields

Figure 4.3.4: Modelbuilder steps used for the suitability model Source: Self-produced Page 37 of 52

Analysis

4.3.4

Technical limitations

The suitability model has limitations and cannot show a suitable area to which MUFJO is possible with 100% certainty. This is due to data being outdated, uncertain or poor attempts to show some of the themes in question, even if they are downloaded though the proper distributors listed in table 4.3. Some of this data is collected and created on a municipality-level, meaning each municipality is responsible for maintaining the data. This is described in their municipal plans, where municipalities like Slagelse also wish to develop industrial areas, potential nature parks and change borders of their cites to accommodate growth (Slagelse Municipality, 2021). These potential changes are not yet available as data for download though distributors and the suitability model cannot be corrected to show them. This means the suitability model might show high value areas for MUFJO in places already reserved for other projects.

As described in section 4.3.2 some natural interests must be excluded, as no data was available or able to show the interest. Of all listed national interest and directive listed in section 4.1.4, rural development and outdoor living is missing from the suitability model as these two interests could not be implemented. For greenhouse gas reduction, Annex IV species and allotment of agricultural land, data was incomplete and substituted with proxydata to better show the natural directive.

Only wetland CO2 absorption was used to show potential areas for greenhouse gas reduction, however it could be possible to use slope, noise and other factors to show areas suitable for construction of windmills, solar panels or other green energy. This was however to comprehensive to implement into the suitability model and could be build upon in later versions.

For the allotment of agricultural land, no data exist to show this interest directly. However a buffer was created for each landowners fields and then overlapped and counted. This count was used as a indication for potential for land consolidation, as it should favor areas with a lot of different fields with different landowners. This method is described in section 4.3.3 and may not be perfect for all scenarios and do not account for the owners wishes to share or sell their lands at all.

Lastly for Annex IV species, no data is connected directly to the list of species, but a biodiversity map for Denmark was created by Copenhagen and Aarhus University for the Nature Agency. This rastermap shows redlisted species1 , their habitats and areas where species are spotted and is believed to live (Ejrnæs et al., 2014). This was used as a proxy for Annex IV species in the suitability map and may be inaccurate representation for Annex IV, but was ultimately decided to be used anyway as redlisted species shares many of the same aspects as Annex IV. With many natural interests and limitations, the suitability maps, created by this model, should not be taking as infallible, but instead used as an indicator for areas which may have a potential for MUFJO.

4.3.5

Comparing to selected areas

Four suitability maps are made for both Slagelse and Viborg municipality through MCDA with national interests being prioritised with different weights for each map. These visualisations give an opportunity to assess overlapping areas for the national interests in within the municipalities.

These maps and their most overlapping areas are consequently compared to the project areas that are accepted as existing MUFJO project areas.

1

Threaten, Endangered and near Extinct species in Denmark

Page 38 of 52

Analysis

Suitability maps with equal weights Figure 4.3.5 visualises four maps with all applying national interests having equal weights in the MCDA (see Appendix F and G for a bigger map of each of the two municipalities). Maps a and b in the figure show the entire municipality of Slagelse and a closeup of the existing MUFJO project area, marked with a black square. Maps c and d are depicted with the same principle for visualisation, but for Viborg municipality. The suitability maps visualise how an area is suitable for MUFJO through a colour scale with red being least suitable areas to green as most suitable areas. With the weights of the map all being equal, etc. afforestation and wetlands will therefore be unvaryingly ranked. The purpose for this first assessment is mainly to compare the suitable areas for MUFJO in general.

The overall appearance of Slagelse municipality, when looking at figures 4.3.5a and 4.3.5b, shows the municipality predominantly covered by least and less suitable areas with some suitable areas in between. Most of the suitable areas are located in the northern part of the municipality and some in the center region. Within the black square of figure 4.3.5b several suitable areas are visible, which is actually the core project area of Nordskoven.

In the case of Viborg municipality as seen on figure 4.3.5c and 4.3.5d, the municipality is predominantly yellow. The most suitable areas are also bigger and more visible compared to Slagelse municipality and they are also distributed regularly within the municipality border. By focusing on the eastern part of Viborg the frame for the existing MUFJO project Nørreådalen is mainly covered by most and less suitable areas. Within the black square of figure 4.3.5d very few areas are considered least suitable and subsequently the most suitable area is the core project area and where Nørreåen is located.

Comparing the two municipalities, Viborg is visualised as being more suitable for bigger MUFJO areas than Slagelse municipality. However, the existing MUFJO project areas for both municipalities are not necessarily visualised as the most suitable areas, see figure 4.3.5. This is affected by weights not being readjusted to present neither afforestation or wetlands, but all weights being equal. This is a fitting sign of validation of the maps, as it then works for the given purpose.

With the data used in the MCDA, the maps are efficient in showing a rough presentation of suitable areas for MUFJO projects within a municipality. Thus, the maps are most applicable in the initial process of a project. The maps can be helpful in placing and understanding areas that are more suitable for MUFJO. Foremost the maps show which areas in which most national interests overlap each other.

This assessment is nonetheless a comparison with the weights in the MCDA are all being equal.

The following section will focus on comparing readjusted weights within the same municipality.

With these potential areas are compared to understand if certain areas are more suitable for certain projects.

Page 39 of 52

Analysis

±

±

Suitability Map Most suitable

Suitability Map

Least suitable

Most suitable

Least suitable Existing MUFJO

Existing MUFJO

0

5

0

2

4 Kilometers

(b) Slagelse: Closeup of existing MUFJO

10 Kilometers

(a) Slagelse municipality

±

Suitability Map

Suitability Map

Most suitable

Least suitable Existing MUFJO

±

Most suitable

0

10

20 Kilometers

(c) Viborg municipality

Least suitable Existing MUFJO

0

2

4 Kilometers

(d) Viborg: Closeup of existing MUFJO

Figure 4.3.5: Suitability maps for the two municipalities with existing MUFJO highlighted.

Source: Self-produced with basemap from Datafordeleren.dk

Page 40 of 52

Analysis

Sensitivity analysis With the initial assessment having great validation results with the model, the weights are then adapted by performing a sensitivity analysis. The purpose is to see how changes in the importance of the different national interests will affect the visualisation of the suitability maps. Additionally, it is possible to validate the maps, since the knowledge about which national interests that are applicable in the two existing MUFJO projects is given.

Total:

a2 00 0 N at ur

10 10 10 20 20 10 10 10

10 10 30 10 10 10 10 10

100

100

100

100

s W et la nd

10 10 10 10 10 10 30 10

Eq u

National Interests Clean aquatic environment Clean drinking water Natura 2000 (and Annex IV species) Greenhouse gas reduction (and wetlands) Climate adaption Nature and biodiversity Afforestation / Deforestation Allotment of agricultural land

n

13 13 13 13 12 12 12 12

al we ig

Aff or es ta tio

ht

s

This assessment of the sensitivity analysis is based on figure 4.3.6 and 4.3.7. On each figure respectively Slagelse and Viborg municipality is visualised by four different suitability maps showing equal weights (a) then respectively afforestation (b), wetlands (c) and Natura 2000 (d) being weighted higher. These three national interests are chosen for the sensitivity analysis since they have afforestation and wetland are the main focus for the majority of projects. Equally all three maps visualise the biggest difference in suitable locations, which makes the comparison sharper. In the MCDA the weighting for the importance of each of those three national interests, as shown in figure 4.4, has been increased to 30%, which also means that national interests that are not in focus has been decreased to 10%, since the total amount of weights must become 100%. However the wetlands model is an exception. Here climate adaption, the risk of flooding near streams and sea is set to 20%, while greenhouse gas reduction, the release of CO2 on open plains, is also set to 20%. The reason being these two weights contribute to the formation of wetlands. Also to note here is the Afforestation weight is set as deforestation to demote areas where forests are wanted.

Table 4.4: Weights set for the sensitivity models for each map Source: Self produced The MUFJO project in Slagelse municipality is an afforestation project making, figure 4.3.6b especially interesting, as the area is overall much more suitable than the other maps. Similarly the most suitable areas are much more present, both inside the black square of the existing project area, but also elsewhere in the municipality. By analysing the maps on figure 4.3.6c and 4.3.6d it shows that the existing project area is not the most optimal area for neither wetlands or Natura 2000 focused projects. Especially in the case of wetlands, there are other bigger and more coherent suitable areas in the southern part of Slagelse municipality. Additionally figure 4.3.6c shows that wetland project mostly unsuitable in the municipality.

Page 41 of 52

Analysis

±

Suitability Map Afforestation Focused

Suitability Map Most suitable

Least suitable Existing MUFJO

±

Most suitable

0

5

Least suitable

10 Kilometers

Existing MUFJO

0

(a) Equal weights

5

10 Kilometers

(b) Afforestation weights

±

Suitability Map Wetland Focused

Suitability Map Natura2000 Focused

Most suitable

Least suitable Existing MUFJO

±

Most suitable

0

5

10 Kilometers

Least suitable Existing MUFJO

(c) Wetland weights

0

5

10 Kilometers

(d) Natura2000 weights

Figure 4.3.6: Different suitability maps for Slagelse municipality Source: Self-produced with basemap from Datafordeleren.dk Page 42 of 52

Analysis

The MUFJO project in Viborg municipality is a wetland project. The maps in figure 4.3.7 is set in the same sequence as the maps for Slagelse municipality. In contrast to Slagelse Municipality, maps a, b and c for Viborg are much clearer in areas of suitability. As previously described in section 4.2.2 the existing MUFJO project is mainly contributing to national interests like implementing Nature 2000 and wetlands, which fits with the sensitivity analysis. It is especially noticeable at figure 4.3.7c, that the existing project area is most suitable. If the project in contrary had to contribute to afforestation, the existing area is not suitable. They might look for another location e.g., north of the city Viborg.

For both Slagelse and Viborg municipalities the results of the sensitivity analysis emphasise that the areas of existing MUFJO projects, ties with the national interests they mainly contribute to.

Correspondingly like the assessment with equal weights, this result contributes even more confidently on the validation of the model. One interesting result amongst others is that a suitable area from the basis map does not necessarily fit all national interests. Regarding both Slagelse and Viborg the existing project area is suitable for MUFJO in general based on maps in figures 4.3.6a and 4.3.7a.

However, by performing the sensitivity analysis the area was not suitable for wetlands in Slagelse and separately afforestation in Viborg as the areas for those interests turned out to be less suitable. This result shows that it might be more efficient to point out a potential area for MUFJO if a general idea of what the project should focus on, and which interests the project is mainly contributing to.

Nevertheless, the basis map can be useful if the purpose is to implement as many national interests as possible.

Page 43 of 52

Analysis

±

Suitability Map Afforestation Focused

Suitability Map Most suitable

Least suitable Existing MUFJO

±

Most suitable

0

10

Least suitable

20 Kilometers

Existing MUFJO

0

(a) Equal weights

10

20 Kilometers

(b) Afforestation weights

±

Suitability Map Natura2000 Focused

Suitability Map Wetland Focused Most suitable

Least suitable Existing MUFJO

±

Most suitable

0

10

20 Kilometers

Least suitable Existing MUFJO

(c) Wetland weights

0

10

20 Kilometers

(d) Natura2000 weights

Figure 4.3.7: Different suitability maps for Viborg municipality Source: Self-produced with basemap from Datafordeleren.dk

Page 44 of 52

Discussion

5 Discussion The analysis performed for this project has given as a result several themes to be discussed in this chapter. Before concluding, the issues raised during the analysis will be put forward in order to search for new and relevant findings. We have grouped these issues into three main themes: firstly the methodology used in our analysis and its limitations, then the role of national interests and SDGs in the initial stage of a MUFJO project and lastly, the important considerations when performing sensitivity analysis.

Limitations and opportunities The chosen method for the GIS salutation is based on the presumption, that such the model is suitable for the purpose of delineating areas for MUFJO. However, there are also some apparent limitations related to the approach. In the following section, opportunities and limitations related to the choice of model and methodology will be discussed.

As indicated in section 3.5 and again in 4.3.3 is it not a simple task to make a model that contains multiple interests. For a project of this size, it has been necessary to make some simplifications of the MCDA model. For example land fragmentation is kept simple and other aspects related to property ownership or property structures are kept out of the analysis. However, due to a large amount of reliable open-source data, it has still been possible to create a model consisting of 19 distinctive datasets, shown in figure 4.3.4, representing 9 national interests out of the 11 mentioned in section 4.1.4. Additionally, the results from the case study showed, that there was put little emphasis on the reallocation of land when it comes to the delineation of the project area, and it is therefore argued, that the lack of those information has little impact on the results.

It is demonstrated in section 4.3.3 and 4.3.5 how such a model can be put together and that it gives an output that somewhat is in accordance with the location of ongoing MUFJO projects. This implies that the model works and that it possibly can be used to screen for areas with potential for a MUFJO project.

It is important to mention that the model is not strictly designed to fit MUFJO and it can therefore be used in other contexts, especially due to the absence of traditional land consolidation aspects in the model. The model might just as well be applied for other schemes or municipalities when working with landscape strategies. The essence of the model is an indication of overlapping areas of national interests especially related to environmental and climate issues.

National Interests and SDGs Through the interviews carried out for each case study (Appendix B, C, D and E) it was observed that the projects presented by the municipalities to be part of the MUFJO program, were not primarily focused on the land consolidation itself, that is to say, the land fragmentation issue was not the main driver of the process. Instead, it is the addressing of the national interests which is the starting point for the projects. Each municipality has its own needs and resources to fulfill those. For example, in the case of Slagelse Municipality, as mentioned in section 4.2.2, the afforestation project plus the restoration of a stream area aimed to address the municipality’s climate action strategy. Once Page 45 of 52

Discussion

the best area was located to do so, the municipality had to come up with a plan to rearrange land ownership in that area in order to balance the interests of all stakeholders involved.

However, most of the projects that have been approved for the MUFJO pilot scheme had already been designed a long time before the program was created as mentioned in section 4.2.2. As the main idea of the MUFJO program is to address as many environmental issues as possible at once, this encouraged municipalities to widen the scope of their existing plans and incorporate further strategies that would address more interests. This was especially the case with Slagelse, where the afforestation plan later incorporated their strategy to restore a wetland nearby the project area.

The main scope of this research project is to get a better understanding of the elaboration of a MUFJO project in Denmark, with a focus on how the use of GIS can contribute to these early stages. Therefore, this discussion is aimed towards the importance of using the available data regarding national interests, mentioned in section 4.3.2, in a way that it fully supports the stakeholders intentions when planning for a MUFJO project. As learned from the interviews, although it is known that the Agriculture Agency does work with GIS in this field, none of the municipalities from our case studies did. However, they acknowledge the potential of this tool, especially when mapping common interests and visualising the process, offering transparency and easing collaboration between entities.

From the analysis performed in section 4.3 it is observed how map-making in GIS is a powerful tool that not only can be used to evaluate potential land for MUFJO, but it can also contribute to supporting national interests and the achievement of the EU’s SDGs. The UN’s indicators for each goal can be tracked using spatial-data in GIS, for example, indicator 6.6.1 Change in the extent of water related ecosystems over time for SDG no. 6 Clean water and Sanitation, could be measured and evaluated in the same GIS database that was used to design and plan a MUFJO project related to wetlands or lake and stream restoration.

Although most national interests can be related to spatial data, others such as outdoor living and rural development are not possible to relate to any existing dataset, as any piece of land can potentially contribute to them. These interests are more in line with strategies to be designed once a project area is defined for a specific MUFJO purpose. Similar to these, is the case of the allotment of rural land; although there is existing data on the ownership and display of agricultural fields, the wish or the need for these fields to be re-parceled has to be addressed considering the owners wishes.

Another conflict that could be observed regarding national interests and their corresponding data to be used when evaluating potential land for MUFJO, is that some interests are contradictory to each other e.g., afforestation versus wetlands. It is, therefore, crucial to differentiate which datasets better support not only the specific national interest at stake but also the overall objective that the desired MUFJO project aims to achieve.

The effect of suitability maps As mentioned in section 4.2.1, the importance of implementing the most possible national interests is fundamental for the possibility of being approved as a MUFJO project. The very core of MUFJO is multifunctionality and thus essential to have multiple interests incorporated into a project. A project will in most cases have a main focus on one national interest as seen in all projects that applied for MUFJO in the two initial application periods (Landbrugsstyrelsen, 2021b).

With the sensitivity analysis, it is consequently essential to both look at the map with equal weights while also looking at a map that weighs the most significant national interest higher than other interests for each project. These visualisations could with great advantage be held against each Page 46 of 52

Discussion

other to find the most suitable area within the municipality. In the sensitivity analysis for Viborg municipality, the map that weighs wetlands higher is very suitable with the map showing equal weights. These two maps can be used as a basis for understanding and limiting an area in which a project can be initiated. The maps do however still have their limitations as they do not consider any other prospects. Other datasets that might impact the potential project areas are thus not included in the maps, and the maps should consequently be viewed with a critical understanding.

The assessment of the output is only based on the visual expression and a comparison to the location of existing MUFJO projects. Arguably, a more in-depth assessment of the model could have been conducted in order to better assess the validity in a less limiting matter. However, it is not the intention of the model that it precisely delimits specific areas, but more to give a general impression of where to look for potential project areas and relevant national interests. The model must therefore be handled with some precautions. That means that the municipalities still have to do the same work in order to delineate a specific project area and find out what it can be used for. In that sense, this approach is not going to shorten the process leading up to the application. We instead argue that this type of model can be used to give an early indication of the opportunities. It is applicable in the very early stages regarding the decisions on where to do what. This emphasises that the use of these suitability maps should mainly be used in the initial part of a project. The maps are great to visualise and understand the national interests that are applicable in certain parts of the municipalities and thus helpful when applying for MUFJO and knowing which national interests are possible to be implemented within a project area.

The use of an MCDA model in GIS can similarly be used as a starting point in the application material for all MUFJO applicants to streamline the process when the Agricultural Agency later needs to assess each application.

Page 47 of 52

Conclusion

6 Conclusion The general theme of the semester is Borders & Boundaries and thus the focus of this project has been Multifunctional Land Consolidation in Denmark, a relevant topic in which borders and boundaries play a crucial role. Furthermore, the approach of this project was specified by focusing on the delineation of project areas for MUFJO. This approach leads to the following problem formulation: How are Multifunctional Land Consolidation (MUFJO) projects in Denmark being elaborated and how can GIS contribute to ease the process of delineating potential project areas?

The analysis of the project started by understanding the basis of MUFJO and the processes that were being applied. By adding the multi-functional focus to the traditional approach of land consolidation in Denmark, the national interests set by the Agricultural Agency are given greater importance. The addressing of these interests is then balanced with the ones from the stakeholders involved e.g., the landowners of the properties that conform the project areas. However, the results of the analysis conclude the land consolidation aspect of this program comes as a second priority, as the achievement of the national interests is what will give more or fewer points to the proposal of a MUFJO project.

These findings lead to the second part of the analysis: the assessment of potential areas for MUFJO by the municipalities, from which it is concluded that it is the municipalities’ climate action agenda and environmental strategies which have influenced the most in the selection of the project area.

This way, the MUFJO program can also be seen as a powerful and helpful tool to contribute to the achievement of the EU’s SDGs. Furthermore, the application for MUFJO is found to be too comprehensive and overly time consuming. The interviewed municipalities have shared their concern on this matter, stating that should they hadn’t counted on an ongoing project before the MUFJO program, they would not have been able to finish the application on time.

From this point, the project moves on to the last part of the analysis; performing an MCDA analysis on GIS software in order to locate potential project areas for MUFJO. A specific workflow is designed to come up with a suitability map that shows the potential of land for MUFJO projects inside a Municipality. This process offered several results from which it is concluded that: the search for potential MUFJO project areas using this method must be highly intentional, that is to say, when performing sensitivity analysis of the created suitability map, it is of utmost importance to understand which data-set better supports the national interests that ought to be addressed by the potential MUFJO project. Although this method has proven to ease or streamline the process of spotting the most suitable area to fulfill the demands of national interests, it could also potentially help in the future stages of the process. However, this aspect is yet to develop by further researchers.

Page 48 of 52

Bibliography, List of Figures & Appendix

Bibliography Collective Impact (Nov. 2021). Fremtidens bæredygtige landskaber. url: https://collectiveimpact. dk / baeredygtige - landskaber / ?fbclid = IwAR2uu6oc _ hxUDRlyWSWfUUcPQ4tn2MwIR8HnBz 23kWovOkoL_-IBrKKxCy4.

Collective-Impact (2021). Resultater af multifunktionel jordfordeling i tre pilotprojekter. url: https: //collectiveimpact.dk/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Resultater-af-multifunktionel-jordfordelin g.pdf.

Ejrnæs, Rasmus et al. (2014). Biodiversitetskort for Danmark. url: https://mst.dk/media/113982/ sr112_biodiversitetskort_for_danmark.pdf.

Esmail, Adam and Geneletti (2018). “Multi-critera decision analysis for nature consevation: A review of 20 years of applications”. In: British Ecological Society.

ESRI (2021a). How the Snap Raster environment setting works. url: https://pro.arcgis.com/en/ pro-app/latest/tool-reference/environment-settings/how-snap-raster-environment-works.htm.

— (2021b). Resample. url: https://desktop.arcgis.com/en/arcmap/latest/tools/data-manageme nt-toolbox/resample.htm.

FAO (2003). “The Design of Land Consolidation Pilot Projects in Central and Eastern Europe”. In: FAO. Ferretti and Geneletti (2015). Multicriteria analysis for sustainability assessment: Concepts and case studies.

Hartvigsen, M. B. (2014). Land Consolidation and Land Banking in Denmark. Aalborg University.

Landbrugsstyrelsen (Sept. 2020). Multifunktionel jordfordeling faktaark. url: https : / / lbst . dk / fileadmin / user _ upload / NaturErhverv / Filer / Landbrug / Arealer _ ejendomme / Jordfordeling / Faktaark_MUFJO_til_ansoeger_opdateret_15.09.2020.pdf.

— (June 2021a). Krav til et multifunktionelt projekt. url: https://lbst.dk/landbrug/arealer-ogejendomme/jordfordeling /multifunktionel- jordfordeling - mufjo/krav - til- et- multifunktioneltprojekt/.

— (May 2021b). Midtvejsevaluering af multifunktionel jordfordeling (MUFJO). url: https://lbst. dk/fileadmin/user_upload/NaturErhverv/Filer/Landbrug/Arealer_ejendomme/Jordfordeling/ Midtvejsevaluering_af_multifunktionel_jordfordeling__MUFJO_.pdf.

— (Nov. 2021c). Multifunktionel-jordfordeling. url: https://lbst.dk/landbrug/arealer-og-ejendom me/jordfordeling/multifunktionel-jordfordeling-mufjo/.

— (Mar. 2021d). Naturgenopretning ved Margrethe Kog Nord. url: https://lbst.dk/landbrug/ arealer - og - ejendomme/jordfordeling /multifunktionel- jordfordeling - mufjo/multifunktionelleprojekter/naturgenopretning-ved-margrethe-kog-nord/.

— (July 2021e). Nordskoven. url: https://lbst.dk/landbrug/arealer-og-ejendomme/jordfordeling/ multifunktionel-jordfordeling-mufjo/multifunktionelle-projekter/nordskoven/.

Page 49 of 52

Bibliography, List of Figures & Appendix Landbrugsstyrelsen (Mar. 2021f). Nørreådalen. url: https://lbst.dk/landbrug/arealer-og-ejendom me/jordfordeling/multifunktionel-jordfordeling-mufjo/multifunktionelle-projekter/noerreaadal en/.

— (Mar. 2021g). Pilotordning for Multifunktionel jordfordeling. url: https://lbst.dk/fileadmin/ user_upload/NaturErhverv/Filer/Tilskud/MUFJO/Vejledning_til_multifunktionel_jordforde ling_-_3._ansoegningsrunde_-_marts_2021.pdf ?fbclid=IwAR2l_2m8JFQduOMDjkcbwsgb 4nqekcdE3Oqde0ObqQ26GFmcnpSpgTgnUSk. — (Mar. 2021h). Skovrejsning ved Svendborg. url: https : / / lbst . dk / landbrug / arealer - og - e jendomme / jordfordeling / multifunktionel - jordfordeling - mufjo / multifunktionelle - projekter / skovrejsning-ved-svendborg/.

Landbrugstyrelsen (2019). Multifunktionelle projekter. url: https://lbst.dk/landbrug/arealer-ogejendomme/jordfordeling/multifunktionel-jordfordeling-mufjo/multifunktionelle-projekter/.

Malczewski, J (1999). GIS and multicriteria decision analysis.

Mulliner E. Malys N., Maliene V. (2016). Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability. Omega 59.

Pašakarnisa, Giedrius et al. (2020). Decision support framework to rank and prioritise the potential land areas for comprehensive land consolidation. url: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0264837719302972.

Slagelse Municipality (2021). Kommuneplan 2021 - Kort Fortalt. url: https://www.slagelsekp21. dk/media/1884/pixi_1_kort_fortalt_2021_endelig_opslag_reduceret_util.pdf.

Smith, Michael J. de, Goodchild, Michael F., and Longley, Paul A. (2018). Geospatial Analysis. url: https://spatialanalysisonline.com/HTML/index.html?basic_primitives.htm.

UN (2018). EU SDGS. url: https://sdgs.un.org/es/goals.

Willeberg-Nielsen, K. L. (2020). Kommuneplanlægning for multifuktionel arealanvendelse. Byplan Nyt. Williamson, Enemark (2010). Land Administration for Sustainable Development. ESRI. Yin, Robert K. (2003). Case Study Research, Design and Methods. SAGE Publications.

Page 50 of 52

List of Figures 1.0.1 1.2.1

140% of Denmark is needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Illustration of the structure of the project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 4

2.4.1

Generalised scheme of the main stages of MCDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8

3.3.1 3.5.1

Case Study Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Example of Model Builder performing MCDA inside ArcMAP . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4.1.1 4.1.2 4.2.1 4.2.2 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.5 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4 4.3.5 4.3.6 4.3.7

Visualisation of time effort for land consolidation in Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . .

Visualisation of the process of MUFJO through the Agricultural Agency . . . . . .

The four chosen MUFJO projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Project area in Viborg marked by the red square . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Project area in Tønder marked by the red square . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Project area in Svendborg marked by the red square . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Project area in Slagelse marked by the red square . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Snapped extent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Simplified part of the ModelBuilder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Logic and goal for the ArcMap fields-data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Modelbuilder steps used for the suitability model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Suitability maps for the two municipalities with existing MUFJO highlighted. . . . .

Different suitability maps for Slagelse municipality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Different suitability maps for Viborg municipality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15 17 25 26 27 28 29 34 35 35 37 40 42 44

List of Tables 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4

Criteria for minimum requirements in a MUFJO project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The table shows the points each project was assessed to. The conditionally approved projects are highlighted in blue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Overview of the data used in the MCDA in connection to the national interests . . .

Weights set for the sensitivity models for each map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page 51 of 52

18 23 33 41

Appendix Appendixes is to be found in an external document attached to this project report.

Appendices in A4: A Interview Guide B Transcription of the interview with Viborg Municipality C Transcription of the interview with Tønder Municipality D Transcription of the interview with the regional Nature Agency of Funen E Transcription of the interview with Slagelse Municipality F Suitability map for Slagelse (Equal Weights) G Suitability map for Viborg (Equal Weights)

Page 52 of 52