IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v49y2021ics2212041621000425.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecosystem services from (pre-)Alpine grasslands: Matches and mismatches between citizens’ perceived suitability and farmers’ management considerations

Author

Listed:
  • Schmitt, Thomas M.
  • Martín-López, Berta
  • Kaim, Andrea
  • Früh-Müller, Andrea
  • Koellner, Thomas

Abstract

The integration of socio-cultural assessments in ecosystem services research has increased steadily over the last years. However, the stakeholders’ perception of ecosystem services from grasslands, a major agricultural land cover in (pre-)Alpine landscapes, has received only limited attention. Furthermore, studying the heterogeneity of perceptions within stakeholder groups is a major scientific need. In this study, we examined the perceptions of farmers and citizens regarding grassland ecosystem services, specifically the matches and mismatches between perceived suitability of grasslands and importance assigned by farmers in their management considerations. We conducted surveys in a study area in southern Bavaria, Germany, in 2018. Overall, ecosystem services that citizens perceived as very suitable to be provided by grasslands aligned well with the ecosystem services that are highly important to farmers in their management considerations, but significant mismatches also existed among all categories of ecosystem services. Clustering and dimension reduction revealed two clusters of farmers and three clusters of citizens depending on farm characteristics and environmental attitudes, respectively. Redundancy analysis showed a strong influence of the stakeholder cluster on the perception of the services assessed. Furthermore, age and gender influenced the perceptions attached to grassland ecosystem services.

Suggested Citation

  • Schmitt, Thomas M. & Martín-López, Berta & Kaim, Andrea & Früh-Müller, Andrea & Koellner, Thomas, 2021. "Ecosystem services from (pre-)Alpine grasslands: Matches and mismatches between citizens’ perceived suitability and farmers’ management considerations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:49:y:2021:i:c:s2212041621000425
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101284
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041621000425
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101284?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. Zoderer, Brenda Maria & Tasser, Erich & Carver, Steve & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2019. "Stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem service supply and ecosystem service demand bundles," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 1-1.
    2. Ryffel, Andrea Nathalie & Rid, Wolfgang & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne, 2014. "Land use trade-offs for flood protection: A choice experiment with visualizations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 10(C), pages 111-123.
    3. Fortnam, M. & Brown, K. & Chaigneau, T. & Crona, B. & Daw, T.M. & Gonçalves, D. & Hicks, C. & Revmatas, M. & Sandbrook, C. & Schulte-Herbruggen, B., 2019. "The Gendered Nature of Ecosystem Services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 159(C), pages 312-325.
    4. Dietze, Victoria & Hagemann, Nina & Jürges, Nataly & Bartke, Stephan & Fürst, Christine, 2019. "Farmers consideration of soil ecosystem services in agricultural management - A case study from Saxony, Germany," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 813-824.
    5. Chapman, Mollie & Satterfield, Terre & Chan, Kai M.A., 2019. "When value conflicts are barriers: Can relational values help explain farmer participation in conservation incentive programs?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 464-475.
    6. Yang, Y.C. Ethan & Passarelli, Simone & Lovell, Robin J. & Ringler, Claudia, 2018. "Gendered perspectives of ecosystem services: A systematic review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 58-67.
    7. Carine Pachoud & Riccardo Da Re & Maurizio Ramanzin & Stefano Bovolenta & Damiano Gianelle & Enrico Sturaro, 2020. "Tourists and Local Stakeholders’ Perception of Ecosystem Services Provided by Summer Farms in the Eastern Italian Alps," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-16, February.
    8. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    9. Turkelboom, Francis & Leone, Michael & Jacobs, Sander & Kelemen, Eszter & García-Llorente, Marina & Baró, Francesc & Termansen, Mette & Barton, David N. & Berry, Pam & Stange, Erik & Thoonen, Marijke , 2018. "When we cannot have it all: Ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 566-578.
    10. Charrad, Malika & Ghazzali, Nadia & Boiteau, Véronique & Niknafs, Azam, 2014. "NbClust: An R Package for Determining the Relevant Number of Clusters in a Data Set," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 61(i06).
    11. Sarah C Klain & Paige Olmsted & Kai M A Chan & Terre Satterfield, 2017. "Relational values resonate broadly and differently than intrinsic or instrumental values, or the New Ecological Paradigm," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(8), pages 1-21, August.
    12. Iniesta-Arandia, Irene & García-Llorente, Marina & Aguilera, Pedro A. & Montes, Carlos & Martín-López, Berta, 2014. "Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services: uncovering the links between values, drivers of change, and human well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 36-48.
    13. Peter Howley & Emma Dillon, 2012. "Modelling the effect of farming attitudes on farm credit use: a case study from Ireland," Agricultural Finance Review, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 72(3), pages 456-470, November.
    14. Koellner, Thomas & Sell, Joachim & Navarro, Guillermo, 2010. "Why and how much are firms willing to invest in ecosystem services from tropical forests? A comparison of international and Costa Rican firms," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2127-2139, September.
    15. Faccioni, G. & Sturaro, E. & Ramanzin, M. & Bernués, A., 2019. "Socio-economic valuation of abandonment and intensification of Alpine agroecosystems and associated ecosystem services," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 453-462.
    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. Tindale, Sophie & Vicario-Modroño, Victoria & Gallardo-Cobos, Rosa & Hunter, Erik & Miškolci, Simona & Price, Paul Newell & Sánchez-Zamora, Pedro & Sonnevelt, Martijn & Ojo, Mercy & McInnes, Kirsty & , 2023. "Citizen perceptions and values associated with ecosystem services from European grassland landscapes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).

    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. 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).
    2. Tindale, Sophie & Vicario-Modroño, Victoria & Gallardo-Cobos, Rosa & Hunter, Erik & Miškolci, Simona & Price, Paul Newell & Sánchez-Zamora, Pedro & Sonnevelt, Martijn & Ojo, Mercy & McInnes, Kirsty & , 2023. "Citizen perceptions and values associated with ecosystem services from European grassland landscapes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    3. Hanaček, Ksenija & Langemeyer, Johannes & Bileva, Tatyana & Rodríguez-Labajos, Beatriz, 2021. "Understanding environmental conflicts through cultural ecosystem services - the case of agroecosystems in Bulgaria," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    4. Cuni-Sanchez, Aida & Ngute, Alain Senghor K. & Sonké, Bonaventure & Sainge, Moses Nsanyi & Burgess, Neil D. & Klein, Julia A. & Marchant, Rob, 2019. "The importance of livelihood strategy and ethnicity in forest ecosystem services’ perceptions by local communities in north-western Cameroon," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    5. Chapman, Mollie & Satterfield, Terre & Chan, Kai M.A., 2019. "When value conflicts are barriers: Can relational values help explain farmer participation in conservation incentive programs?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 464-475.
    6. Jericó-Daminello, C. & Schröter, B. & Mancilla Garcia, M. & Albert, C., 2021. "Exploring perceptions of stakeholder roles in ecosystem services coproduction," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    7. Aryal, Kishor & Ojha, Bhuwan Raj & Maraseni, Tek, 2021. "Perceived importance and economic valuation of ecosystem services in Ghodaghodi wetland of Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    8. Juerges, Nataly & Arts, Bas & Masiero, Mauro & Hoogstra-Klein, Marjanke & Borges, José G. & Brodrechtova, Yvonne & Brukas, Vilis & Canadas, Maria João & Carvalho, Pedro Ochôa & Corradini, Giulia & Cor, 2021. "Power analysis as a tool to analyse trade-offs between ecosystem services in forest management: A case study from nine European countries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    9. Marlen S. Krause & Nils Droste & Bettina Matzdorf, 2021. "What makes businesses commit to nature conservation?," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 30(2), pages 741-755, February.
    10. Kernecker, Maria & Seufert, Verena & Chapman, Mollie, 2021. "Farmer-centered ecological intensification: Using innovation characteristics to identify barriers and opportunities for a transition of agroecosystems towards sustainability," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    11. Marcondes G. Coelho-Junior & Athila L. de Oliveira & Eduardo C. da Silva-Neto & Thayanne C. Castor-Neto & Ana A. de O. Tavares & Vanessa M. Basso & Ana P. D. Turetta & Patricia E. Perkins & Acacio G. , 2021. "Exploring Plural Values of Ecosystem Services: Local Peoples’ Perceptions and Implications for Protected Area Management in the Atlantic Forest of Brazil," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-19, January.
    12. Carine Pachoud, 2021. "Territorialization of Public Action and Mountain Pastoral Areas—Case Study of the Territorial Pastoral Plans of the Rhône-Alpes Region, France," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-14, July.
    13. Marjolein C. J. Caniëls & Wim Lambrechts & Johannes (Joost) Platje & Anna Motylska-Kuźma & Bartosz Fortuński, 2021. "50 Shades of Green: Insights into Personal Values and Worldviews as Drivers of Green Purchasing Intention, Behaviour, and Experience," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-18, April.
    14. Bingjie Song & Guy M. Robinson & Douglas K. Bardsley, 2020. "Measuring Multifunctional Agricultural Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-30, August.
    15. Daniel Tobin, 2023. "Towards quantifying relational values: crop diversity and the relational and instrumental values of seed growers in Vermont," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 40(3), pages 1137-1152, September.
    16. Paul Opdam & Eveliene Steingröver, 2018. "How Could Companies Engage in Sustainable Landscape Management? An Exploratory Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-15, January.
    17. Raviv, Orna & Tchetchik, Anat & Lotan, Alon & Izhaki, Ido & Zemah Shamir, Shiri, 2021. "Direct and indirect valuation of air-quality regulation service as reflected in the preferences towards distinct types of landscape in a biosphere reserve," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    18. Nápoles-Vértiz, Sonia & Caro-Borrero, Angela, 2024. "Conceptual diversity and application of ecosystem services and disservices: A systematic review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    19. Kosanic, Aleksandra & Petzold, Jan, 2020. "A systematic review of cultural ecosystem services and human wellbeing," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    20. Krause, Marlen S. & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2019. "The intention of companies to invest in biodiversity and ecosystem services credits through an online-marketplace," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(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:49:y:2021:i:c:s2212041621000425. 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.