IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v50y2021ics2212041621000760.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mixtures of forest and agroforestry alleviate trade-offs between ecosystem services in European rural landscapes

Author

Listed:
  • Rolo, Victor
  • Roces-Diaz, Jose V.
  • Torralba, Mario
  • Kay, Sonja
  • Fagerholm, Nora
  • Aviron, Stephanie
  • Burgess, Paul
  • Crous-Duran, Josep
  • Ferreiro-Dominguez, Nuria
  • Graves, Anil
  • Hartel, Tibor
  • Mantzanas, Konstantinos
  • Mosquera-Losada, María Rosa
  • Palma, Joao H.N.
  • Sidiropoulou, Anna
  • Szerencsits, Erich
  • Viaud, Valérie
  • Herzog, Felix
  • Plieninger, Tobias
  • Moreno, Gerardo

Abstract

Rural Europe encompasses a variety of landscapes with differing levels of forest, agriculture, and agroforestry that can deliver multiple ecosystem services (ES). Whilst provisioning and regulating ES associated with individual land covers are comparatively well studied, less is known about the associated cultural ES. Only seldom are provisioning, regulating, and cultural ES investigated together to evaluate how they contribute to multifunctionality. In this study we combined biophysical and sociocultural approaches to assess how different landscapes (dominated by forest, agriculture or agroforestry) and landscape characteristics (i.e. remoteness and landscape diversity) drive spatial associations of ES (i.e. synergies, trade-offs and bundles). We analysed data of: i) seven provisioning and regulating ES (spatially modelled), and; ii) six cultural ES (derived from participatory mapping data) in 12 study sites across four different biogeographical regions of Europe. Our results showed highly differentiated ES profiles for landscapes associated to a specific land cover, with agroforestry generally providing higher cultural ES than forest and agriculture. We found a positive relationship between the proportion of forest in a landscape and provisioning and regulating ES, whilst agriculture showed negative relationships. We found four distinct bundles of ES. Three of them were directly related to a dominant land cover and the fourth to a mixture of forest and agroforestry that was associated with high social value. The latter bundle was related to zones close to urban areas and roads and medium to high landscape diversity. These findings suggest that agroforestry should be prioritised over other land covers in such areas as it delivers a suite of multiple ES, provided it is close to urban areas or roads. Our results also illustrate the importance and application of including people’s perception in the assessment of ES associations and highlight the relevance of developing integrated analyses of ES to inform landscape management decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • Rolo, Victor & Roces-Diaz, Jose V. & Torralba, Mario & Kay, Sonja & Fagerholm, Nora & Aviron, Stephanie & Burgess, Paul & Crous-Duran, Josep & Ferreiro-Dominguez, Nuria & Graves, Anil & Hartel, Tibor , 2021. "Mixtures of forest and agroforestry alleviate trade-offs between ecosystem services in European rural landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:50:y:2021:i:c:s2212041621000760
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101318
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041621000760
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101318?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. Thomas Knoke & Carola Paul & Patrick Hildebrandt & Baltazar Calvas & Luz Maria Castro & Fabian Härtl & Martin Döllerer & Ute Hamer & David Windhorst & Yolanda F. Wiersma & Giulia F. Curatola Fernández, 2016. "Compositional diversity of rehabilitated tropical lands supports multiple ecosystem services and buffers uncertainties," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 7(1), pages 1-12, September.
    2. Ochoa, Vivian & Urbina-Cardona, Nicolás, 2017. "Tools for spatially modeling ecosystem services: Publication trends, conceptual reflections and future challenges," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 155-169.
    3. Brown, Greg & Fagerholm, Nora, 2015. "Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: A review and evaluation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 119-133.
    4. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    5. Josep Crous-Duran & Anil R. Graves & Silvestre García de Jalón & Sonja Kay & Margarida Tomé & Paul J. Burgess & Michail Giannitsopoulos & João H.N. Palma, 2020. "Quantifying Regulating Ecosystem Services with Increased Tree Densities on European Farmland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-20, August.
    6. Kay, Sonja & Rega, Carlo & Moreno, Gerardo & den Herder, Michael & Palma, João H.N. & Borek, Robert & Crous-Duran, Josep & Freese, Dirk & Giannitsopoulos, Michail & Graves, Anil & Jäger, Mareike & Lam, 2019. "Agroforestry creates carbon sinks whilst enhancing the environment in agricultural landscapes in Europe," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 581-593.
    7. 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.
    8. Blanco, Julien & Sourdril, Anne & Deconchat, Marc & Barnaud, Cécile & San Cristobal, Magali & Andrieu, Emilie, 2020. "How farmers feel about trees: Perceptions of ecosystem services and disservices associated with rural forests in southwestern France," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    9. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    10. Peña, Lorena & Casado-Arzuaga, Izaskun & Onaindia, Miren, 2015. "Mapping recreation supply and demand using an ecological and a social evaluation approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 13(C), pages 108-118.
    11. Wei, Hejie & Fan, Weiguo & Wang, Xuechao & Lu, Nachuan & Dong, Xiaobin & Zhao, Yanan & Ya, Xijia & Zhao, Yifei, 2017. "Integrating supply and social demand in ecosystem services assessment: A review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 15-27.
    12. Zulian, Grazia & Stange, Erik & Woods, Helen & Carvalho, Laurence & Dick, Jan & Andrews, Christopher & Baró, Francesc & Vizcaino, Pilar & Barton, David N. & Nowel, Megan & Rusch, Graciela M. & Autunes, 2018. "Practical application of spatial ecosystem service models to aid decision support," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 465-480.
    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. Mosquera-Losada, María Rosa & Rodríguez-Rigueiro, Francico Javier & Santiago-Freijanes, José Javier & Rigueiro-Rodríguez, Antonio & Silva-Losada, Pablo & Pantera, Anastasia & Fernández-Lorenzo, Juan L, 2022. "European agroforestry policy promotion in arable Mediterranean areas," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    2. Juan F. Velasco-Muñoz & José A. Aznar-Sánchez & Marina Schoenemann & Belén López-Felices, 2022. "An Analysis of the Worldwide Research on the Socio-Cultural Valuation of Forest Ecosystem Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-22, February.
    3. Meine van Noordwijk, 2021. "Agroforestry-Based Ecosystem Services: Reconciling Values of Humans and Nature in Sustainable Development," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-24, July.

    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. 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).
    2. Agudelo, César Augusto Ruiz & Bustos, Sandra Liliana Hurtado & Moreno, Carmen Alicia Parrado, 2020. "Modeling interactions among multiple ecosystem services. A critical review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 429(C).
    3. Kulczyk, Sylwia & Woźniak, Edyta & Derek, Marta, 2018. "Landscape, facilities and visitors: An integrated model of recreational ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 491-501.
    4. Ebner, Manuel & Fontana, Veronika & Schirpke, Uta & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2022. "Stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem services of mountain lakes in the European Alps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    5. Tusznio, Joanna & Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Rechciński, Marcin & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2020. "Application of the ecosystem services concept at the local level – Challenges, opportunities, and limitations," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    6. Xia, Zheyi & Yuan, Chengcheng & Gao, Yang & Shen, Zhen & Liu, Kui & Huang, Yuwen & Wei, Xue & Liu, Liming, 2023. "Integrating perceptions of ecosystem services in adaptive management of country parks: A case study in peri-urban Shanghai, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    7. Beichen Ge & Congjin Wang & Yuhong Song, 2023. "Ecosystem Services Research in Rural Areas: A Systematic Review Based on Bibliometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(6), pages 1-18, March.
    8. Tianlin Zhai & Jing Wang & Ying Fang & Longyang Huang & Jingjing Liu & Chenchen Zhao, 2021. "Integrating Ecosystem Services Supply, Demand and Flow in Ecological Compensation: A Case Study of Carbon Sequestration Services," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-19, February.
    9. Yue Wang & Qi Fu & Tinghui Wang & Mengfan Gao & Jinhua Chen, 2022. "Multiscale Characteristics and Drivers of the Bundles of Ecosystem Service Budgets in the Su-Xi-Chang Region, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-26, October.
    10. Winkler, Klara J. & Nicholas, Kimberly A., 2016. "More than wine: Cultural ecosystem services in vineyard landscapes in England and California," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 86-98.
    11. Meng, Shiting & Huang, Qingxu & Zhang, Ling & He, Chunyang & Inostroza, Luis & Bai, Yansong & Yin, Dan, 2020. "Matches and mismatches between the supply of and demand for cultural ecosystem services in rapidly urbanizing watersheds: A case study in the Guanting Reservoir basin, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    12. Schmidt, Katja & Martín-López, Berta & Phillips, Peter M. & Julius, Eike & Makan, Neville & Walz, Ariane, 2019. "Key landscape features in the provision of ecosystem services: Insights for management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 353-366.
    13. Zhengxin Ji & Yueqing Xu & Hejie Wei, 2020. "Identifying Dynamic Changes in Ecosystem Services Supply and Demand for Urban Sustainability: Insights from a Rapidly Urbanizing City in Central China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-23, April.
    14. Lorilla, Roxanne Suzette & Kalogirou, Stamatis & Poirazidis, Konstantinos & Kefalas, George, 2019. "Identifying spatial mismatches between the supply and demand of ecosystem services to achieve a sustainable management regime in the Ionian Islands (Western Greece)," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    15. Crouzat, Emilie & De Frutos, Angel & Grescho, Volker & Carver, Steve & Büermann, Andrea & Carvalho-Santos, Claudia & Kraemer, Roland & Mayor, Sarah & Pöpperl, Franziska & Rossi, Christian & Schröter, , 2022. "Potential supply and actual use of cultural ecosystem services in mountain protected areas and their surroundings," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    16. Harrison, Paula A. & Dunford, Rob & Barton, David N. & Kelemen, Eszter & Martín-López, Berta & Norton, Lisa & Termansen, Mette & Saarikoski, Heli & Hendriks, Kees & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Czúcz, Báli, 2018. "Selecting methods for ecosystem service assessment: A decision tree approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 481-498.
    17. Elina Viirret & Kaisa J. Raatikainen & Nora Fagerholm & Niina Käyhkö & Petteri Vihervaara, 2019. "Ecosystem Services at the Archipelago Sea Biosphere Reserve in Finland: A Visitor Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, January.
    18. Tajima, Yuno & Hashimoto, Shizuka & Dasgupta, Rajarshi & Takahashi, Yasuo, 2023. "Spatial characterization of cultural ecosystem services in the Ishigaki Island of Japan: A comparison between residents and tourists," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    19. Xin Cheng & Sylvie Van Damme & Pieter Uyttenhove, 2022. "Assessing the Impact of Park Renovations on Cultural Ecosystem Services," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-18, April.
    20. Rabe, Sven-Erik & Gantenbein, Remo & Richter, Kai-Florian & Grêt-Regamey, Adrienne, 2018. "Increasing the credibility of expert-based models with preference surveys – Mapping recreation in the riverine zone," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PC), pages 308-317.

    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:50:y:2021:i:c:s2212041621000760. 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.