IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v135y2015icp112-121.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Application of partial order ranking to identify enhancement potentials for the provision of selected ecosystem services by different land use strategies

Author

Listed:
  • Tsonkova, Penka
  • Böhm, Christian
  • Quinkenstein, Ansgar
  • Freese, Dirk

Abstract

Conventional agricultural practices have often been associated with negative externalities, such as land degradation, pollution of soil and water resources, loss of biodiversity, and decreased provision of ecosystem services (ES). In response to these negative effects, the number of indicator-based attempts to assess ES provided by land use systems has increased. However, decisions regarding the importance of the different ES are usually made subjectively. Following an objective approach through the use of a partial order ranking method, this study aimed to assess several non-provisioning ES supplied by alley cropping system (ACS) in comparison with conventional agriculture (CA). The main objective of the study was to verify the applicability of partial order ranking to an ecologically-based assessment, focusing on soil, water, and biodiversity indicators. Results from 40 hypothetical scenarios representing various site conditions of agricultural fields in Germany were calculated using the Ecosystem Services Assessment Tool for Agroforestry (ESAT-A), a toolbox designed to assess selected ES of ACS following an empirical approach. The results were ranked using partial order and were visualized by a Hasse diagram. The findings depict partial order ranking as a promising technique to support decision making in order to find priority scenarios and indicators where the provision of ES can be enhanced by establishing ACS. The minimal scenarios under CA identified with simultaneously low values of all indicators were perceived as target scenarios for establishing ACS. The values of the indicators for the current land use system need to be taken into account in order to avoid scenarios where high tradeoff was suggested. Additionally, this approach can be extended and utilized at the field level to aid farmer decisions on which land use strategy is the most suitable alternative to increase the provision of ES.

Suggested Citation

  • Tsonkova, Penka & Böhm, Christian & Quinkenstein, Ansgar & Freese, Dirk, 2015. "Application of partial order ranking to identify enhancement potentials for the provision of selected ecosystem services by different land use strategies," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 135(C), pages 112-121.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:135:y:2015:i:c:p:112-121
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2015.01.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X15000037
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2015.01.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dominati, Estelle & Patterson, Murray & Mackay, Alec, 2010. "A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1858-1868, July.
    2. Bastian, Olaf & Syrbe, Ralf-Uwe & Rosenberg, Matthias & Rahe, Doreen & Grunewald, Karsten, 2013. "The five pillar EPPS framework for quantifying, mapping and managing ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 15-24.
    3. Zhang, Wei & Ricketts, Taylor H. & Kremen, Claire & Carney, Karen & Swinton, Scott M., 2007. "Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 253-260, December.
    4. Maes, Joachim & Egoh, Benis & Willemen, Louise & Liquete, Camino & Vihervaara, Petteri & Schägner, Jan Philipp & Grizzetti, Bruna & Drakou, Evangelia G. & Notte, Alessandra La & Zulian, Grazia & Boura, 2012. "Mapping ecosystem services for policy support and decision making in the European Union," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 31-39.
    5. Fontana, Veronika & Radtke, Anna & Bossi Fedrigotti, Valérie & Tappeiner, Ulrike & Tasser, Erich & Zerbe, Stefan & Buchholz, Thomas, 2013. "Comparing land-use alternatives: Using the ecosystem services concept to define a multi-criteria decision analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 128-136.
    6. Jonathan A. Foley & Navin Ramankutty & Kate A. Brauman & Emily S. Cassidy & James S. Gerber & Matt Johnston & Nathaniel D. Mueller & Christine O’Connell & Deepak K. Ray & Paul C. West & Christian Balz, 2011. "Solutions for a cultivated planet," Nature, Nature, vol. 478(7369), pages 337-342, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Batunacun, & Wieland, Ralf & Lakes, Tobia & Yunfeng, Hu & Nendel, Claas, 2019. "Identifying drivers of land degradation in Xilingol, China, between 1975 and 2015," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 543-559.
    2. Accatino, Francesco & Tonda, Alberto & Dross, Camille & Léger, François & Tichit, Muriel, 2019. "Trade-offs and synergies between livestock production and other ecosystem services," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 58-72.
    3. Fernández-Getino, A.P. & Alonso-Prados, J.L. & Santín-Montanyá, M.I., 2018. "Challenges and prospects in connectivity analysis in agricultural systems: Actions to implement policies on land management and carbon storage at EU level," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 146-159.
    4. Adolfo Vicente Araújo & Caroline Mota & Sajid Siraj, 2023. "Using Genetic Programming to Identify Characteristics of Brazilian Regions in Relation to Rural Credit Allocation," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-14, April.
    5. Früh, Linus & Kampen, Helge & Kerkow, Antje & Schaub, Günter A. & Walther, Doreen & Wieland, Ralf, 2018. "Modelling the potential distribution of an invasive mosquito species: comparative evaluation of four machine learning methods and their combinations," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 388(C), pages 136-144.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Léa Tardieu, 2017. "The need for integrated spatial assessments in ecosystem service mapping," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 173-200, December.
    2. Jónsson, Jón Örvar G. & Davíðsdóttir, Brynhildur & Nikolaidis, Nikolaos P. & Giannakis, Georgios V., 2019. "Tools for Sustainable Soil Management: Soil Ecosystem Services, EROI and Economic Analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 109-119.
    3. Ethan Gordon & Federico Davila & Chris Riedy, 2022. "Transforming landscapes and mindscapes through regenerative agriculture," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(2), pages 809-826, June.
    4. Stephen C. L. Watson & Adrian C. Newton, 2018. "Dependency of Businesses on Flows of Ecosystem Services: A Case Study from the County of Dorset, UK," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-14, April.
    5. Makovníková Jarmila & Pálka Boris & Kološta Stanislav & Flaška Filip & Orságová Katarína & Spišiaková Mária, 2020. "Non-Monetary Assessment and Mapping of the Potential of Agroecosystem Services in Rural Slovakia," European Countryside, Sciendo, vol. 12(2), pages 257-276, June.
    6. Brzoska, P. & Grunewald, K. & Bastian, O., 2021. "A multi-criteria analytical method to assess ecosystem services at urban site level, exemplified by two German city districts," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    7. Heink, Ulrich & Jax, Kurt, 2019. "Going Upstream — How the Purpose of a Conceptual Framework for Ecosystem Services Determines Its Structure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 264-271.
    8. Karimi, Azadeh & Yazdandad, Hossein & Fagerholm, Nora, 2020. "Evaluating social perceptions of ecosystem services, biodiversity, and land management: Trade-offs, synergies and implications for landscape planning and management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    9. Accatino, Francesco & Tonda, Alberto & Dross, Camille & Léger, François & Tichit, Muriel, 2019. "Trade-offs and synergies between livestock production and other ecosystem services," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 58-72.
    10. Dardonville, Manon & Legrand, Baptiste & Clivot, Hugues & Bernardin, Claire & Bockstaller, Christian & Therond, Olivier, 2022. "Assessment of ecosystem services and natural capital dynamics in agroecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    11. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    12. Stoll, Stefan & Frenzel, Mark & Burkhard, Benjamin & Adamescu, Mihai & Augustaitis, Algirdas & Baeßler, Cornelia & Bonet, Francisco J. & Carranza, Maria Laura & Cazacu, Constantin & Cosor, Georgia L. , 2015. "Assessment of ecosystem integrity and service gradients across Europe using the LTER Europe network," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 295(C), pages 75-87.
    13. Dennis Junior Choruma & Oghenekaro Nelson Odume, 2019. "Exploring Farmers’ Management Practices and Values of Ecosystem Services in an Agroecosystem Context—A Case Study from the Eastern Cape, South Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-22, November.
    14. Jarmila Makovníková & Stanislav Kološta & Filip Flaška & Boris Pálka, 2023. "Factors Influencing the Spatial Distribution of Regulating Agro-Ecosystem Services in Agriculture Soils: A Case Study of Slovakia," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-22, April.
    15. van Leeuwen, Cynthia C.E. & Cammeraat, Erik L.H. & de Vente, Joris & Boix-Fayos, Carolina, 2019. "The evolution of soil conservation policies targeting land abandonment and soil erosion in Spain: A review," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 174-186.
    16. Oosterbroek, Bram & de Kraker, Joop & Huynen, Maud M.T.E. & Martens, Pim, 2016. "Assessing ecosystem impacts on health: A tool review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 237-254.
    17. Ferrarini, Andrea & Serra, Paolo & Almagro, María & Trevisan, Marco & Amaducci, Stefano, 2017. "Multiple ecosystem services provision and biomass logistics management in bioenergy buffers: A state-of-the-art review," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 277-290.
    18. Andrea Früh-Müller & Stefan Hotes & Lutz Breuer & Volkmar Wolters & Thomas Koellner, 2016. "Regional Patterns of Ecosystem Services in Cultural Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-19, June.
    19. Maia de Souza, Danielle & Lopes, Gabriela Russo & Hansson, Julia & Hansen, Karin, 2018. "Ecosystem services in life cycle assessment: A synthesis of knowledge and recommendations for biofuels," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 200-210.
    20. Alissa White & Joshua W. Faulkner & David Conner & Lindsay Barbieri & E. Carol Adair & Meredith T. Niles & V. Ernesto Mendez & Cameron R. Twombly, 2021. "Measuring the Supply of Ecosystem Services from Alternative Soil and Nutrient Management Practices: A Transdisciplinary, Field-Scale Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-32, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:135:y:2015:i:c:p:112-121. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.