IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v45y2020ics2212041620300954.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Resident and stakeholder perceptions of ecosystem services associated with agricultural landscapes in New Hampshire

Author

Listed:
  • Wilhelm, Jennifer A.
  • Smith, Richard G.
  • Jolejole-Foreman, Maria Christina
  • Hurley, Stephanie

Abstract

Converting non-agricultural land to agricultural uses can result in trade-offs in ecosystem services. As provisioning services increase on new agricultural land, supporting, regulating, and cultural services may decrease. An improved understanding of how stakeholders value different land use types in terms of their perceived ecosystem services, as well as the relative visual appeal of different agricultural landscape features, could assist policymakers and land use planners in decision-making related to agricultural land use in New England, USA. We surveyed two survey samples in New Hampshire, food system stakeholders (e.g., farmers, public health professionals, and technical assistance providers) and the general population, to explore how perception of the visual appeal of specific farmland use types and importance of ecosystem services specifically related to agricultural land might differ between survey samples. Our objectives were to (1) explore how New Hampshire residents perceive the importance of seven ecosystem services, (2) evaluate how two groups of New Hampshire residents—the general public and those who indicated working with or in a food systems sector (food system stakeholders)—perceive these ecosystem services provided by specific agricultural landscapes and determine how those perceptions relate to the visual appeal of each landscape, and (3) assess how eight socio-economic factors may account for the differences between each survey sample in terms of their landscape perception and preference. Roughly 600 New Hampshire residents completed the survey, including 494 individuals from the public and 103 food system stakeholders. From a list of seven ecosystem services, clean water was ranked as the most important across both survey samples, with no significant difference between samples, while food production was ranked significantly higher by the food system stakeholders (p ≤ 0.001). Likewise, on a scale of most (4) to least (1) appealing, food system stakeholders ranked photorealistic visualizations of cropland higher than the public (p ≤ 0.001). Additionally, food system stakeholders ranked the appeal of forestland lower than the public (p = 0.007). Our findings suggest that there are differences in landscape preferences and perception of ecosystem service benefits between the general public and those who work with or in the food system. Future research is needed to determine how these differences in perception might affect land use planning and policymaking related to agricultural expansion and forestland preservation.

Suggested Citation

  • Wilhelm, Jennifer A. & Smith, Richard G. & Jolejole-Foreman, Maria Christina & Hurley, Stephanie, 2020. "Resident and stakeholder perceptions of ecosystem services associated with agricultural landscapes in New Hampshire," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:45:y:2020:i:c:s2212041620300954
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101153
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041620300954
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101153?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. Michael Hanemann & Susan Stratton Sayre & Larry Dale, 2016. "The downside risk of climate change in California’s Central Valley agricultural sector," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 137(1), pages 15-27, July.
    2. Cebrián-Piqueras, M.A. & Karrasch, L. & Kleyer, M., 2017. "Coupling stakeholder assessments of ecosystem services with biophysical ecosystem properties reveals importance of social contexts," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 108-115.
    3. Thompson, Kate & Sherren, Kate & Duinker, Peter N., 2019. "The use of ecosystem services concepts in Canadian municipal plans," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    4. 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.
    5. Iago Lowe Hale & Wilfred M. Wollheim & Richard G. Smith & Heidi Asbjornsen & André F. Brito & Kirk Broders & A. Stuart Grandy & Rebecca Rowe, 2014. "A Scale-Explicit Framework for Conceptualizing the Environmental Impacts of Agricultural Land Use Changes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-20, November.
    6. Chaudhary, Sunita & McGregor, Andrew & Houston, Donna & Chettri, Nakul, 2019. "Spiritual enrichment or ecological protection?: A multi-scale analysis of cultural ecosystem services at the Mai Pokhari, a Ramsar site of Nepal," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    7. Zhang, Wei & Kato, Edward & Bhandary, Prapti & Nkonya, Ephraim & Ibrahim, Hassan Ishaq & Agbonlahor, Mure & Ibrahim, Hussaini Yusuf & Cox, Cindy, 2016. "Awareness and perceptions of ecosystem services in relation to land use types: Evidence from rural communities in Nigeria," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 150-160.
    8. Gary Solon & Steven J. Haider & Jeffrey M. Wooldridge, 2015. "What Are We Weighting For?," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 50(2), pages 301-316.
    9. Peter Howley & Stephen Hynes & Cathal O Donoghue, 2012. "Countryside Preferences: Exploring Individuals' Willingness to Pay for the Conservation of the Traditional Farm Landscape," Landscape Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(6), pages 703-719, December.
    10. Abram, Nicola K. & Meijaard, Erik & Ancrenaz, Marc & Runting, Rebecca K. & Wells, Jessie A. & Gaveau, David & Pellier, Anne-Sophie & Mengersen, Kerrie, 2014. "Spatially explicit perceptions of ecosystem services and land cover change in forested regions of Borneo," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 116-127.
    11. Muhamad, Dendi & Okubo, Satoru & Harashina, Koji & Parikesit, & Gunawan, Budhi & Takeuchi, Kazuhiko, 2014. "Living close to forests enhances people׳s perception of ecosystem services in a forest–agricultural landscape of West Java, Indonesia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 197-206.
    12. Tancoigne, Elise & Barbier, Marc & Cointet, Jean-Philippe & Richard, Guy, 2014. "The place of agricultural sciences in the literature on ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 35-48.
    13. van Zanten, Boris T. & Zasada, Ingo & Koetse, Mark J. & Ungaro, Fabrizio & Häfner, Kati & Verburg, Peter H., 2016. "A comparative approach to assess the contribution of landscape features to aesthetic and recreational values in agricultural landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 87-98.
    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. Song, Xiaoqing & Wang, Xiong & Hu, Shougeng & Xiao, Renbin & Scheffran, Jürgen, 2022. "Functional transition of cultivated ecosystems: Underlying mechanisms and policy implications in China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    2. Fontana, Veronika & Ebner, Manuel & Schirpke, Uta & Ohndorf, Markus & Pritsch, Hanna & Tappeiner, Ulrike & Kurmayer, Rainer, 2023. "An integrative approach to evaluate ecosystem services of mountain lakes using multi-criteria decision analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 204(PA).
    3. Yichen Zhang & Chuntao Li & Lang Zhang & Jinao Liu & Ruonan Li, 2022. "Spatial Simulation of Land-Use Development of Feixi County, China, Based on Optimized Productive–Living–Ecological Functions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-33, May.
    4. Meryl Braconnier & Cheryl E. Morse & Stephanie Hurley, 2022. "Using Photovisualizations to Gain Perspectives on River Conservation over Time," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, April.

    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. Lima, Flávia Pereira & Bastos, Rogério Pereira, 2019. "Perceiving the invisible: Formal education affects the perception of ecosystem services provided by native areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    2. Ruiz-Frau, A. & Krause, T. & Marbà, N., 2018. "The use of sociocultural valuation in sustainable environmental management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 158-167.
    3. Zhang, Wei & Kato, Edward & Bhandary, Prapti & Nkonya, Ephraim & Ibrahim, Hassan Ishaq & Agbonlahor, Mure & Ibrahim, Hussaini Yusuf & Cox, Cindy, 2016. "Awareness and perceptions of ecosystem services in relation to land use types: Evidence from rural communities in Nigeria," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 150-160.
    4. Mengist, Wondimagegn & Soromessa, Teshome & Feyisa, Gudina Legese & Jenerette, G. Darrel, 2022. "Socio-environmental determinants of the perceived value of moist Afromontane forest ecosystem services in Kaffa Biosphere Reserve, Ethiopia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C).
    5. Rust, Niki A. & Rehackova, Lucia & Naab, Francis & Abrams, Amber & Hughes, Courtney & Merkle, Bethann Garramon & Clark, Beth & Tindale, Sophie, 2021. "What does the UK public want farmland to look like?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    6. Paudyal, Kiran & Baral, Himlal & Burkhard, Benjamin & Bhandari, Santosh P. & Keenan, Rodney J., 2015. "Participatory assessment and mapping of ecosystem services in a data-poor region: Case study of community-managed forests in central Nepal," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 81-92.
    7. Koju, Upama & Karki, Sikha & Shrestha, Anita & Maraseni, Tek & Gautam, Ambika P. & Cadman, Tim & Sherpa, Ang Phuri & Lama, Sonam Tashi, 2023. "Local stakeholders’ priorities and perceptions towards forest ecosystem services in the Red panda habitat region of Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C).
    8. Ascui, Francisco & Ball, Alex & Kahn, Lewis & Rowe, James, 2021. "Is operationalising natural capital risk assessment practicable?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    9. Dehghani Pour, Milad & Barati, Ali Akbar & Azadi, Hossein & Scheffran, Jürgen & Shirkhani, Mehdi, 2023. "Analyzing forest residents' perception and knowledge of forest ecosystem services to guide forest management and biodiversity conservation," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    10. 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).
    11. He, Siyuan & Gallagher, Louise & Su, Yang & Wang, Lei & Cheng, Hongguang, 2018. "Identification and assessment of ecosystem services for protected area planning: A case in rural communities of Wuyishan national park pilot," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 169-180.
    12. Bingjie Song & Guy M. Robinson & Douglas K. Bardsley, 2020. "Measuring Multifunctional Agricultural Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-30, August.
    13. Targetti, S. & Raggi, M. & Zavalloni, M. & Viaggi, D., 2021. "Perceived benefits from reclaimed rural landscapes: Evidence from the lowlands of the Po River Delta, Italy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    14. Shoyama, Kikuko & Yamagata, Yoshiki, 2016. "Local perception of ecosystem service bundles in the Kushiro watershed, Northern Japan – Application of a public participation GIS tool," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 139-149.
    15. Dang, Anh Nguyet & Jackson, Bethanna Marie & Benavidez, Rubianca & Tomscha, Stephanie Anne, 2021. "Review of ecosystem service assessments: Pathways for policy integration in Southeast Asia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    16. Imane Mahjoubi & Lisa Bossenbroek & Elisabeth Berger & Oliver Frör, 2022. "Analyzing Stakeholder Perceptions of Water Ecosystem Services to Enhance Resilience in the Middle Drâa Valley, Southern Morocco," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-17, April.
    17. Lhoest, Simon & Dufrêne, Marc & Vermeulen, Cédric & Oszwald, Johan & Doucet, Jean-Louis & Fayolle, Adeline, 2019. "Perceptions of ecosystem services provided by tropical forests to local populations in Cameroon," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    18. Hongjuan Zhang & Qian Pang & Huan Long & Haochen Zhu & Xin Gao & Xiuqing Li & Xiaohui Jiang & Kang Liu, 2019. "Local Residents’ Perceptions for Ecosystem Services: A Case Study of Fenghe River Watershed," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-19, September.
    19. Pingarroni, Aline & Castro, Antonio J. & Gambi, Marcos & Bongers, Frans & Kolb, Melanie & García-Frapolli, Eduardo & Balvanera, Patricia, 2022. "Uncovering spatial patterns of ecosystem services and biodiversity through local communities' preferences and perceptions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    20. Renner, Ansel & Cadillo-Benalcazar, Juan José & Benini, Lorenzo & Giampietro, Mario, 2020. "Environmental pressure of the European agricultural system: Anticipating the biophysical consequences of internalization," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).

    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:ecoser:v:45:y:2020:i:c:s2212041620300954. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    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.