In the next simulation, reported in column 3, we ignore landscape preservation and concentrate
solely on food security. Here we include a constraint in the model saying that the level of food security
has to be equal to or greater than 1 (FS ≥ 1). In other words, we require complete food security (λ ≥ 1). No
other regulations or support systems are imposed.
Naturally, the restriction is binding, which means that food security is not a free good. However,
this level of food security can be provided at a considerable lower cost than is the case today. Agricultural
support decreases to 5.5 billion NOK, or about one third of the base solution. Employment and land use
decline to 29% and 57% of the base line levels. Compared to the landscape preservation scenario,
however, activity levels are higher, especially production and employment, but also land use. This reflects
the fact that food security requires a wider specter of inputs than landscape preservation. Note that food
security dominates landscape preservation, i.e. the level of landscape preservation that follows as a by-
product of complete food security is higher than in the previous solution (LP = 1.33).
Looking more closely at the food security solution, we observe that it is optimal to have a
production in normal times that differs from the requirements of the crisis menu. Grain production is
reduced and is far below the levels required by the crisis menu. Relative more of the acreage is applied to
milk, meat and egg production. Also, for meat there has been a switch to land intensive production
techniques. Extensive production of sheep meat absorbs parts of the land now used for grain production. If
a crisis occurs, animal production will gradually have to revert to grain production while grain stocks are
running down.
We now take food security and landscape preservation into account in the same model simulation.
Thus, the WTP function for landscape preservation is added to the objective function, and the level of
food security must be equal to or exceed a floor of 1. Compared to the food security alone solution, we see
that adding willingness to pay for landscape preservation results in higher land use (+12%), while
employment is only slightly affected (-2%). A further switch towards land intensive techniques takes
place, represented by the increase in extensive sheep meat production. Observe that the level of landscape
preservation is 50% higher than in the landscape preservation alone solution. This reflects the existence of
complementarities between the two public goods: Due to common inputs, support to obtain a desired level
of food security also reduces the costs of keeping up the cultural landscape.
Cost functions for public goods are presented in figure 4 and 5. Figure 4 shows net stand alone
costs (NC) of providing landscape preservation and food security, respectively, while figure 5 gives
incremental costs (IC) of increasing the supply of one public good (e.g food security) when the level
of the other public goods (e.g. landscape preservation) is equal to or higher than 1.