Future Landscape Scenarios around Little Wittenham, South Oxfordshire. Report to the Northmoor Trust. Wood, P., Berry, P.M. and Lonsdale, K.

Table of contents
1 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................ 3
2 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 4
3 Scoping.............................................................................................................. 5
3.1 Initiation ..................................................................................................... 5
3.2 Objective.................................................................................................... 5
3.3 Overview.................................................................................................... 5
3.4 Definition of project area ............................................................................ 5
4 Overview of scenarios........................................................................................ 7
4.1 European socio-economic scenarios ......................................................... 8
4.2 Climate change scenarios.......................................................................... 9
European climate change scenarios................................................................. 10
UK climate change scenarios........................................................................... 12
5 Localising scenarios......................................................................................... 14
5.1 Initial stakeholder workshop..................................................................... 14
Stakeholder analysis ........................................................................................ 14
Feedback to stakeholders ................................................................................ 16
Reduction in the number of narratives developed............................................. 17
5.2 Narratives for socio-economic scenarios.................................................. 17
5.2.1 Urban areas ............................................................................................ 17
5.2.2 Protected areas....................................................................................... 19
5.2.3 Agricultural areas .................................................................................... 20
5.2.4 Forestry................................................................................................... 21
5.2.5 Energy production................................................................................ 21
5.2.6 Water ................................................................................................... 22
5.3 Sector scenario development................................................................... 22
5.3.1 Energy production ................................................................................... 23
5.3.2 Water use......................................................................................... 25
6 Modelling land use change............................................................................... 29
6.1 Quantifying change.................................................................................. 29
6.1.1 ATEAM results ........................................................................................ 29
6.2 Sector group discussions to develop rules............................................... 30
6.2.1 Sectors of interest ................................................................................... 30
6.2.2 Identification of experts............................................................................ 30
6.2.3 Dialogue process..................................................................................... 31
6.3 Encapsulating the rules in a GIS.............................................................. 32
1

6.3.1 GIS layers ............................................................................................... 33
7 Spatial allocation rules and results ................................................................... 35
7.1 Protected area rules................................................................................. 35
Land use maps: protected areas...................................................................... 35
7.2 Urban expansion...................................................................................... 37
Quantification ................................................................................................... 37
Distribution of urban expansion ........................................................................ 39
Data ................................................................................................................. 40
Rules for urban expansion ............................................................................... 41
Implementation of rules.................................................................................... 44
Land use maps: urban...................................................................................... 45
7.3 Agriculture ............................................................................................... 47
New crops........................................................................................................ 47
Liquid biofuel.................................................................................................... 49
Surplus............................................................................................................. 49
Fleece/polythene and polytunnels .................................................................... 50
Land use maps: agriculture .............................................................................. 51
7.4 Forestry/woodland ................................................................................... 52
Quantification and distribution .......................................................................... 52
Rules................................................................................................................ 53
Land use maps: forestry................................................................................... 56
7.5 Other land use change............................................................................. 60
7.5.1 Land use maps: other land uses.............................................................. 60
7.6 Land use change under different scenarios ............................................. 64
8 Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 67
8.1 Localisation of scenarios and stakeholder engagement........................... 67
8.2 Modelling methodology............................................................................ 67
8.3 General conclusions ................................................................................ 68
9 References....................................................................................................... 70
2

1 Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the many stakeholders who gave their time to participate in
the workshops, questionnaires and interviews and without whom this project would
not have been possible. Dr. Stephen Sheppard, University of British Columbia,
Vancouver has provided invaluable advice on visualisation and comments on the
report. We would also like to thank Bill Horsfield for his support and guidance
throughout the project; the Northmoor Trust, without whose vision this innovative
research would not have occurred and the Heritage Lottery Fund for providing the
funding.
Note: All maps in this document are derived under licence from the Ordnance
Survey’s Mastermap Topography product and are Crown copyright.
3

2 Introduction
The Northmoor Trust is based in South Oxfordshire and manages an estate of 300
hectares, including a nature reserve, a conservation farm and woodland dedicated to
forestry research. The Trust is currently developing a visitors’ centre, the Landscape
Evolution Centre, which aims to show how the local landscape has changed through
time and how it might change in the future.
The purpose of the work reported here was to devise a set of 'future landscape
scenarios' over three future time periods for an area around the Trust’s estate. The
‘future landscape scenarios’ comprise narratives and land use maps. They will help
show visitors to the centre how decisions made today will have an influence on the
landscape of the future.
This document describes the method used to devise the 'future landscape scenarios'.
They were developed using existing climate-change and socio-economic change
scenarios that are widely used in studies into the possible impacts of climate change.
These existing scenarios were localised to the study area by experts and
stakeholders to establish possible changes to the main land use sectors. The results
from other research projects and local expert opinion were used to quantify land use
change. The local experts were also consulted in order to develop land parcelselection
criteria for conversion to a new land use at the landscape scale.
The method used a Geographic Information System (GIS) to characterise the
landscape and to encapsulate the land-parcel selection criteria in sets of simple
rules, which were then applied to a land use map of the project area. The resulting
maps of potential future land cover will be used to generate three-dimensional
visualisations showing the landscape under each scenario.
4

3 Scoping
3.1 Initiation
The process was initiated by the Northmoor Trust with funding from the Heritage
Lottery Fund. The funding was provided to allow development of a visitors’ centre,
the Landscape Evolution Centre, which will be built at Little Wittenham, South
Oxfordshire.
3.2 Objective
The objective of the project was to develop future land use maps of an area of South
Oxfordshire through a process of localising socio-economic scenarios and
developing land use spatial-allocation rules with guidance from local stakeholders
and experts.
3.3 Overview
The following diagram gives an overview of the project process.
Figure 1: Overview of the project process
3.4 Definition of project area
The project area is a 16 X 10 Km area of Oxfordshire comprising primarily the district
of South Oxfordshire and a small part of the Vale of the White Horse. The boundaries
were selected to give a large enough area to include a variety of land uses, yet still
be manageable in terms of localisation of scenarios and modelling.
5

The southern limit of the project area includes some of the Berkshire Downs, whose
chalk escarpment contrasts with the clay vale of the rest of the project area. The
northern boundary excludes the settlement of Abingdon, but includes the Thames.
This is important as it was expected that the hydrology would be a significant
influence for the low-lying areas. It also provides a justification for the eastern margin
of the project area. The western boundary was chosen to include the expanding
urban area of Didcot, as well as the power station, whose future was thought to be
subject to energy policy decisions.
Another consideration for the boundaries was to select a project area that covers the
area within view from the top of Wittenham Clumps, which is the highest point of the
land owned by the Northmoor Trust and are themselves an important landscape
feature.
Figure 2: Project area (Ordnance Survey ©Crown Copyright. All rights reserved)
While this report describes the results for the above project area, the methodology is
intended to be generic for a similar sized project area. For larger areas, other
techniques might be required to handle the large datasets that would be required.
6

4 Overview of scenarios
Scenarios can provide ‘an internally consistent view of what the future might turn out
to be – not a forecast but one possible future outcome’ (Porter, 1985). The skill in
creating plausible scenarios is in the inclusion of enough of the rules and constraints
of real life to make the narrative feel credible. A good scenario can anticipate real
world behaviour and be used to think through the consequences of actions today on
the life of future generations. Scenarios are a way to deal with uncertainty in the
process of decision making and to improve on the ‘educated guess’. By giving people
the opportunity to think more creatively they can overcome mental blocks which
constrain imaginative thought. Scenarios have been used by businesses, such as
Shell and IBM, as a way to progress from overly simplistic, straight line economic
forecasts to more holistic approaches that take account of social behaviour as well as
economic impacts of decision making.
There are many questions to consider when developing of socio-economic scenarios.
Initially it is important to identify storylines that outline feasible driving forces for future
worlds. The more a set of scenarios is developed, then the more divergent the
scenarios become. Although with too many scenarios, the differences between them
may become blurred and it may be become difficult to develop consistent narratives
from them. With three scenarios there is a tendency to believe that one is somehow
the best or most desirable future. Within this project there is only consideration of
two very distinct options. This, however, may be realistic given the available time and
resources.
economic
Scenario 1: global focus
and market driven
Scenario 2: regional focus
and market driven
global
Scenario 3: global focus and
environmentally driven
Scenario 4: regional focus
and environmentally driven
regional
environmental
Figure 3: Continua to define four possible futures
A common way to define storylines in climate change research is to use two
continua, as the X and Y axes of a graph, to define four distinct sections and thus
four different plausible futures (Figure 3).
7

The description of the four storylines is based on many dimensions, but two are most
important: The first indicates the relative orientation of the scenario toward economic
or environmental considerations, and the second indicates global versus regional
development objectives. Each storyline represents different plausible demographic,
social, economic, technological and environmental developments.
4.1 European socio-economic scenarios
A set of European social-economic scenarios has been produced by two European
Commission funded projects:
• Advanced Terrestrial Ecosystem Analysis and Modelling (ATEAM); and
• Assessing Climate Change Effects on Land use and Ecosystems from
Regional Analysis to the European Scale (ACCELERATES) (Abiltrup et
al., 2006).
A set of scenarios has also been produced for the UK (Berkhout et al., 1999), and a
guide to using social-economic scenarios has been produced by UKCIP (2001). To
apply the scenarios to a particular area, such as Wittenham Clumps, however, further
localisation is required. Regional social-economic scenarios for East Anglia and the
North West were produced as part of RegIS (Shackley and Deanwood, 2003), using
the UK scenarios as a starting point and these were used in the UKCIP guide.
There are four levels in the derivation of the landscape change scenarios:
Level 1: Global driving forces (SRES)
Level 2: European driving forces (current projections and expert knowledge)
Level 3: Regionally-specific driving forces (model outputs and expert knowledge)
Level 4: Local driving forces (model outputs and stakeholder/expert knowledge)
These move from the qualitative global storylines based on the SRES, through the
European, to the more quantitative regional to local projections of landscape change.
In this project, the ATEAM and ACCELERATES land use scenarios for Europe in the
21 st century were made available by personal arrangement (through P. Berry), as
they are seen as standard reference works for European land use change (Figure 4).
They adopt the same notation as the SRES scenarios, but provide a level of detail
not available from the global SRES assessment. Associated with each of the
8

narratives is a quantitative, spatially explicit description of the land use pattern for the
present day (ca. 2000) and under the scenarios for 2020, 2050 and 2080.
Figure 4: Overview of ATEAM socio-economic scenarios
The ATEAM project dealt with six main land use types: arable, grassland, biofuels,
forestry, urban and protected areas, while ACCELERATES also provided information
on the changes in crop types. It was assumed that the priorities for land allocation
were: urban centres then protected/designated areas, agriculture (food), agriculture
(energy - biofuels), and forestry. For each of these land use classes in Europe, a
percentage change in each 10’ grid cell was calculated, based on the climate and
socio-economic scenarios under consideration. Similar land allocation priorities were
assumed when running the rule-based model in the project area, such that any
changes in urban area were allocated first, followed by protected/designated areas
and so on. Where possible the socio-economic scenarios were directly linked to the
greenhouse gas emission (SRES – IPCC, 2000) and thus climate change scenarios
through the common societal and political assumptions that underpin each scenario
(Table 1).
An important benefit of the scenario approach is that scenarios allow the direct
comparison of changes arising from either climate or socio-economic change. Thus,
the relative importance of socio-economic and biophysical drivers can be assessed,
and the implications for policy can be highlighted.
4.2 Climate change scenarios
Climate change scenarios provide the best-available means of exploring how human
activities may change the composition of the atmosphere through the emission of
greenhouse gases and how this may affect global climate. Like the socio-economic
scenarios they are not actual predictions or forecasts of future climate, but internallyconsistent
pictures of possible future climates, each dependent on a set of prior
assumptions. The climate scenarios are derived from General Circulation Models
(GCMs), which are run at the global scale and are based upon physical laws
9

describing the dynamics of atmosphere and ocean. These can then be downscaled
for application at finer resolutions, such as Europe (New et al, 2001).
Socio-economic
scenario
UKCIP 02 scenarios
High Medium high Medium low Low
Global economic More consistent Less consistent
Global sustainability Less consistent, unless
fossil fuel use is not a key
issue in sustainable
development
Regional economic
Regional
sustainability
More consistent, assuming
all regions respond in the
same way
Less consistent, unless
other regions respond
differently
More consistent
Less consistent, unless other
regions respond differently
More consistent, assuming all
regions respond in the same
way and fossil fuel use is a key
issue in sustainable
development
Table 1: Possible associations between socio-economic and climate change
scenarios (based on Shackley and Wood, 2001)
European climate change scenarios
European climate change scenarios, as derived by the ACCELERATES project were
used to drive future changes in land use and to give an indication of the potential
impact of climate change on selected species and habitats. The ACCELERATES
scenarios are based on the ATEAM European climate scenarios (Mitchell et al.,
2003). This data set provides data for the period 2001-2100 covering the European
land surface at a 10’ spatial resolution for five meteorological variables (cloud cover,
diurnal temperature range, precipitation, mean temperature and vapour pressure).
To capture some of the uncertainty surrounding future projections of climate change
16 climate change scenarios based on results from experiments from four different
global climate models (GCMs), were provided. These 16, equally plausible,
scenarios cover 93% of the possible range of future global warming estimated by the
IPCC in their Third Assessment Report (2001).
The advantages of using this data set include its complete consistency between the
observed (20 th ) and estimated (21 st ) centuries, the complete consistency between
each of the emissions scenarios – all four SRES (IPCC, 2000) ‘marker’ scenarios are
available for each GCM, and the complete consistency between each of the climate
models – all modelled results have been interpolated onto an identical 10’ grid 1 .
However, these advantages are countered by the disadvantage that the interannual
1 10’ grid is about 16 x 16 km.
10

and interdecadal variability in the scenario data is the same as that of the observed
data set. Thus, inter-decadal variation can obscure climate change effects and
derived time slices become incomparable between themselves and the 1961-90
baseline. The extent of the problem is uncertain but the issue can be important for
data handling and the interpretation of impact model results, especially where
precipitation is the driving meteorological variable (Erhard, 2002).
As a result, the ACCELERATES project opted to develop a new set of climate
scenarios. The aim was to, where possible, use the Mitchell et al. (2003)
methodology but without superimposing the detrended observed (20 th Century)
interannual and interdecadal variability on the modelled (21 st Century) change fields.
Hence, a different measure of interannual variability computed from the detrended
1981-1990 average was used. This gives a measure of interannual variability without
exposing the future series to the influence of interdecadal variability of the observed
series that could potentially mask future trends in global climate change as identified
by Erhard (2002).
Future climate change projections, consisting of monthly means, were available for
four global climate models (CSIRO2, HadCM3, CGCM2, PCM) each considering the
four SRES ‘marker’ scenarios – A1FI, A2, B1, B2. This enabled the computation of
monthly climate change fields for the five key meteorological variables, which were in
turn used to construct consecutive 10-year mean change fields starting with the
period 2001-2010 through to 2091-2100. This sizeable set of climate scenarios
consisted of 16 climate scenarios (4 GCMs x 4 SRES), so a subset of scenarios for
application with the species and agricultural land use models were used. This
consisted of two GCMs (HadCM3 and PCM), two SRES (A1 and B2) and three timeslices
(2011-2020, 2041-2050 and 2071-2080). These were chosen to cover much
of the range of predicted climate change by different GCMs (Figures 5 and 6).
HadCM3
PCM
Figure 5: Change in summer mean temperature ( o C) for the HadCM3 and PCM
climate models coupled with the A2 SRES scenario for 2080.
11

HadCM3
PCM
Figure 6: Change in summer precipitation (mm/month) for the HadCM3 and PCM
climate models coupled with the A2 SRES scenario for 2080.
The ACCELERATES climate scenarios were downscaled from the 10’ European grid
to the UKCIP02 5km grid for model applications at the national scale. A simple
downscaling technique was applied whereby higher resolution climate change
scenarios were produced by directly applying the 10’ climate change fields to the
higher resolution gridded baseline climatology. This method adds no new
meteorological information and assumes that the spatial pattern of current (i.e. 1961-
90) climate remains the same into the future. The method, however, is easy to apply
for a range of climate change integrations (from different models and forcing
scenarios). Whilst more sophisticated methods are available, they are often
expensive to implement and are based upon their own (often unquantifiable)
assumptions. The addition of extra precision does not guarantee improved realism. It
was considered more important to capture the range of uncertainty associated with
different climate models and emissions scenarios than adding higher precision to a
sub-set of possible futures.
UK climate change scenarios
In addition to the ACCELERATES scenarios, four of the UKCIP02 scenarios were
applied at the national scale to enable the results to be comparable with related
UKCIP projects. Climate change scenarios were available at a 5km x 5km spatial
resolution from UKCIP (Hulme et al., 2002; the UKCIP02 scenarios). The scenarios
are based on the Hadley Centre high resolution regional climate model (HadRM3).
Four scenarios have been constructed from HadRM3 which reflect differences in
greenhouse gas emissions (Low emissions, Medium-low emissions, Medium-high
emission and High emissions). These are based on the IPCC SRES emission
scenarios (B1, B2, A2 and A1FI, respectively). The UKCIP02 scenarios differ from
UKCIP98 in that they use the same climate sensitivity (HadCM3 = 3 o C) for all
scenarios, rather than scaling the high and low scenarios to upper and lower limits. It
should also be noted that the UKCIP02 scenarios are based on a single model and,
hence, do not cover any scientific or modelling uncertainties.
Scenarios have been created for three 30-year periods centred on the 2020s (2011
to 2040), the 2050s (2041-2070) and the 2080s (2071-2100). The Medium Low and
High Emissions scenarios were utilised in this project for the 2020s, 2050s and
2080s time-slices to correspond to Global markets and Regional Sustainability (see
Table 1 and Section 5.1.4). These correspond to the B2 and A1FI SRES scenarios,
respectively. These show an annual warming rate of about 0.1 to 0.3 o C per decade
12

for the Medium Low emissions scenario, and about 0.3 to 0.5 o C per decade for the
High emissions scenario, depending on the region (Hulme et al., 2002). There is
greater summer warming in the southeast than the northwest and greater warming in
the summer and autumn than in winter and spring. Little change (or a slight drying) is
projected for annual total precipitation changes. However, winters are wetter by 5 to
20% for the Medium Low emissions scenarios, and by more than 30% for the High
emissions scenario, whilst summers are drier by up to 40 and 50% respectively by
the 2080s for some regions.
Table 2: Temperature changes predicted under the UKCIP02 scenarios (Hulme et
al., 2002).
These socio-economic and climate change scenarios formed the backdrop for the
development of localised scenarios of land use change by experts and stakeholders
(Figure 1).
13

5 Localising scenarios
The scenarios described in 4.1 and 4.2 formed the basis for the development of
localised scenarios of land use change by stakeholders and experts. The
engagement of these players in this process is outlined in Figure 7
Stakeholders/ Information Products
Experts
Socio-economic/
Climate change
scenarios
Workshop 1
Localised
scenarios
Relevant GIS layers
Input from modelling
Workshops 2
(sectoral)
Quantified land-use
changes & rules for
spatial allocation by
sector
Scenarios of future
land-use
Feedback
Final scenarios of
land-use change
Figure 7: The consultation process
5.1 Initial stakeholder workshop
Stakeholder analysis
It was decided that given the short time scale available that a more structured
stakeholder analysis was not feasible. Stakeholder organisations to approach for the
workshop were initially identified by the project team using a brainstorming approach.
Individuals within these organisations were then identified and invited. If they
themselves were not available to attend the workshop they were asked to suggest a
colleague in the same organisation. They were also asked to suggest other groups or
individuals who should attend. For the workshop to be feasible we were hoping for a
minimum of 20 people from a good cross section of relevant local actors.
Approximately 60 individuals were invited to attend the workshop, some of whom
were also local residents (Table 3).
14

Sector
Agriculture
Surface water
Flood management
Urban and transport
Biofuels
Forestry
Protected areas
Local organisations/individuals approached
Local farmers
Northmoor Trust
DEFRA
National Farmers’ Union
Thames Water
Environment Agency
Lock keepers
Environment Agency
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology
Vale of White Horse District Council
Oxfordshire City Council, Structure Plan Team
South Oxford District Council
Didcot Power Station
Thames Valley Energy Centre
AEA Technology
Forestry Commission
Northmoor Trust
Pro Forest
Northmoor Trust
Oxfordshire County Ecologist
South Oxford District Council Countryside Manager
DEFRA
English Nature
BBOWT
Countryside Agency
Game Conservancy Trust
North Wessex Downs AONB Office
Business
Harwell
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Isis Innovation Ltd
Oxfordshire Economic Observatory
Southern Oxfordshire Enterprise Hub
Table 3: Organisations and individuals invited to Workshop 1
The workshop process
Seventeen people from eight different organisations attended the half day workshop
on the 18 th October 2004. The participants were supplied with pre-meeting material
describing the aims of the project and outlining the climate change and existing
socio-economic scenarios described earlier in this document. The workshop started
with an introduction to the Landscape Evolution Centre, followed by an overview of
the socio-economic and climate change scenarios. The European-level socioeconomic
scenarios developed by the ATEAM project were used to produce four
localised narratives for the Wittenham Clumps area. A description of the localisation
process was then described, including how the narratives resulting from the small
15

group discussions would be used in the development of the Landscape Evolution
Centre.
The large group was asked to brainstorm on sectors that might have a significant
impact on landscape change in South Oxford up to 2080. The sectors they identified
included agriculture, forestry, energy production, water use, protected areas, and
urban planning. They were then divided into four smaller groups and each was
allocated a different story line:
Group 1:
Group 2:
Group 3:
Group 4:
Global Economic
Global Sustainability
Regional Economic
Regional Sustainability
It was noted that these scenarios are unlikely to occur, but they provide a good
starting point for discussion about the repercussions of a society moving in a
particular direction.
The facilitator for each group (a member of the project team) presented the storyline
and a list of characteristics for a socio-economic scenario based on the work of the
ATEAM project. These were generalised characteristics and it was the task of the
group to translate what they would mean for the project area. The possible future
outlined by the storyline was then discussed in more detail by the group. What would
it look like? What would be different from today? Once the group had gained a feel
for the storyline it was possible to develop the storyline further to consider the driving
forces for change and how they would affect the landscape of South Oxfordshire.
The structure of the discussion was left largely to the group, with guidance from the
facilitator, although stakeholders were encouraged to think through the implications
for the sectors identified by the larger group during the initial brainstorming session.
Each group was given large maps of the area of interest and pens with which they
could draw changes such as increased flood plain, urban expansion, new roads etc.
The groups were also asked to consider whether there were any thresholds for
change, points that would lead to an inevitable and unavoidable shift in the way
things are done. This might include changes in the types of crops that could be
grown, for example changes in the area that is inhabitable due to permanent
overtopping of river banks.
The discussions were then brought together in a plenary session and any unresolved
issues noted so that the four visions of possible futures for South Oxfordshire could
be presented by a rapporteur appointed by each group. Also in the plenary session
there was an opportunity for everyone to comment on the plausibility of the four
localised storylines.
The workshop finished with a quick debriefing session on how the exercises had
gone, what people had enjoyed about the approach and what could be done
differently.
Feedback to stakeholders
The narratives were written up by the project team members who had facilitated the
stakeholder groups. They were then distributed to the attendees for review. This was
an opportunity for stakeholders to confirm that the narratives were a fair
representation of the discussions and to identify internal inconsistencies between the
narrative and the scenario or elements that were implausible.
16

Reduction in the number of narratives developed
After the workshop a decision was made to narrow down the number of scenarios
developed from four to two. This made sense given the amount of time that it was
reasonable to ask busy people to contribute. Attempting to develop four distinct,
internally robust scenarios would have been very time consuming. Focussing on just
two also allowed for greater distinctions between the different futures. The ultimate
aim of the project was to provide visual images of possible futures for the Northmoor
Trust’s Landscape Evolution Centre, a centre that has the role of communicating
primarily with young people. The question asked leading to this decision was ‘What
message do we want the people visiting the centre to go away with?’ With all four
scenarios there was a concern that the visual differences between them would not be
easily identified. Choosing to focus on only the two most contrasting scenarios,
despite requiring a loss of spread of possible futures, enabled us to create two
visually distinct possible futures which we hoped would have a greater impact. Given
that several projects such as ATEAM and ACCELERATES have shown that socioeconomic
factors are the most likely important drivers of future change, the most
distinct scenarios were considered to be the Global Economic and Regional
Sustainability (Figure 3).
5.2 Narratives for socio-economic scenarios
The narratives were transcribed from notes and diagrams made during the
stakeholder workshop. They differ in style due to the individuality of the four
stakeholder groups, and for the sake of clarity have been divided according to main
sectors identified as being important to current and future landscape character –
Tables 4 to 9.
5.2.1 Urban areas
Scenario
Global Markets
Narrative for 2080s
Housing development has occurred where resistance was least i.e.
Cholsey, Berinsfield, Wallingford, and Didcot (where the population has
trebled since 2000, resulting in an expansion of 1 km in each direction).
Dorchester, Abingdon and Warborough have escaped much of this
expansion.
Much of the work for the population is provided by the development of
intellectual services. For example at Culham, which has become
significantly larger.
‘Quaint’ villages have expanded due to the demand for executive-type
homes in rural locations within reach of business centres.
Due to the focus on economic development, the M340 has been built
through the area linking the M40 to the A34. This has led to the building of
fuel stations and other linear development along the carriageway, and it
has provided access for gravel extraction.
17

Scenario
Regional
Markets
Global
Sustainability
Regional
Sustainability
Narrative for 2080s
The urban priority is relaxed and more houses are allowed in the
countryside with little controls. Out of town super centres are allowed and
a Wal-Mart is located on the edge of the region.
Enclaves of wealthier estates have been set up as gated communities
with an emphasis on open space and water quality within the estate.
Didcot and Wallingford have expanded substantially, and greenbelt has
been lost under pressures of economic development.
There is high demand for housing in the region as London and Oxford
continue to be economic centres. The countryside has become more
mixed use with employment and housing intermingled with farming.
A new road now links the A34 with the Oxford-Wallingford road. The
junction is a major mall development, linking the national water centre at
the gravel pits and cheap hotels in the area. The spillover affects the
Northmoor Trust area, although the Clumps are maintained. Much of the
farm land has been sold off and developed.
Trunk roads are busier and have been expanded, by-passes have been
built to avoid congestion in the region, including the Didcot ring road. The
railway is maintained and new stations have been opened as a way to
avoid congested road travel.
Public transport systems are subsidised and have been expanded
significantly to include an increase in the rail network (as Didcot expands
as a nodal centre). Elevated routeways have been constructed over
areas susceptible to flooding. Sustainable urban drainage systems have
been installed in all developments since 2000 and retrofitted in other
areas to reduce flood impacts.
Certain villages have expanded to accommodate the increase in
population e.g. between Cholsey and Wallingford, which have good
access to public transport. Home working is common, which has resulted
in fewer people travelling to a work place every day.
The expansion of Didcot was completed in the late 2020s and since then
there has been little development. The buildings have been built with
energy conservation in mind, and make use of photovoltaics as there is
limited fossil fuel left.
The expansion of Didcot after 2000 was restricted to high-density blocks
of flats in order to preserve the green-belt. Building regulations are strictly
enforced in order to provide environment-friendly buildings with, for
example, a high level of insulation, double/triple glazing, and solar panels.
Cycle tracks are given priority. Although most of the new development
was in Didcot, there has been some local infill housing within villages. A
range of transport initiatives have been introduced in order to put less
pressure on the road system so that it can be maintained without the need
for expansion. This was achieved through improved public transport using
greener vehicles (low-emission buses, trams, etc), and the introduction of
widespread congestion charging and high vehicle and fuel tax to
discourage private car use.
Table 4: Urban areas narrative
18

5.2.2 Protected areas
Scenarios
Global Markets
Regional
Markets
Global
Sustainability
Regional
Sustainability
Narrative
Some designated wildlife conservation areas have lost their protection,
and this was influenced by ecosystem changes driven by climate change.
Some isolated sites are protected but the lack of continuity through
hedgerow losses means that the diversity of species reduces significantly.
The Thames and an area of 1 km on either side were protected as a
priority, mainly for recreation. Little Wittenham is thus offered some
protection. On the Downs, horse training and racing still continues and the
Churn Hill downland area (gallops) is protected for horse training and
racing. The Ridgeway has also been protected.
A sector of the population values the environment very strongly and has a
rather philanthropic approach in that they fund conservation projects
privately to rescue areas that are no longer protected by law. The
Environment Agency still has very little power of enforcement.
Development planning guidelines are weak and easily overruled,
especially where there is a profit to be made.
There is open access and roaming is allowed on the Downs and
Ridgeway. This has increased pressure on the grasslands, but some old
grassland are re-created and maintained on private land with controlled
access. Car parks expand, as do trails for mountain and off-road biking.
Greenbelt has been lost due to the pressures of economic development.
The chalk downland has become the site of gated communities that take
advantage of the privatised conservation amenity. A shelterbelt of trees
has been established to provide a screen between the Downs and Didcot.
Heritage sites and ancient monuments are considered to be of great
importance and are protected. The Thames corridor is valued as an
amenity and ecological area and is protected. All other existing
conservation areas have been protected and maintained. Some of the
older sites are valuable for forestry, amenity and biodiversity.
Management for Favourable Conservation Status.
There is more importance placed on protected areas for their value in
terms of biodiversity. There is also an expansion of green spaces for
recreational purposes.
Areas that were protected in the 2000s are still being maintained and
subsidised (most of the current area is already an Area of Outstanding
Natural Beauty). More protected areas have been introduced, primarily to
protect biodiversity, including wetland reserves. The increase in
population means that there are more visitors to these protected areas for
recreational use. Therefore, new footpaths and parking areas have been
created. This increase in visitors, and the resulting increased risk to
biodiversity, has resulted in visitors being given less freedom to leave
footpaths (no right to roam). There are also more recreational areas for
water sports.
There are very rigid planning restrictions. There is a line around Didcot to
prevent expansion, and green belt and conservation areas are strongly
protected.
Table 5: Protected areas narrative
19

5.2.3 Agricultural areas
Scenario
Global Markets
Regional
Markets
Global
Sustainability
Regional
Sustainability
Narrative
Globalisation means that national agriculture takes second place as
cheaper imports are available. The UK’s rank in the list of global markets
drops significantly. Most of our basic food crops are now imported. The
supermarkets further increase their dominance over what is grown and
the required quality of the produce. Much of the land once under
agriculture in this area is now used for recreation. The landscape has a
more fragmented look and is dotted with poly-tunnels housing niche
crops. These have a high value and are labour intensive. The parttime/family
farm has become common, specialising in these niche crops.
There are now more people earning a living from the land (even if only as
a contribution to total income) than in the early 2000s. Temperature
increases attributed to climate change means that new crops are grown
and there is a widespread increase in the growing of energy crops. No
subsidies are given for food crops, but they are available for biofuels.
The need for income drives an increase in non-farm activities such as
events and theme parks, with greater access and more space for car
parking and conversion of farm buildings to industrial and commercial
units (and housing). Self sufficiency in food exports drives specialisation,
use of farmers markets and marketing, as well as profit maximisation,
expansion of area cultivated at the expense of wildlife, higher pollution
and lower water quality due to runoff of agro-chemicals. This expansion
of production requires new agricultural buildings which are built at the
lowest cost possible.
There are fewer farmers and less land in agriculture, although a number
of new crops have become popular including vines, soya, oil seeds and
maize. There is more niche farming. Subsidies have gone, and a greater
diversity of crops is now grown (including biofuels).
Extreme events, particularly floods, have led to changes in land use in
riparian areas, and arable land shifts to grassland. There has also been
an increase in new pests and diseases related to climate change.
Protectionist policies have been introduced to maintain areas used for
agricultural purposes. These are coupled with subsidies for conservation
farming. Farming of energy crops, oilseed rape and coppicing are also
increased. There has been a diversification into niche crops (e.g.
vineyards, racehorses) and an increase in local specialty produce in order
to supply farmers’ markets. There was a subsidised revival of apple
orchards and pick-your-own (PYO) and farmers markets.
Table 6: Agricultural areas narrative
20

5.2.4 Forestry
Scenario
Global Markets
Regional
Markets
Global
Sustainability
Regional
Sustainability
Narrative
Didcot power station reached the end of its design life. It still exists as a
power station but it is now fuelled by waste and biofuel (coppice material).
Not discussed.
Forestry and woodland areas have been expanded along the Thames
corridor, in areas where sufficient water is available. Water shortages due
to climate change have reduced the area of land and the range of species
suitable for forestry and woodland development. There has also been an
increase in new pests and diseases related to climate change. When the
landfill site at Sutton Courtney was closed it was planted up.
By 2080 the gravel extraction potential has been exhausted and the
disused sites have been restored and converted to lakes for recreational
use. Some parts of these sites have also been developed for forestry.
Tree planting in hedgerows has increased for aesthetic reasons and to
provide CO2 sinks. As the soil in the area is very fertile and flat it has
mostly remained under agriculture rather than used for large-scale
forestry. However, there is some local fuel coppicing on low-lying land,
along the banks of the Thames near Wallingford.
Table 7: Forestry narrative
5.2.5 Energy production
Scenario
Global Markets
Regional
Markets
Global
Sustainability
Regional
Sustainability
Narrative
Didcot power station reached its design life. It still exists as a power
station but it is now fuelled by waste and biofuel (coppice material).
Not discussed.
Didcot still has a power station but it is now fuelled by biogas or a form of
carbon neutral energy. The infrastructure is buried underground for
aesthetic reasons and wind farms (which are no longer considered as
eyesores) have been developed.
Not discussed.
Table 8: Energy narrative
21

5.2.6 Water
Scenario
Global Markets
Regional
Markets
Global
Sustainability
Regional
Sustainability
Narrative
As there is no longer enough water in the Thames to meet the demand,
more is brought in from more acid catchments. Due to the expansion in
house building in the area there are more concreted areas, and thus less
infiltration, leading to more flash flooding. A new reservoir has been built
and gravel extraction is occurring along the Thames.
Disposing of waste will be a big problem and it has been taken out of the
area. As the soils in this area are shallow there is a danger of
groundwater contamination from landfill leachate.
A recreation centre has taken over the gravel pits, including a national jet
ski centre. The Thames has low water quality due to runoff from intensive
cultivation. A flood diversion scheme is built to save Wallingford from
flooding.
More reservoirs (both large and small) have been built due to an increase
in demand for water. Demand management rather than increased supply
controls water use. Development of technology has helped to improved
treatment of water (for example, membrane technology). It has been
recognised that, due to climate change, there is a need for further
resource development.
The gravel extraction potential has been exhausted and the disused sites
have been restored and converted to lakes for recreational use.
There are more reservoirs due to the increased demand for water.
Legislation has been introduced to ensure more efficient use of water
(higher consumer pricing, metering, and high fines relating to leakage for
water companies).
Table 9: Water narrative
22

5.3 Sector scenario development
As encapsulating changes to water use and energy production in spatial allocation
rules was beyond the scope of the project, narratives for these sectors were
developed further.
The dialogue process was similar to that described for the initial stakeholder meeting.
However, a local expert from each of these sectors was consulted in order to develop
a draft localised scenario. The draft scenario was then distributed, with supporting
material, to several local sector experts for review and comment in order to reach
consensus. The resulting narratives follow.
5.3.1 Energy production
Under both scenarios, the Didcot power station site is likely to remain in industrial
use, probably for power generation, and probably incorporating solids (coal or
wastes) for the following reasons:
• The contamination round the site includes mercury, dioxins and other
contaminants. Land remediation would be a very lengthy (100 years plus) and
expensive process.
• The presence of infrastructure such as the rail freight facility (for the transport
of solids), and the national grid provides good reason for continuity of use.
• The land is expected to remain in the ownership of its current owners, whose
core business will be power generation.
• Due to the Large Combustion Plant Directive to reduce sulphur emissions,
there will be a de-commissioning of 10Gw of coal powered stations starting in
2008. As there is overproduction in the north of the country and
underproduction in the South, coal-powered stations in the south are more
likely to remain in production longer.
• The presence of the high pressure gas main for Didcot B does mean
however, that the site could go entirely to gas generation (or, via digestion,
gas supply).
• The envisioned emissions-reduction targets under each scenario and timeslice
will be a key driving force.
23

Global Economic scenario
Under the Global Economic scenario, the changes to local energy production are
shown in Table 10.
Year
Narrative
2020 The existing UK sulphur targets for 2008 laid out in the Large Combustion Plant
Directive would influence the refurbishment (scheduled for 2012) of the Didcot A
coal-fired power station.
By 2012 Didcot A is refurbished and incorporates post-generation clean-coal
technology in order to reach the sulphur-reduction targets.
2050 Didcot A is replaced with an Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant.
An IGCC plant uses coal, but more efficiently than the existing Didcot A plant. An
IGCC plant also fulfils the sulphur-reduction targets by converting coal to gas,
which removes the sulphur, and then uses the gas for power generation.
The IGCC system’s visual impact would be that the cooling towers currently
dominating the skyline to the West of the Wittenham Clumps would be demolished
and replaced with low-level banks of condensers similar to the condensers in the
current CCGT gas plant (Didcot B). Visually, the new power station would
resemble Didcot B.
2080 Non-domestic renewables should not be ruled out under this scenario, as they
might be economically attractive.
These far out generation technologies are difficult to predict. Fusion might be
used? (The fuel it would use is abundant and it produces no greenhouse gases.
International negotiations are under way to construct the next major experimental
fusion reactor (ITER), which would take approximately ten years to build.
Questions remain over issues such as the economic viability and environmental
impact of fusion power and the timescales for its commercialisation.)
Table 10: Changes to local energy production under the global economic scenario
24

Regional Sustainability scenario
Under the Regional Sustainability scenario, the changes to local energy production
are shown in Table 11:
Year
Narrative
2020 Didcot A is replaced by:
• a system that uses a multiple stream approach to power generation based
on biofuel; pyrolysis of solid waste and biofuels is used to generate
methane; digestible waste (e.g. food, farm, and human waste) goes to an
anaerobic digester.
• the heat generated by the power station is used by mid- and lowtemperature
industry (for example, food processing).
Didcot B is expected to be as it is now.
2050 Didcot A and B are as 2020, a mix of gas and biofuel generation, with expanding
use of the heat to provide domestic heating for the Didcot West 2011 expansion.
The power station site might incorporate wind turbines as the proximity of
transmission infrastructure makes up for the relatively low wind levels of the
location. There might also be turbines on the higher ground of the Chilterns close
to the transmission lines.
The following micro-generation is incorporated into buildings:
• 25% of house have PV roof panels
• 5% of houses have small wind turbines (primarily around the edge of a
conurbation)
• 60% of houses have solar/thermal roof panels
• 40% of houses have micro-CHP (a gas supply is required)
• Biofuel boilers in houses in the villages close to a supply.
• Offices have PV roof panels, PV panels on south-facing walls, and wind
turbines on the roof.
2080 The percentages for micro-generation have not changed since 2050, as the 2050
percentages represent saturation levels. Hence, little has changed in terms of
capacity of the Didcot power stations. They still supply heat to businesses and
dwellings. Didcot B has been replaced with solar arrays.
The future of how cars are powered is a major driving force for grid generation. If
hydrogen technology is widespread there will be a need for large-scale hydrogen
production.
Table 11: Changes to local energy production under Regional Sustainability
5.3.2 Water use
The socio-economic and climate-change scenarios have an influence on the
following at a local level:
• Water storage (reservoirs)
• Gardens
• Crops
• Environmental amenities and biodiversity
• Flooding
• Waste water
25

The regulatory structure is the strongest influence on all of the above, as it dictates
the balance between how much water stays in the rivers and how much is
consumed. This structure can be illustrated by the position of the red ‘allocation line’
within the following box:
Consumers
Environment
When the ‘allocation line’ is positioned in the top half of the box, it indicates a
stronger emphasis on the environment than on consumers. More water stays in the
rivers, and there is strong regulation to reduce consumption. This can be associated
with the Regional Sustainability scenario.
If the line is positioned in the bottom half of the box, the reverse is true. The
emphasis is on the demands of the consumer, less water stays in the rivers and the
environment suffers as a consequence. This can be associated with the Global
Economic scenario.
Water storage (reservoirs)
Under Regional Sustainability, there are more on-farm reservoirs so that less water
needs to be abstracted from the rivers during the dry summer months. There is also
widespread rainwater harvesting, both domestically and by businesses. These
measures provide greater environmental protection. Under the Global Economic
scenario, abstraction will continue throughout the summer leading to a detrimental
effect on environmental assets.
There is a large public water supply reservoir planned to the west of Abingdon, which
might help reduce flooding by a very small amount. The size of this reservoir will be
dictated by factors such as the projected population growth and future demand
management activity under each scenario. This decision extends beyond the project
area, but as the resource assessment will address supply demands beyond the
Oxfordshire area the building of further public water supply reservoirs within the
project area seems unlikely.
Gardens
Under the Global Economic scenario, gardens will be larger but will not change in
appearance as there will be less regulation and people will water their gardens freely.
There will be the ethos that it is your garden, your space, and you can grow and
water whatever you like, as frequently as you like.
Under the Regional Sustainability scenario gardens will be much smaller and will
have a Mediterranean character. They will contain plants more suited to the warming
climate that require less water. The emphasis will be on keeping the water in the river
so that the community garden – the surrounding countryside – will be protected,
26

along with the recreational activities it provides: fishing, boating, and walking paths
along the river and through nature reserves, etc.
Crops
Under Regional Sustainability, a reduction in available water may mean that a
proportion of irrigated crops will be replaced by cereals. However, the increased
reliance on ‘home grown’ produce may temper this trend. The amount of livestock
raised will also reduce as the longer, hotter summers will increase how much water
they need and reduce the quality of pasture. Both measures will ensure that more
water is available for environmental amenities.
Under the Global Economic scenario, there is less impact on what is grown as there
is more water available for irrigation at the expense of the environment. Farmers will
grow irrigated crops if it is economically worthwhile to do so; the economics will be
dictated more by crop prices than water prices.
Environmental amenities and biodiversity
There is less impact on environmental amenities and biodiversity under the Regional
Sustainability scenario, as there is more water in the rivers during the summer than
under the Global Economic scenario. This balance is maintained through strong
regulation.
The amount of water in the rivers under the Global Economic scenario is reduced by
higher demand, a greater amount of leakage, weakened regulation, and increased
urbanisation. Increasing urbanisation in the region results in larger expanses of
impermeable surfaces forcing rainwater to simply run off the land without percolating
through into the groundwater. This has a detrimental effect on environmental
amenities and on biodiversity, especially water-borne species and water-dependent
habitat, such as marsh, swamp and wet woodland.
Flooding
Flooding will be influenced by land use and defences. In terms of defences,
measures such as a bypass channel are more likely to be linked to the Global
Economic scenario. This is because the emphasis will be on finding solutions that will
allow building to continue on the flood plain. There will also be a higher value on
personal property rather than finding solutions through community responsibility.
It is unlikely that flood channels would be used within the project area due to the
knock on effects of flow further down-stream. In a similar way, if a by-pass channel
were built for Oxford then flooding would increase within the project area.
A more likely solution that would allow development adjacent to the watercourse in
the project area, and prevent or mitigate flooding, would be to develop water storage
areas further upstream on the Thames (possibly above Oxford) and on the River
Thames. In this case, the flood water would be stored in an area and flooding further
down-stream would be reduced or possibly prevented from occurring on the
developed towns. Development of the project area could then be increased within the
flood plain.
Under Regional Sustainability, defences are much more likely to focus on the source
of the problem by stopping development on the flood plain, and increasing the
amount of grassland on the flood plain.
Water treatment
With climate change, the frequency and intensity of storms will increase. This will
cause more overflows from sewers and from sewage treatment works. As the
population increases under the Global Economic scenario, more sewers and sewage
27

works will be needed and more of the Thames flow will be waste water. This will have
a detrimental effect on environmental amenities and biodiversity.
Under the Regional Sustainability scenario, a highly localised approach to water
treatment reduces leakage; and a strong awareness of water efficiency, including reuse
of waste water and reductions in the amount of water wasted.
28

6 Modelling land use change
The modelling of land use change involved the following:
• Quantifying land use change, which combined desk research using a range of
sources, and consultation with local experts from each land use sector.
• Developing spatial-allocation rules, to identify where land use change would
occur. This involved meetings and correspondence with local experts.
• Encapsulating the spatial-allocation rules in a GIS.
6.1 Quantifying change
The following data were used to aid quantification of land use change in each sector:
• Oxfordshire Small Area Population and Household Forecasts 2001 to 2011
(Oxfordshire County Council, 2004)
• Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2016: Deposit Draft (Oxfordshire County Council,
2003).
• South Oxfordshire Local 2011 (South Oxfordshire District Council, 2003).
• Regional Integrated Assessment of Climate Change Impacts in the North
West and East Anglia (REGIS) project (Holman and de Vries, 2005).
• UK Biodiversity Action Plan
• Water Resources for the Future: A Strategy for the Thames Region,
Environment Agency
• Climate Change Scenarios for the United Kingdom, UKCIP02 Scientific
Report (Hulme et al., 2002)
• Climate Change, Climatic Variability and Agriculture in Europe: An Integrated
Assessment, Environmental Change Institute (Downing et al., 1999).
• The Assessing Climate Change Effects on Land use and Ecosystems; from
Regional Analysis to the European Scale (ACCELERATES) project
(http://www.geo.ucl.ac.be/accelerates/). This provided information regarding
changes to agriculture within the project area.
• Results for the project area from the ATEAM project (http://www.pikpotsdam.de/ateam/).
6.1.1 ATEAM results
The ATEAM project downscaled the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES) (IPCC, 2000) to the
European level (Schroter, et al, 2005). They used these socio-economic scenarios to
produce data for land use change within 400 Km 2 cells across Europe. The results
for the cell that covers the 168 Km 2 project area are in Table 12.
Localised quantification was the preferred option, especially in the case of regional
sustainability, as the above are based on European-wide modelling. The above
results were used to quantify land use changes that could not be determined using
local information or expert opinion.
29

Global Economic scenario
Urban Cropland Grassland Forest
Liquid
biofuels
Woody
biofuels Surplus Others
Baseline 9.33% 59.83% 27.94% 2.19% 0% 0% 0% 0.7%
2020 9.39% 57.05% 28.06% 1.87% 2.43% 0% 0.5% 0.7%
2050 9.63% 49.68% 28.06% 0.97% 9.74% 0% 1.23% 0.7%
2080 9.98% 43.83% 28.15% 0.85% 15.54% 0% 0.97% 0.7%
Regional Sustainability scenario
Urban Cropland Grassland Forest
Liquid
biofuels
Woody
biofuels Surplus Others
Baseline 9.33% 59.83% 27.94% 2.19% 0% 0% 0% 0.7%
2020 9.33% 59.74% 27.88% 1.84% 0.12% 0% 0.38% 0.7%
2050 9.33% 59.74% 27.91% 1.81% 0.12% 0% 0.38% 0.7%
2080 9.33% 59.71% 27.91% 1.81% 0.12% 0% 0.41% 0.7%
Table 12: The percentage of each land use in the study area under the different
scenarios.
6.2 Sector group discussions to develop rules
6.2.1 Sectors of interest
The main sectors of influence on the landscape of South Oxfordshire were scoped
out during the brainstorming exercise in the initial workshop and subsequent
discussions. Given the restrictions of time and resources the sectors chosen to be
investigated in more depth were: agriculture, forestry, energy production, water use,
protected areas, and urban planning (including transport). Of these, sector group
discussions were conducted to develop spatial allocation rules for agriculture,
forestry, urban planning and protected areas. As it was not possible to develop
spatial allocation rules for energy production and water use, narratives for these
sectors were developed (see Section 5.3). Changes to transport infrastructure was
also identified as a sector for which rules could not be developed within the scope of
the project. However, it was discussed during the development of rules for urban
expansion, and changes were later added manually to land use maps.
6.2.2 Identification of experts
Local experts were identified for these four sectors and brought together to further
elucidate the different scenarios for their particular area of interest. The aim of the
discussion was to develop rules that could be used to define the likely landscape
changes under the different scenarios. The group also added depth to the narratives
and often identified one-off, ‘wildcards’ such as the development of a motorway
through the area, which would have huge visual impacts, but could not be defined by
the development of a rule.
Before these expert group meetings a summary of comments made in the narratives
developed at the first workshop was sent out, with questions for the experts to
establish their view on the plausibility of certain outcomes.
30

6.2.3 Dialogue process
Exploration of the narratives
At the beginning of each discussion there was a period allowed for revisiting the two
scenarios chosen and the storylines associated with them that were developed in
Workshop1 (Section 5.2). This was considered to be a very important part of the
process, as it was essential for everyone involved in the discussion to have a feel for
the two visions of the future and what all aspects of life would look like in that future –
not just how their own sectors might change. Initially the time taken for this ‘getting a
feel for things’ stage was underestimated but with later meetings it was found that
there was a natural period of time needed to explore the two visions after which it
was possible to move onto more focussed sectoral discussions.
Identification of sector questions
The project team identified key questions for each sector to prompt discussion. Some
of the questions considered for urban areas within the project area under each
scenario included:
• For each scenario, would immigration increase or decrease?
• Would demand for housing increase or decrease under each scenario?
Why?
• How would each scenario affect spatial planning?
• How would each scenario affect the growth of towns and villages? Which
would grow most?
• Where would new housing be placed? Where would any other development
occur?
• What would happen with urban green spaces under each scenario?
• Would new developments be compact or more spread out under each
scenario?
• What else strikes you as important for the urban sector under each scenario?
In other sectors, the potential impacts of climate change were an important
consideration, alongside more socio-economic questions.
Provision of materials
Each expert group was provided with an array of maps and data of relevance to their
sector and how it might change up to 2080. The latter was derived from existing
modelling studies, but was not always spatialised. This material was provided in
order to support decisions about what changes might be made. Having gone through
the material provided, the expert group was asked whether there was any data
missing that they would need to make a decision.
Introduction of rules
Having developed in the group a sense of the two scenarios and explored in some
detail how the sector of interest might look in each scenario, some time was spent
trying to identify rules that could be used to define these changes. Some individuals
found this exercise easier to accomplish than others.
It was soon discovered that some aspects were very easy to develop rules for, but,
as noted earlier, there were ‘wildcards’ or large, one-off, possible outputs, such as
the construction of a large reservoir covering most of the area, that might plausibly
31

esult from a set of circumstances within either of the scenarios explored, for which
there could be no anticipatory rule, unless it was sufficiently vague to cover all
manner of large, miscellaneous, high visual impact changes. As this was primarily
intended to be a computer driven visualisation exercise these wildcards were initially
viewed with some anxiety. After further development of the scenarios it was felt that
such high impact apparent ‘coincidences’ were actually fairly likely in any future
scenario and to be able to predict with defined rules every potential change in the
landscape is less realistic.
Feedback
A transcript of the major discussion points and spatial-allocation rules developed
during the meetings was distributed to attendees for review. This proved to be very
useful as it also provided an opportunity for rules derived from discussion to be
presented and reviewed.
Further correspondence and meetings to present the preliminary results of applying
rules to the land use map provided the opportunity for further review of the rules by
the experts.
6.3 Encapsulating the rules in a GIS
The spatial-allocation rules were encapsulated in computer code within a GIS. The
rules were then applied to a base-map to produce maps of possible future land use
under each socio-economic scenario.
A rule is a set of criteria to assess the suitability of a land parcel (cropland, grassland,
recreation ground, allotments, etc) for conversion to a particular land use. A score is
assigned according to the results of a number of questions in a rule – for example, a
score might be assigned according to how much of the land parcel is in the flood
plain, or whether it is in the greenbelt designation. The land parcels are then selected
for conversion to a new land use according to their score (those with the highest
score are selected first).
The rules are a simple combination of the artificial intelligence paradigms of heuristic
rules and a knowledge-based system. Heuristic rules are procedures that creep (or
run) towards a solution (for example, finding a suitable site for urban expansion). This
is a discrete approach where a site is either accepted or rejected. In order to
introduce degrees of suitability, land-parcel scoring according to expert opinion was
used. This encapsulation of expert knowledge is a simple variant of a knowledgebased
system. A knowledge-based system attempts to emulate the problem-solving
capabilities of a human expert (Openshaw and Openshaw, 1997). The rules for each
sector are described in more detail in following sections.
The base-map and a number of other GIS layers were compiled in order to
characterise the current landscape and to allow the spatial-allocation rules to be
implemented. The base-map for land use comprised the Ordnance Survey (OS)
Mastermap 1:10000 vector data set. This was selected for the following reasons:
• Its scale makes it suitable for mapping change at the landscape scale, and as
it is a vector dataset it encapsulates the structure of the landscape.
• The polygons can be classified according to their land use. This means that
land use change can be made on a field-by-field basis. (Lovett et al, 1999;
McLure et al, 2002;)
• It is suitable for generating 3D visualisations so that the results of the
modelling can be used directly as the input to the visualisation process.
(Lovett et al, 1999; Appleton et al, 2001;McLure et al, 2002; Sheppard et al,
2004).
32

The polygons in the base map were classified according to the land uses in the Land
Cover Map 1990 (LCM1990). A number of GIS layers were compiled to further
characterise the landscape within the project area. These data requirements were
determined during the expert-consultation process performed to develop sets of rules
for each land use.
The rules were incorporated into the GIS using the Application Programming
Interface (API) and programming language (Visual Basic) supplied with ESRI ArcMap
version 9.
6.3.1 GIS layers
Many of the GIS layers used by the spatial-allocation rules were identified by the
sector experts during rule development, described in Table 13.
Layer
Basemap
Land Cover Map of
Great Britain 1990
(LCM1990)
Protected areas
(multiple layers)
Biomap
Roads
Description
This layer is based upon the Ordnance Survey (OS) Mastermap
Topography product. The features whose land use will not change
(including buildings, water, roads, paths and tracks, glasshouses,
and landform) were filtered out. The layer also required a certain
amount of ‘cleaning’ as many of the polygons representing fields
were connected. This was done by over layering digital aerial
photography and checking each polygon visually.
The polygons in this layer were classified according to the Centre
for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) Land Cover Map (LCM) 1990.
The aerial photography was then used to identify non-agricultural
land. For example, recreation and public amenities (playing fields,
allotments, church yards, golf courses, etc) were classified and
subsequently treated as protected areas.
The polygons in this layer were scored for each sector using rules
as described below and converted to new land uses.
The CEH Land Cover Map 1990 is a raster dataset comprising 25
metre grids of 25 land cover types. This layer was used to classify
the land parcels in the basemap.
Polygons in the basemap were classified as being protected
according to the following designations:
• Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI)
data provided by English Nature
• County Wildlife Sites (CWS)
data provided by Oxfordshire County Council’s
Oxfordshire Wildlife and Landscape Project (OWLP)
• Special Area of Conservation
data provided by English Nature
• Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust
(BBOWT) sites data provided by BBOWT
This layer was provided by Oxfordshire County Council and is part
of the Oxfordshire Wildlife and Landscape Project (OWLP). Each
polygon in the layer has a biodiversity score – the higher the
score, the greater the value in terms of biodiversity.
This Mastermap data was placed in a separate layer, and roads
within urban areas removed, in order to simplify implementation of
the rules.
33

Layer
Greenbelt
Description
The Oxford city greenbelt extends south to where the Thames
runs through the project area.
Buffer of roads This comprises the above layer with all features buffered by 80
meters. The layer enabled urban expansion along roads to be
represented on the base map.
Flood zone 3 (1 in
100 years) and flood
zone 2 (1 in 1000
years)
DEFRA agricultural
land classification
Areas of Outstanding
Natural Beauty
(AONB)
Water
Greensand,
Gravel
Slope and aspect
Farms
Chalk,
The flood maps were supplied by the Centre for Ecology and
Hydrology (CEH).
Data supplied by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (DEFRA), comprising polygons showing five grades of
agricultural land plus classifications for urban and non-agricultural
land. Grade one is the best quality and grade five is poorest
quality. These were matched onto the land cover map. A number
of consistent criteria were used for assessment which includes
climate (temperature, rainfall, aspect, exposure, frost risk), site
(gradient, micro-relief, flood risk) and soil (depth, structure, texture,
chemicals, stoniness).
Data supplied by the Countryside Agency.
AONBs are designated areas that are protected and managed for
visitors and local residents.
This Mastermap data was placed in a separate layer, and
simplified to include just the main water features, in order to
simplify implementation of the rules.
These layers were digitised from solid and drift maps published by
the Institute of Geological Sciences.
This layer was derived from the OS Landform Profile, which is a
10 metre Digital Terrain Model. It comprised polygons of areas
that are flat or south-facing slopes (suitable for vines).
This layer was derived from OS Explorer.
Table 13: Description of GIS layers
34

7 Spatial allocation rules and results
The spatial-allocation rules were applied in the following order, which imposes the
hierarchy of land use change implemented in the ATEAM project:
• Protected areas
• Urban
• Agriculture (surplus, new crops, polytunnels)
• Biofuels (liquid biofuels, woody biofuels)
• Forestry
7.1 Protected area rules
By 2080, under the Regional Sustainability scenario, the following areas were
assigned protection:
• All grassland within the flood plain was designated protected.
• All cropland within the flood plain was converted to grassland and designated
protected.
• Land on the chalk escarpment to the north of existing calcareous grassland
was converted to grassland and protected at a rate of 2.5% every ten years.
This was based upon the Biodiversity Action Plan for lowland calcareous
grassland (UKBAP, 2005).
Land use maps: protected areas – Figures 8 to 10
Key to all maps
Changes and new land uses as indicated
35

Figure 8: Regional Sustainability 2020
Ordnance Survey ©Crown Copyright. All
rights reserved
Figure 9: Regional Sustainability 2050
Ordnance Survey ©Crown Copyright. All
rights reserved
36

Figure 10: Regional Sustainability 2080
Ordnance Survey ©Crown Copyright. All
rights reserved
7.2 Urban expansion
Quantification
Urban expansion under each scenario was determined as follows:
Where:
New urban area = ((Population increase / Occupancy rate) / Housing
density) + Area for amenities x Green field proportion
Area for amenities = ((Population increase / 1000) x 2.4)
Each variable is described below.
Population increase
An estimate of the current population of the project area was made by summing the
population of each parish that falls completely or partially within the project area. If a
parish was partially in the project area, an estimate was made according to the
distribution of the settlements (OCC, 2004).
The 2020 population of the project area under both scenarios was estimated by
calculating and applying parish-level growth rates. This growth rate was 1.5% per
annum.
The housing increase associated with this growth rate correlates with information in
the county and district plans (SODC, 2003). There 8500 new homes planned for
South Oxfordshire by 2016 (OCC, 2003). Of these 8500 homes, 5084 will be built in
the project area by 2011 (SODC, 2003). This leaves 3500 homes to be built between
2011 and 2016 within the South Oxfordshire district.
37

The growth rates beyond 2020 were determined using a methodology implemented
by the RegIS 2 project (Holman, 2002). (The RegIS project used the ATEAM results
to determine possible future populations within their project areas under each socioeconomic
scenario). The highest growth rate from the ATEAM model was applied to
our Global Economic scenario. This rate was 2.8% growth per annum. (This increase
can be explained by inward migration due to a continued economic focus on South
East England.)
Using the RegIS 2 methodology, there is a negative growth rate under the Regional
Sustainability scenario. Although this population decrease is unrealistic on a global
scale, and does not agree with the European-level scenarios, it seems plausible at a
regional/local level. The assumption is supported by the Household Forecasts (OCC,
2004), which show population decreases in all wards except Didcot and Wallingford.
It is also supported indirectly by stakeholders expressing ideas about zero green-field
expansion under the Regional Sustainability scenario.
The decrease can be explained by an increase in economic equity between regions –
the economy decentralises with more small businesses and co-operatives in more
regionally dispersed locations. This provides fewer employment opportunities within
the project area as its economic importance weakens.
The population under each scenario is shown in Table 14.
Population
Year Global Economic Regional Sustainability
2001 52594 52594
2011 60995 60995
2020 70022 70022
2050 76158 67546
2080 82832 65158
Table 14: Population
Occupancy rate
The occupancy rates at each time slice under each scenario were those derived by
the RegIS 2 project for the North West region. They were also reviewed by a local
urban planner from South Oxfordshire district council and are shown in Table 15.
Occupancy rate
Year Global Economic Regional Sustainability
2020 2.4 2.4
2050 2.0 3.0
2080 2.0 3.0
Table 15: Occupancy rates
38

Housing density
The projected housing densities were determined with reference to current housing
densities in the settlements within the project area and through consultation with a
local urban planner. They are shown in Table 16.
Housing density
Settlement Global Economic Regional Sustainability
Didcot, Wallingford, Cholsey 20 40
Outside the AONB designation 16.5 Not applicable
Within the AONB designation 12 Not applicable
Gated communities 10 Not applicable
Table 16: Housing densities
Area for amenities
This was determined according to current local planning policy, which states that
developers are required to incorporate a minimum of 2.4 hectares per 1000 persons
for recreation (SODC, 2003). This policy was incorporated for all development,
irrespective of size, to take into account land required for other amenities such as
schools and shops.
Green field proportion
The proportion of urban expansion on green-field land parcels was determined
according to local planning policy (OCC, 2003) and through expert consultation.
Under the Regional Sustainability scenario, it was determined that 40% of new
development would be on green field sites. While under the Global Economic
scenario, 80% of new development would be on green field sites. This reflects a
weakening of urban planning regulations under the Global Economic scenario.
Distribution of urban expansion
The distribution of the urban expansion between settlements within the project area
was determined through expert and stakeholder consultation.
The following tables (17 to 18) show the distribution of new homes under each
scenario.
Settlement
Regional
Sustainability:
Distribution of new homes
Didcot 65%
Wallingford, Cholsey 30% *
Berinsfield 5%
Table 17: Distribution of new homes - Regional Sustainability
39

Settlement
Global
Distribution of new homes
Economic:
Didcot 40%
Wallingford, Cholsey, Brightwell 35% *
Outside the AONB designation 15% *
Within the AONB designation 5% *
Gated communities 10% **
* Distributed between settlements in proportion to their size
** Distributed between communities of approximately half a hectare
Table 18: Distribution of new homes – Global Economic
Data
The currently planned urban expansion up to 2011 was added to the map of the
project area (SODC, 2003). The urban expansion from 2011 until 2020 was then
determined. The following table (Table 19) shows the data for urban expansion under
both scenarios until 2020. The expansion for the Regional Sustainability scenario
was used for both scenarios as many changes are already laid down in the
Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2016. This scenario is also closest to the county structure
plan (OCC, 2003).
Settlement
% of total
increase
Housing
density
Population
increase
2011-20 New homes
Area
homes
for
Area for
amenities
Greenfield
area (ha)
Didcot 65 40 5867.55 2444.8125 61.12031 14.08212 60.16195
Wallingford,
Cholsey 30 40 2708 1128 28.20938 6.49944 27.76705
Berinsfield 5 40 451.35 188.0625 4.701563 1.08324 4.627842
Table 19: Urban expansion to 2020
Under the Regional Sustainability scenario, there is no further urban expansion within
the project area after 2020 due to negative population growth rate beyond this date.
The following table (Table 20) shows the data for urban expansion under the Global
Economic scenario for 2050.
Settlement
% of total
increase
Housing
density
Population
increase
2020-50
New
homes
Area
homes
for
Area for
amenities
Greenfield
area (ha)
Didcot 40 20 2454.4 1227.2 61.36 7.3632 54.97856
Wallingford,
Cholsey,
Brightwell 35 20 2147.6 1073.8 53.69 6.4428 48.10624
Non-AONB 15 16.5 920.4 460.2 27.89091 2.7612 24.52169
AONB 5 12 306.8 153.4 12.78333 0.9204 10.96299
Gated 10 10 613.6 306.8 30.68 1.8408 26.01664
Table 20: Urban expansion under Regional Sustainability
40

The following table (Table 21) shows the data for urban expansion under the Global
Economic scenario for 2080.
Settlement
% of total
increase
Housing
density
Population
increase
2050-80
New
homes
Area
homes
for
Area for
amenities
Greenfield
area (ha)
Didcot 40 20 2669.6 1334.8 66.74 8.0088 59.79904
Wallingford,
Cholsey,
Brightwell 35 20 2335.9 1167.95 58.3975 7.0077 52.32416
Non-AONB 15 16.5 1001.1 500.55 30.33636 3.0033 26.67173
AONB 5 12 333.7 166.85 13.90417 1.0011 11.92421
Gated 10 10 667.4 333.7 33.37 2.0022 28.29776
Table 21: Urban Expansion under the Global Economic scenario
Rules for urban expansion
Sets of rules were developed to score the land parcels (fields, woodland, etc)
surrounding a settlement. This provided a way of determining the most suitable land
parcels for conversion to urban land use under each scenario.
The following tables (Tables 22 to 24) show the rules for each scenario and for
selecting land parcels for a gated community.
41

Question
According to the Oxfordshire Wildlife and
Landscape Project (OWLP), what is the
biodiversity score for the land parcel?
Is more than 30% of the land parcel in the
AONB?
Is more than 30% of the land parcel in the
greenbelt? (rule does not apply to Berinsfield)
Does the land parcel have any of the other
protected-area designations (SSSI, CWS, etc)?
Is the land parcel currently a recreation facility
(allotments, sports ground, park land)?
Is the land parcel in a flood risk zone?
What is the DEFRA land-quality classification?
Is the land parcel easily accessible to the
dominant employment centre by sustainable
modes of transport?
Would the land parcel infringe on the character
of a neighbouring conurbation?
Score
Low biodiversity = score 5 points
Medium biodiversity = score 3 points
High biodiversity = score 0 points
Yes = Reject
Yes = Reject
Yes = Reject
Yes = Reject
Low risk = score 5 points
Medium risk = score 3 points
High risk = reject
Grade 4 = score 5 points
Grade 3 = score 4 points
Grade 2 or 1 = score 0 points
Within walking distance (1.6Km) of the centre or
of a station = score 5 points
Within cycling distance (5Km) of the centre or of
a station = score 3 points
Within 400 metres of a road (assuming that vast
majority of roads will be on bus routes under this
scenario) = score 3 points
None of the above = score 0 points
Next settlement 700 meters = 5 points
Table 22: Regional Sustainability scenario
42

Question
Is more than 30% of the land parcel in the
AONB?
Is more than 30% of the land parcel in the green
belt?
Does the site have any of the other protectedarea
designations (SSSI, CWS, etc)?
Is the site currently a recreation facility
(allotments, sports ground, park land)?
Is the site in a flood risk zone?
What is the DEFRA land-quality classification?
Is the site adjacent to an existing road?
Is the site within half a kilometre of a settlement
that is within the AONB?
Is the site close to a desirable stretch of water
(Thames, River Thame, or a reservoir)?
Score
Yes = score 2 points
No = score 5 points
Yes = score 2 points
No = score 5 points
Yes = Reject
Yes = Reject
Low risk = score 5 points
Medium risk = score 3 points
High risk = reject
Grade 4 = 5 points
Grade 3 = score 4
Grade 2 or 1 = score 0 points
Yes = 5 points
No = 0 points
Yes = reject
Adjacent = score 5 points
Within 150 meters = score 3 points
Greater than 150 m = score 0 points
Table 23: Global Economic scenario
43

Question
Is the land parcel within 300 meters of the
Thames, Thame, or a large reservoir?
Is the land parcel on the Chilterns?
Is the land parcel in the AONB?
Is the land parcel in the greenbelt?
Is the land parcel close to a land parcel with
another protected-area designation (SSSI, CWS,
etc)?
Is the land parcel close to woodland?
Is the land parcel close to an A road?
Is the land parcel close to a railway line?
Is the land parcel within 500 metres of an
existing conurbation?
Score
No = reject
No = reject
Yes = score 5 points
No = score 3 points
Yes = score 5 points
No = score 3 points
Within 250 metres = score 5 points
Within 500 metres = score 3 points
Greater than 500 meters = score 0 points
Within 250 metres = score 5 points
Within 500 metres = score 3 points
Greater than 500 meters = score 0 points
Within 200 metres = reject
Within 300 metres = reject
Yes = reject
Table 24: Gated communities
Under the Global Economic scenario, gated communities appear in the most
desirable areas of the project area – on the Chilterns and adjacent to the Thames
Implementation of rules
A buffer was created around each settlement, and the land parcels within the buffer
scored according to the rules. The size of the buffer increased according to the size
of each settlement to allow for greater expansion.
The land parcels with the highest score were then selected and a secondary score
assigned. The secondary score being the average of the scores assigned to a
parcel’s neighbours. The order in which the parcels were then converted to urban
was determined by the secondary score. The process of selecting the next highest
score and calculating secondary scores was then repeated until the required new
urban land had been allocated.
With the larger settlements, entire fields were converted to urban land use. This fits in
with the pattern of developers purchasing entire fields. If the urban allocation for a
settlement was smaller than the selected high-scoring land parcel, then part of the
parcel was converted to urban land use. The area of the parcel for conversion was
selected in order to emulate urban expansion along a road (adjacent to the parcel
and the conurbation).
The land use maps for urban are shown in Figures 11 to 14 below,
44

Land use maps: urban
Figure 11: Global Economic and Regional Sustainability 2020
Changes and new land
uses as indicated
Ordnance Survey ©Crown Copyright. All
rights reserved
New urban area
The urban expansion by 2020 includes major developments to the east and west of
Didcot, which are currently under consideration for completion by 2011 (Figure 11).
The criteria for selecting land for the remaining urban expansion are based on the
criteria for the Regional Sustainability scenario.
Under the Regional Sustainability scenario there is no further urban expansion
beyond this point in time (Figures 12-14). This is because there is a negative
population growth rate under this scenario beyond 2020.
45

Figure 12: Global Economic 2050
Settlements merging into
their neighbours
Settlements expand
along roads
Ordnance Survey ©Crown Copyright. All
rights reserved
New urban area
Figure 13: Global Economics 2080
Gated communities
appear in the most
attractive locations to the
south of the project area
and along the river (and
in this example, within
the flood plain)
Ordnance Survey ©Crown Copyright. All
rights reserved
New urban area
46

Figure 14: Regional Sustainability 2080
Ordnance Survey ©Crown Copyright. All
rights reserved
Abandoned urban area
A possible alternative land use for the abandoned land is grassland. This would be
consistent with the stakeholders’ ideas about cropland within the floodplain being
converted to grassland to help prevent flooding.
7.3 Agriculture
There was no change to area of agricultural land use under the Regional
Sustainability (Table 12), although there could be changes in the intensity of land use
and farming practices.
The land use changes to agriculture under Global Economic were as follows:
• New crops
• Liquid biofuel
• Surplus
• Polytunnels
• Polythene/fleece covering fields
New crops
The ACCELERATES results that covered the project area, and an assessment of the
impacts of climate change on agriculture in Europe (Downing et al., 1999), were used
to provide the following changes under the Global Economic scenario – Table 25.
As both sets of information mentioned previously forecasted very little change within
47

Global Economic scenario
2020 2050 2080
0.5% of cropland is used for
new crops (sunflowers, soya
and vines).
1% of cropland is used for
new crops (sunflowers, soya
and vines).
Table 25: Changes under the Global Economic scenario
2.5% of cropland is used for new
crops (sunflowers, soya and
vines).
the project area, the above figures were derived in order to be illustrative of plausible
changes of crops grown. The selection of new crops was also supported by expert
consultation.
Sunflowers and soya
The following simple algorithm was implemented to randomly allocate sunflowers and
soya to fields within the project area:
1. Has the area required for new crops been allocated? If it has, end this
procedure; otherwise move to step 2.
2. Randomly select a farm that has not had a new crop allocated to it at this time
period.
3. Buffer the farm and select all cropland with the DEFRA classification of 2 or 3.
4. Allocate the new crop to the selected fields.
5. Repeat this procedure from step 1.
Vines
The following rule set was used to select cropland for growing vines (Table 26).
Question
How much of the land parcel is flat (5 degrees
or less) or on a south-facing slope?
How much of the land parcel is on gravel?
How much of the land parcel is on chalk?
Score
100% = score 5 points
90% = score 4 points
80% = score 3 points
70% = score 2 points
less than 70% = reject
100% = score 5 points
90% = score 4 points
80% = score 3 points
70% = score 2 points
less than 70% = reject
100% = score 5 points
90% = score 4 points
80% = score 3 points
70% = score 2 points
less than 70% = reject
48

How much of the land parcel is in the flood
plain?
What is the height of the land parcel? *
0% = score 5 points
10% = score 3 points
20% = score 1 points
More than 20% on flood plain = reject
Below 152 meters = score 5 points
Above 152 meters = score 0 points
* A secondary consideration, which was not implemented due to time constraints.
Table 26: Rules for selecting cropland for vines
Liquid biofuel
There is a significant increase of liquid biofuel crops within the project area under the
Global Economic scenario, as a result of an increased demand for fuel for transport.
The area to allocate to liquid biofuel was derived from the ATEAM results for the
project area.
The following simple algorithm was implemented to randomly allocate liquid biofuel to
fields within the project area:
1. Has the area required for liquid biofuel been allocated? If it has, end this
procedure; otherwise move to step 2.
2. Randomly select a farm that has not had liquid biofuel allocated to it at this
time period.
3. Buffer the farm and select the cropland land parcels within the buffer.
4. Score the land parcels according to the rule shown below.
5. Allocate liquid biofuel to fields according to their score.
6. Repeat this procedure from step 1.
The rule used at step 4 is as follows in Table 27.
Question
What is the DEFRA agricultural classification
of the land parcel?
How much of the land parcel is in the flood
plain?
Score
Grade 4 = score 100 points
Grade 3 = score 50 points
Grade 2 = score 1 point
Grade 1 = reject
Score between 0 to 15
Table 27: Rules to score land parcels for biofuels
Surplus
Surplus land appears within the project area under the Global Economic scenario, as
a result of:
• higher yields due to more intensive farming and climate change, and
• a greater reliance on imported food.
The area allocated to surplus was derived from the ATEAM results for the project
area.
49

The land selected to go into surplus was the least valuable land adjacent to a
settlement. The rationale being that land adjacent to a large conurbation is the least
desirable to farm as it is affected by some of the social problems associated with
large urban centres. The land around small settlements within the AONB was also a
candidate for going into surplus as it was thought that affluent inhabitants might
purchase this land to protect their environment.
Agricultural land parcels within 500 meters of the large conurbations and within 250
meters of the smaller settlements were scored according to the following rules in
Table28.
Question
Is the land parcel within the AONB?
What is the DEFRA agricultural classification
of the land parcel?
How much of the land parcel is in the flood
plain?
Score
Yes = score 61 points
No = score 0 points
Grade 4 = score 47 points
Grade 3 = score 32 points
Grade 2 = score 17 points
Grade 1 = score 1 point
Score in a range between 0 to 15
Table 28: Rules to score land parcels for surplus
Fleece/polythene and polytunnels
Fleece and polythene prolong the growing season, offer protection from weather and
predators, and are suitable for most market garden crops. Unlike polytunnels they
might not require planning permission. Therefore, polytunnels would be more likely to
appear on land with DEFRA’s grade 1 classification that is outside the AONB, and
fleece and polythene on the grade 1 land within the AONB.
The area that was allocated to fleece/polythene and polytunnels is shown below in
Table 29.
Global Economic scenario
2020 2050 2080
16.5% of grade 1 cropland
within AONB.
3% of grade 1 cropland outside
the AONB.
33% of grade 1 cropland within
AONB.
6% of grade 1 cropland outside
the AONB.
50% of grade 1 cropland within
AONB.
10% of grade 1 cropland
outside the AONB.
Table 29: Area allocated to fleece/polytunnels
The designations were allocated randomly between the cropland that met the
required criteria.
The land use maps for agriculture are shown in Figures 15 to 17 below.
50

Land use maps: agriculture
Figure 15: Global Economic 2020
Changes and new land
uses as indicated
Ordnance Survey ©Crown Copyright. All
rights reserved
Fleece or polythene Polytunnels
Liquid biofuel
Soya
Figure 16: Global Economic 2050
Sunflowers
Surplus
Vines
Ordnance Survey ©Crown Copyright. All
rights reserved
51

Figure 17: Global Economic 2080
Ordnance Survey ©Crown Copyright. All
rights reserved
Fleece or polythene
Polytunnels
Sunflowers
Vines
Liquid biofuel
Soya
Surplus
7.4 Forestry/woodland
Quantification and distribution
Stakeholders/experts envisaged the area covered by forest to increase to 5% of the
total project area by 2080, and that 70% of this would be in place by 2050. They also
expected that the new area would be distributed as follows in Table 30.
Forest sector Global Economic
scenario
Regional
scenario
Sustainability
High forest 70% (65% at 2080) 20%
Urban fringe 25% * 40% *
Flood plain coppice 5% 5%
Fuel wood coppice 0 20%
Agroforest 0 7.5%
Roadside ** 5% (only at 2080) 0
Orchard 0 7.5%
* Distributed between the larger urban areas (Didcot, Wallingford, Cholsey, Brightwell) in proportion to
their size
** Assuming a motorway passed through the project area by 2080
Table 30: Forest distribution
52

Another 6 Km 2 by 2080 was also allocated to commercial fuel coppicing under the
Regional Sustainability scenario. This was due to increasing demand by Didcot
power station for locally grown woody biofuel (Section 5.3.1).
Rules
Rules were developed for the following forest types:
• High forest
• Urban fringe
• Flood plain coppice
• Fuel wood coppice
• Agroforest
• Orchard
• Commercial fuel coppice
The rules for the forest types are described in the following tables 31 to 37.
High forest
The lowest value land (DEFRA grade 4) was scored according to the following rule
and converted to high forest. The subsequent low land values (grades 3, 2 and 1)
were then scored and converted until the required area was allocated.
Question
If the land parcel is currently agricultural, is it
cropland or grassland?
Is the land parcel in the flood plain?
Is the land parcel less than 0.5 hectares?
Under the Regional Sustainability scenario, is
the land parcel greater than 5 hectares?
Under the Global Economic scenario, is the
land parcel greater than 10 hectares?
How close is the land parcel to a road?
How close is the land parcel to an urban area?
Is the land parcel designated protected (for
example, SSSI, county wildlife site, etc) or a
recreation area?
Score
Grassland = score 6 points
Cropland = score 5 points
Yes = reject
Yes = reject
No score - parcels are cut to this size during
conversion.
Within 100 meters = score 4 points
Further than 100 meters = score 0 points
Within 2 Km = score 0 points
More than 2 km = score 2 points
Yes = reject
Table 31: Rules for high forest
53

Urban fringe
Question
Is the land parcel adjacent to Didcot,
Wallingford, Cholsey or Brightwell?
Is the land parcel designated protected (for
example, SSSI, county wildlife site, etc)?
Is the land parcel one of the following:
allotment gardens, recreation grounds, school
playing fields?
Is the land parcel less than 2 hectares?
Is the land parcel greater than 4 hectares?
What is the DEFRA land classification?
Is the land parcel in the flood plain?
Score
No = reject
Yes = reject
No = reject
Yes = reject
No score - parcels are cut to this size during
conversion.
Grade 4 = score 48 points
Grade 3 = score 32 points
Grade 2 = score 16 points
Grade 1 = score 1 point
Yes = score 0 to 15 according to how much of the
field is within the flood plain
No = 0
Table 32: Rules for urban fringe forest
Flood plain coppice
The lowest value land (DEFRA grade 4) was scored and converted to flood plain
coppice. The subsequent land values (grades 3, 2 and 1) were then scored and
converted until the required area was allocated.
Question
Is the land parcel in the flood plain?
Is the land parcel designated protected or a
recreation area?
Score
Yes = score according to how much of the field is
within the flood plain
No = reject
Yes = reject
Table 33: Rules for flood plain coppice
54

Fuel wood coppice
The lowest value land (DEFRA grade 4) was scored and converted to fuel wood
coppice. The subsequent land values (grades 3, 2 and 1) were then scored and
converted until the required area was allocated.
Question
Is the land parcel in the flood plain?
Is the land parcel less than 0.5 hectares?
Is the land parcel greater than 3 hectares?
How close is the land parcel to a road?
How close is the land parcel to where the
wood will be used as fuel?
Is the land parcel designated protected (for
example, SSSI, county wildlife site, etc) or a
recreation area?
Table 34: Rules for fuel wood coppice
Score
Yes = reject
Yes = reject
No score - parcels are cut to this size during
conversion.
Within 100 meters = score 5 points
Further than 100 meters = score 2 points
Within 2 Km of a farm or settlement = score 5
points
Within 5 km of a settlement = score 3 points
More than 5 km from a settlement = score 0 points
Yes = reject
Agroforest
The grade 2 land parcels were scored and converted to agroforest, followed by the
grade 3 land parcels, until the required area was allocated.
Question
Is more than 5% of the land parcel in the flood
plain?
What is the current land use?
Table 35: Rules for Agroforest
Score
Yes = reject
Improved grassland = score 5 points
Unimproved grassland = score 4 points
Cropland = score 2 points
Orchard
The highest value land (DEFRA grade 1) was scored and converted to orchard. The
subsequent land values (grades 2, 3 and 4) were then scored and converted until the
required area was allocated.
Question
Is 95% of the land parcel on greensand?
Is the land parcel within 5 Km of an urban
area?
Is more than 5% of the land parcel in the flood
plain?
Table 36: Rules for orchard
Score
No = reject
Yes = score 3 points
No = 0 points
Yes = reject
55

Commercial fuel coppice
As commercial fuel coppicing is an agricultural crop, land was distributed between
farms. A farm was selected at random and the land parcels around it scored,
according to the following rule, and converted to commercial fuel coppicing. This
process was repeated until the required land area had been converted.
Question
Is 90% of the land parcel in the AONB?
Is the land parcel within 15 km of Didcot power
station?
Is the land parcel grassland?
Is the land parcel less than 2.5 hectares?
Is the land parcel greater than 40 hectares?
Is the land parcel on the flood plain?
Is the biodiversity score less than 100?
What is the DEFRA classification?
Score
Yes = reject
No = reject
Yes = reject
Yes = reject
No score - parcels are cut to this size during
conversion.
Yes – score between 1 and 100 points depending
upon how much of the parcel is in the flood plain
No – score 0 points
Yes – score between 1 and 100 points
No – reject
Grade 1 = reject
Grade 2 = score 0 points
Grade 3 = score 200 points
Grade 4 = score 400 points
Table 37: Rules for commercial fuel coppice
Land use maps: forestry
The following figures (Figures 18 to 23) show the land use maps for forestry under
the different time slices and scenarios.
56

Figure 18: Global Economic 2020
Changes and new land
uses as indicated
Ordnance Survey ©Crown Copyright. All
rights reserved
Flood plain coppice High forest Urban fringe
Figure 19: Global Economic 2050
Ordnance Survey ©Crown Copyright. All
rights reserved
Flood plain coppice High forest Urban fringe
57

Figure 20: Global Economic 2080
Ordnance Survey ©Crown Copyright. All
rights reserved
Flood plain coppice High forest Urban fringe
Figure 21: Regional Sustainability 2020
Ordnance Survey ©Crown Copyright. All
rights reserved
Agroforest
Flood plain coppice
High forest
Urban fringe
Commercial coppice
Fuel wood coppice
Orchard
58

Figure 22: Regional Sustainability 2050
Ordnance Survey ©Crown Copyright. All
rights reserved
Agroforest
Flood plain coppice
Commercial coppice Fuel wood coppice
Figure 23: Regional Sustainability 2080
High forest
Orchard
Urban fringe
Ordnance Survey ©Crown Copyright. All
rights reserved
Agroforest
Flood plain coppice
High forest
Urban fringe
Commercial coppice
Fuel wood coppice
Orchard
59

7.5 Other land use changes
The following changes were discussed during meetings with stakeholders and
experts, but could not be modelled within the scope of the project. Thus, the changes
were added to the land use maps manually.
• A GIS layer was derived from digital aerial photography to record potential
sites for new hedgerows within a core area of 36 m 2 . These sites are located
where there is currently a fence, or no boundary at all, separating adjacent
fields. The layer provides the option to add new hedgerows under the
Regional Sustainability scenario.
• The mineral extraction and landfill sites to the north of Didcot were removed
by 2050. (A new site could be added under the Global Economic scenario by
2050 or 2080.)
• New roads were added under the Global Economic scenario.
• Under the Regional Sustainability scenario, a disused railway south of Didcot
was shown as being re-commissioned.
Under the Regional Sustainability scenario, other possible changes to be added
manually are:
• on-farm reservoirs
• wind turbines on the Chilterns
• a corridor of trees was added around the national cycle route that passes
through Didcot
Under both scenarios, trees could be added to the perimeter of fields to protect
against the extreme weather events associated with climate change.
7.5.1 Land use maps: other land uses
Global Economic scenario
Under this scenario, the large increase in housing and road building area influences
the future of mineral extraction within the project area. There is also a weakening of
planning restrictions, and less importance placed on preserving landscape character.
This leads to a new mineral extraction site being developed in the project area by
2050 or 2080. Two plausible sites have been identified: one north of A4074 between
Shillingford and Benson, and the second to the south-east of Brightwell-cum-Sotwell.
These are shown in Figure 24. The former possibility has the advantage that it could
be flooded at the end of its life-cycle, as it is within the flood plain.
60

Plausible future
sites for mineral
extraction
Ordnance Survey ©Crown Copyright. All
rights reserved
Changes and new land
uses as indicated
Figure 24: Plausible sites for mineral extraction
61

The following map (Figure 25) shows new and widened main roads in the project
area under the Global Economic scenario between 2011 and 2080. The new main
roads are red and annotated, and the widened main roads are shown in red without
annotation.
Constructed 2050 - 2080
Constructed 2011
Ordnance Survey ©Crown Copyright. All
rights reserved
Figure 25: Potential new roads in the project area
62

Regional Sustainability scenario
The following maps show changes in railway lines and hedgerows under the regional
sustainability scenario (Figures 26 and 27)
Reopened railway
line (2080)
Ordnance Survey ©Crown Copyright. All
rights reserved
Figure 26: Reopened railways line
Potential sites for new
hedgerows within a
core section of the
project area.
Ordnance Survey ©Crown Copyright. All
rights reserved
Figure 27: Potential hedgerow sites
63

7.6 Land use change under different scenarios
The following table (Table 38) shows the percentage of land within the project area
allocated to each land use after localisation under the Global Economic scenario.
Global Economic scenario
Sector Baseline 2020 2050 2080
Urban 11.08% 13% 13.99% 15.05%
Cropland 62.03% 59.19% 53.44% 48.05%
Grassland 17.11% 15.76% 15.03% 14.2%
Forest 1.39% 2.6% 3.81% 4.76%
Liquid biofuel 0% 1.07% 6.49% 6.9%
Woody biofuel 0% 0% 0% 0%
Surplus 0% 0% 0% 3.61%
Other 8.39% 8.39% 7.24% 7.24%
Table 38: Land allocation
The percentage for forestry is less than the localised 5%, as some of this was
allocated to roadside trees along a motorway through the project area.
The reduction of the category ‘Other’ at 2050 is due the mineral extraction and landfill
sites to the north of Didcot having reached the end of their life cycle and reverted to
agricultural land. The percentages for the cropland and other categories would be
slightly different if a new mineral extraction site appeared within the project area
under this scenario. The spatial expression of these changes is shown in Figure 28.
The following table (Table 39) shows the percentages of land use under the Regional
Sustainability scenario.
Regional Sustainability scenario
Sector Baseline 2020 2050 2080
Urban 11.08% 13% 13% 12.56%
Cropland 62.03% 59.3% 56.8% 53.61%
Grassland 17.11% 15.5% 16.57% 18.08%
Forest 1.39% 2.45% 3.4% 4.25%
Liquid biofuel 0% 0% 0% 0%
Woody biofuel 0% 1.45% 2.9% 4.14%
Surplus 0% 0% 0% 0%
Other 8.39% 8.39% 7.24% 7.24%
Table 39: Land use percentages
The percentage for forestry is less than the localised 5% as some of this allocation is
under woody biofuel, which comprises ‘Fuel wood coppice’ and ‘Commercial
coppice’.
64

Under both scenarios, the surplus and liquid biofuel percentages are lower than
those in the ATEAM results to compensate for the larger increases in urban
expansion and forestry ascertained during localisation. The spatial expression of
these changes is shown in Figure 29.
Ordnance Survey ©Crown Copyright. All
rights reserved
Current
2080
Ordnance Survey ©Crown Copyright. All
rights reserved
Figure 28: Potential changes in land use by 2080 under the Global Economic
scenario.
65

Ordnance Survey ©Crown Copyright. All
rights reserved
Current
Ordnance Survey ©Crown Copyright. All
rights reserved
2080
Figure 29: Potential changes in land use by 2080 under the Regional Sustainability
scenario.
66

8 Conclusions
8.1 Localisation of scenarios and stakeholder engagement
The localisation of scenarios involved an initial stakeholder workshop attended by
people with local expertise in a particular land use (farming, water management,
conservation, etc). Localisation also involved desk research and further workshops
involving local experts from the land use sectors investigated. While these workshops
were largely successful, there were shortcomings and some improvements could
have been made.
The attendees seemed to enjoy the workshops and found them a worthwhile and
interesting experience. The process also produced interesting and diverse narratives.
A shortcoming of the process was that attendees had a tendency to be conservative;
they were reticent to move away from a business-as-usual way of thinking that
diverges from the policies and opinions currently expressed officially. An
improvement for future work would be to further develop methodologies to help move
participants into thinking in terms of the scenarios.
The amount of time it takes to arrange a meeting of this nature was underestimated
which resulted in a lower turnout than would have been ideal. In an attempt to
overcome this problem for the sectors investigated later in the project, draft localised
scenarios were developed by interviewing one subject expert. The draft was then
distributed to a number of experts from the same field and their comments collated.
An alternative approach that could be considered is the Delphi technique, which aims
to build consensus by seeking opinion from a panel of experts through a series of
questionnaires.
Validation of the results of the initial stakeholder workshop was performed by later
confirming the plausibility of changes with experts from specific land use sectors. For
example, stakeholders discussed the possibility of a large reservoir being built within
the project area. This was later abandoned as being unlikely when it became clear
that there are currently plans for such a reservoir near to the project area.
A limitation imposed by the availability of the experts and time constraints was the
amount of reviewing of the spatial-allocation rules and results that could be
performed.
8.2 Modelling methodology
The number of land uses considered, along with the constraints on time and
resources, meant that the spatial-allocation rules developed in this project had to be
simplistic. This can be justified by the aim of the project, which was to produce land
use maps for educational purposes. A remit to produce results to aid policy
development or planning would require a significant increase in complexity, and
therefore time and resources.
A possible improvement to consider would be to incorporate farm boundaries as a
GIS layer, rather than the current approach of defining a farm boundary as the extent
of an arbitrary buffer around a farm. This would involve stakeholder/expert
consultation to determine the current boundaries and also to consider changes to
boundaries under the different socio-economic scenarios. For example, farms might
merge under the Global Economic scenario and divide into smaller holdings under
the Regional Sustainability scenario.
A possible larger-scale embellishment might involve incorporating new and existing
rules into an agent-based model. This technique allows flexible representation of
heterogeneous decision makers (farmers, government, councils, etc) who may be
67

influenced by other agents and their natural environment. These models have the
potential to represent the interaction of complex decision making with a complex
natural environment (Parker, 2001). This approach might result in a more realistic
distribution of new crops, biofuels, surplus, woodland and urban expansion. It may
also offer the flexibility to develop an interactive interface, allowing people to alter
parameters and view the resulting outcomes.
The boundaries of the project area were initially selected to give a large enough area
to include a variety of land uses, yet still be manageable in terms of localisation of
scenarios and modelling. The size of the project area presented some challenges in
terms of the time required to format the basemap before modelling could be
performed. The size of the data set also meant that processing some of the more
complex rules was a very lengthy procedure. The processing time was reduced
greatly by storing the results of some of the questions within the rules in the GIS
database.
8.3 General conclusions
The changes shown on the land use maps are as a result of socio-economic
changes, which tend to over-ride the direct effects of climate change. Thus, socioeconomics
are the dominant driver of change. This fits in with much other work on
involving climate and socio-economic change scenarios (Schröter et al., 2005;
Rounsevell et al., 2006). However, certain effects of climate change such as a
generally drier appearance to the landscape, increased flooding and storm damage,
and the demise of certain species could be incorporated into a 3D visualisation.
Some aspects of the socio-economic change may influence the extent of the climate
change we experience in the future. For example:
Under the Global Economic scenario there are energy inefficient homes in a car
dependent setting
Under the Regional Sustainability scenario, there are high-density energy efficient
homes that make greater use of energy generated by renewable technology such as
solar panels and wind turbines.
There are other aspects of socio-economic change that are in response to changes
in climate and the increase in extreme weather events associated with climate
change. These include an increase in on-farm reservoirs, flood defence measures
and the planting of trees to protect crops from high winds. Again, these are all
features that do not appear on a land use map, but could be represented in a 3D
visualisation.
There is little change to the landscape under the Regional Sustainability scenario.
This is because many of the driving forces for this scenario tend to place maintaining
the current landscape character above all other factors. Stakeholders also appeared
to have associated the scenario with an attempt to return the landscape to how it
would have been around fifty years ago when farming was less intensive and there
were more trees and hedgerows. A conflict with this idea is the large amount of
woody biofuels being grown under this scenario, especially if they take the form of
short-rotation coppicing or miscanthus grass. Other changes that may not be viewed
as attractive by all include the introduction of high-density housing and a strong
reliance on public transport, along with the abandoning of settlements on the flood
plain. Similarly some of the changes that occur under the Global Economic scenario,
such as the introduction of new crops and an increase of liquid biofuels, might be
considered visually appealing.
Nevertheless, the methodology has produced credible, localised, future scenarios of
landscape change for the Wittenham Clumps area. The scenarios illustrate clearly
how decisions and actions taken now could affect the future landscape, thus
68

continuing the trend of humans directly or indirectly influencing landscape
development. The difference being that with these future scenarios it is possible for
us to explore the effects of our current actions and plans.
69

9 References
Abildtrup, J., Rosato, P., Gylling, M., Fekete-Farkasne, M., Audsley, E., Giupponi, C.
and Rounsevell, M.D.A. (2006). Socio-economic scenarios for agricultural land use
studies. Environmental Science and Policy, 9, 101-115.
Appleton K., A. Lovett, G. Sunnenberg, and T. Dockerty (2001). Rural Landscape
Visualisation from GIS Databases: A Comparison of Approaches, Possibilities and
Problems. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, vol 26, part 2-3, pp141-162.
Berkhout, F., Hertin, J., Lorenzoni, I., Jordan, A., Turner, K., O’Riordan, T., Cobb, D.,
Ledoux. L., Tinch, R., Hulme, M., Palutikof, J., and Skea, J., (1999). Non-Climate
Futures Study: Socio-Economic Futures Scenarios for Climate Impact Assessment.
Final Report. SPRU, Brighton, Sussex, UK.
Downing, T.E., Harrison, P.A., Butterfield, R.E. and Lonsdale, K.G. (eds.) (1999).
Climate Change, Climatic Variability and Agriculture in Europe: An Integrated
Assessment, Research Report No. 21, Environmental Change Unit, Oxford.
Erhard, M. (2002). Technical note accompanying the ATEAM scenarios.
(http://www.pik-potsdam.de/ateam).
Holman, I.P. and de Vries, T.T. (eds) (2005). Development of a metamodel tool for
regional integrated climate change management’ (RegIS2). Final Report submitted to
DEFRA.
Holman, I.P., Loveland,P.J., (eds.) (2002). REGIS: Regional Climate Change Impact
Response Studies in East Anglia and North West England.
http://www.ukcip.org.uk/resources/publications/pub_dets.asp?ID=31
http://www.silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk/iwe/projects/regis/regis2.htm
Hulme, M, Jenkins, GJ, LU X, Turnpenny, JR, Mitchell, TD, Jones, RG, Lowe, J,
Murphy, JM, Hassell, D, Boorman, P, McDonald, R & Hill, S (2002). Climate Change
Scenarios for the United Kingdom: The UKCIP02 Scientific Report. Tyndall Centre
for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East
Anglia, Norwich, UK 120 pp.
IPCC (2001). Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Summary for
Policymakers. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
IPCC (2000). Emissions Scenarios. A Special Report of Working Group III of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Lovett A., R. Kennaway, G. Sunnenberg, D. Cobb, P. Dolman, T. O’Riordan, and
D. Arnold (1999). Virtual Reality in Geography. London: Taylor and Francis,
(Chapter 9).
McLure, T. J., G. H. Griffiths (2002). Historic Landscape Reconstruction and
Visualization, West Oxfordshire, England. Transactions in Geographical Information
Systems, 6(1): 69-78.
Mitchell, T.D., Carter, T.R., Jones, P.D., Hulme, M., New, M. (2004). A
comprehensive set of high-resolution grids of monthly climate for Europe and the
globe: the observed record (1901-2000) and 16 scenarios (2001-2100). Tyndall
Centre Working Paper 55, Norwich.
New, M., Lister, D., Hulme, M., Makin, I. (2001). A high-resolution dataset of surface
climate over global land areas. Climate Research 21, 1-25.
70

OCC: Oxfordshire County Council (2004). Oxfordshire Small Area Population and
Household Forecasts 2001 to 2011.
http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/population_forecasts.pdf
OCC: Oxfordshire County Council (2003). Oxfordshire Structure Plan 2016: Deposit
Draft. http://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/sp_draft1.pdf
Openshaw S., and C. Openshaw (1997). Artificial Intelligence in Geography. UK:
Wiley.
OWLP: Oxfordshire Wildlife and Landscape Project.
http://owls.oxfordshire.gov.uk/ilwwcm/connect/OWLS/Home/
Parker D.C., T. Berger, and S.M. Manson (Edited by) (2001). Agent-Based Models of
Land-Use and Land-Cover Change. Report and Review of an International Workshop
October 4–7, 2001, Irvine, California, USA.
http://www.indiana.edu/~act/focus1/ABM_Report6.pdf
Porter, M. E. (1985). Competitive advantage. New York: Free Press.
Rounsevell, M.D.A. Berry, P.M. Harrison, P.A. (2006). Future environmental change
impacts on rural land use and biodiversity: a synthesis of the ACCELERATES
project. Environmental Science and Policy, 9, 93-100.
Schröter, D., Cramer, W., Leemans, R., Prentice, I.C., Araújo, M.B., Arnell, N.W.,
Bondeau, A., Bugmann, H., Carter, T.R., Gracia, C.A., de la Vega-Leinert, A.C.,
Erhard, M., Ewert, F., Gelndining, M., House, J.I., Kankaanpää, S., Klein, R.T.,
lavourel, S., Lindner, M., Metzger, M.J., Meyer, J., Mitchell, T.D., Reginster, I.,
Rounsevell, M., Sabaté, S., Sitch, S., Smith, S., Smith J., Smith, P., Syles, M.T.,
Thonicke, K., Thuiller, W., Tuck, G., Zaehle, S. and Zierl, B. (2005) Ecosystem
service supply and vulnerability to global change in Europe. Science, 310, 1333-
1337.
Shackley S., and R. Deanwood (2003). Constructing Social Futures for Climatechange
Impacts and Response Studies: building qualitative and quantitiative
scenarios with the participation of stakeholders. Climate Research, 24, 1, pp 71-90.
Shackley, S. and Deanwood, R.: 2002, ‘Stakeholder perceptions of climate change
impacts at the regional scale: Implications for the effectiveness of regional and local
responses’, J. Environmental Planning Management,45(3), 381–402.
Sheppard S.R.J., J.L. Lewis, and C. Akai (2004). Landscape Visualisation: An
Extension for First Nations and Rural Communities. Edmonton: Sustainable Forest
Management Network.
SODC: South Oxfordshire District Council (2003). South Oxfordshire Local
Plan 2011.
UKBAP (2005). UK Biodiversity Action Plan for Lowland Calcareous Grassland
http://www.ukbap.org.uk/UKPlans.aspx?ID=12
UK Climate Impacts Programme, (2001). Socio-economic scenarios for climate
change impact assessment: a guide to their use in the UK Climate Impacts
Programme. UKCIP, Oxford.
71