IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/forpol/v119y2020ics1389934119305878.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What do scientists and managers know about soil biodiversity? Comparative knowledge mapping for sustainable forest management

Author

Listed:
  • Vanermen, Iris
  • Muys, Bart
  • Verheyen, Kris
  • Vanwindekens, Frederic
  • Bouriaud, Laura
  • Kardol, Paul
  • Vranken, Liesbet

Abstract

Soil biodiversity is crucial for maintaining forest health and safeguarding forest ecosystem services delivery, but it is under increasing human pressure. Forest management puts pressure on soil biodiversity, but has also the potential to support soil biodiversity recovery, depending on which decisions forest managers make. These decisions are highly influenced by managers' perception and understanding. Nevertheless, insights into forest managers' understanding of soils and their biodiversity are largely lacking. This paper addresses this gap by studying private and public forest managers' understanding of soil biodiversity and comparing their level of knowledge with scientists' knowledge. In addition, this paper assesses the effects of context on understanding by comparing between two regions (NW of Flanders, Belgium, and NE of Romania). Specifically, knowledge was elicited using semi-structured interviews based on an integrated framework. The interviews were coded and analyzed using a Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping approach. In total, 24 interviews were conducted after selecting respondents using a purposive sampling design. Our results indicate that forest managers are aware of the crucial role of soil biodiversity and possess practical and context-specific understanding, but lack in-depth knowledge related to ecosystem processes and functions and soil state variables, compared to scientists. In addition, managers did not seem to explicitly consider soil biodiversity in their management decisions, but instead seemed to treat soil more as a black box. While scientists had a more detailed understanding, their understanding also depended on their background as researchers and mostly overlooked practical, site-specific implications. Moreover, we found that local context influenced respondents' understanding, especially related to drivers and pressures that affect soil biodiversity. Hence, communication strategies oriented towards forest managers seem suitable to maximize adoption of adaptive management practices that support soil biodiversity. These strategies should go beyond awareness raising and specifically explain ecosystem processes and functions linked to forest soil biodiversity to improve managers' in-depth understanding, while taking their socio-economic and forestry context into account. Further, policy design should enhance conditions for knowledge exchange and discussion about soil biodiversity. The methodology presented in this study might help such knowledge integration of scientists and forest managers in order to combine in-depth understanding of soil biodiversity and applicability of management practices in specific forest contexts.

Suggested Citation

  • Vanermen, Iris & Muys, Bart & Verheyen, Kris & Vanwindekens, Frederic & Bouriaud, Laura & Kardol, Paul & Vranken, Liesbet, 2020. "What do scientists and managers know about soil biodiversity? Comparative knowledge mapping for sustainable forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:forpol:v:119:y:2020:i:c:s1389934119305878
    DOI: 10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102264
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934119305878
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102264?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. Sondoss ElSawah & Alan Mclucas & Jason Mazanov, 2013. "Using a Cognitive Mapping Approach to Frame the Perceptions of Water Users About Managing Water Resources: A Case Study in the Australian Capital Territory," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 27(9), pages 3441-3456, July.
    2. Müller, Felix & Burkhard, Benjamin, 2012. "The indicator side of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 26-30.
    3. Gray, Steven & Chan, Alex & Clark, Dan & Jordan, Rebecca, 2012. "Modeling the integration of stakeholder knowledge in social–ecological decision-making: Benefits and limitations to knowledge diversity," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 229(C), pages 88-96.
    4. Marta Olazabal & Marc B. Neumann & Sébastien Foudi & Aline Chiabai, 2018. "Transparency and Reproducibility in Participatory Systems Modelling: the Case of Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(6), pages 791-810, November.
    5. Lewison, Rebecca L. & Rudd, Murray A. & Al-Hayek, Wissam & Baldwin, Claudia & Beger, Maria & Lieske, Scott N. & Jones, Christian & Satumanatpan, Suvaluck & Junchompoo, Chalatip & Hines, Ellen, 2016. "How the DPSIR framework can be used for structuring problems and facilitating empirical research in coastal systems," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 110-119.
    6. Castellacci, Fulvio & Archibugi, Daniele, 2008. "The technology clubs: The distribution of knowledge across nations," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(10), pages 1659-1673, December.
    7. Vanwindekens, Frédéric M. & Stilmant, Didier & Baret, Philippe V., 2013. "Development of a broadened cognitive mapping approach for analysing systems of practices in social–ecological systems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 250(C), pages 352-362.
    8. Thees, Oliver & Olschewski, Roland, 2017. "Physical soil protection in forests - insights from production-, industrial- and institutional economics," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 99-106.
    9. Mendoza, Guillermo A. & Prabhu, Ravi, 2006. "Participatory modeling and analysis for sustainable forest management: Overview of soft system dynamics models and applications," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 179-196, November.
    10. Sousa-Silva, Rita & Verbist, Bruno & Lomba, Ângela & Valent, Peter & Suškevičs, Monika & Picard, Olivier & Hoogstra-Klein, Marjanke A. & Cosofret, Vasile-Cosmin & Bouriaud, Laura & Ponette, Quentin & , 2018. "Adapting forest management to climate change in Europe: Linking perceptions to adaptive responses," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 22-30.
    11. Khadka, Chiranjeewee & Hujala, Teppo & Wolfslehner, Bernhard & Vacik, Harald, 2013. "Problem structuring in participatory forest planning," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 1-11.
    12. Bell, Simon, 2012. "DPSIR=A Problem Structuring Method? An exploration from the “Imagine” approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 222(2), pages 350-360.
    13. Klaus Wagner, 2007. "Mental Models of Flash Floods and Landslides," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 671-682, June.
    14. Nichiforel, Liviu & Keary, Kevin & Deuffic, Philippe & Weiss, Gerhard & Thorsen, Bo Jellesmark & Winkel, Georg & Avdibegović, Mersudin & Dobšinská, Zuzana & Feliciano, Diana & Gatto, Paola & Gorriz Mi, 2018. "How private are Europe’s private forests? A comparative property rights analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 535-552.
    15. Michael Drescher & Ajith Perera, 2010. "Comparing two sets of forest cover change knowledge used in forest landscape management planning," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 53(5), pages 591-613.
    16. Vanwindekens, Frédéric M. & Baret, Philippe V. & Stilmant, Didier, 2014. "A new approach for comparing and categorizing farmers’ systems of practice based on cognitive mapping and graph theory indicators," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 274(C), pages 1-11.
    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. Arthur, Lilian & Vondolia, Godwin Kofi & Dasmani, Isaac, 2024. "Superstition and attitudes towards restoration of a mining-degraded forest reserve: Evidence from Ghana," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(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. Xiaohang Zhai & Zhe Chen & Chunlan Tan & Guangliang Li, 2023. "Heterogeneity Analysis of Industrial Structure Upgrading on Eco-Environmental Quality from a Spatial Perspective: Evidence from 11 Coastal Provinces in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-22, October.
    2. Goswami, Rupak & Roy, Kalyan & Dutta, Sudarshan & Ray, Krishnendu & Sarkar, Sukamal & Brahmachari, Koushik & Nanda, Manoj Kr. & Mainuddin, Mohammed & Banerjee, Hirak & Timsina, Jagadish & Majumdar, Ka, 2021. "Multi-faceted impact and outcome of COVID-19 on smallholder agricultural systems: Integrating qualitative research and fuzzy cognitive mapping to explore resilient strategies," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    3. Louis Tessier & Jo Bijttebier & Fleur Marchand & Philippe V. Baret, 2021. "Cognitive mapping, flemish beef farmers’ perspectives and farm functioning: a critical methodological reflection," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(4), pages 1003-1019, December.
    4. Evgenia Micha & Owen Fenton & Karen Daly & Gabriella Kakonyi & Golnaz Ezzati & Thomas Moloney & Steven Thornton, 2020. "The Complex Pathway towards Farm-Level Sustainable Intensification: An Exploratory Network Analysis of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Perception," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(7), pages 1-20, March.
    5. Castilla-Rho, Juan & Kenny, Daniel, 2022. "What prevents the adoption of regenerative agriculture and what can we do about it? Lessons from a behaviorally-attuned Participatory Modelling exercise in Australia," OSF Preprints asxr2, Center for Open Science.
    6. Garini, C.S. & Vanwindekens, F. & Scholberg, J.M.S. & Wezel, A. & Groot, J.C.J., 2017. "Drivers of adoption of agroecological practices for winegrowers and influence from policies in the province of Trento, Italy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 200-211.
    7. Alexandre de A. Gomes Júnior & Vanessa B. Schramm & Fernando Schramm, 2023. "Problem Structuring Methods in Social-Ecological Systems," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 461-478, June.
    8. Winkel, Georg & Lovrić, Marko & Muys, Bart & Katila, Pia & Lundhede, Thomas & Pecurul, Mireia & Pettenella, Davide & Pipart, Nathalie & Plieninger, Tobias & Prokofieva, Irina & Parra, Constanza & Pülz, 2022. "Governing Europe's forests for multiple ecosystem services: Opportunities, challenges, and policy options," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    9. Alexandre de A. Gomes Júnior & Vanessa B. Schramm, 2022. "Problem Structuring Methods: A Review of Advances Over the Last Decade," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 55-88, February.
    10. R. S. Clements & S. K. Birthisel & A. Daigneault & E. Gallandt & D. Johnson & T. Wentworth & M. T. Niles, 2021. "Climate change in the context of whole-farming systems: opportunities for improved outreach," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(3), pages 1-20, June.
    11. Daniel C. Kenny & Juan Castilla-Rho, 2022. "What Prevents the Adoption of Regenerative Agriculture and What Can We Do about It? Lessons and Narratives from a Participatory Modelling Exercise in Australia," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-30, August.
    12. Ha T. N. Huynh & Lisa A. Lobry de Bruyn & Oliver G. G. Knox & Hoa T. T. Hoang, 2022. "Means and ways of engaging, communicating and preserving local soil knowledge of smallholder farmers in Central Vietnam," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 1039-1062, September.
    13. Victoria Alomia‐Hinojosa & Jeroen C. J. Groot & Jens A. Andersson & Erika N. Speelman & Andrew J. McDonald & Pablo Tittonell, 2023. "Assessing farmer perceptions on livestock intensification and associated trade‐offs using fuzzy cognitive maps; a study in mixed farming systems in the mid‐hills of Nepal," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 146-158, January.
    14. Micha, Evgenia & Fenton, Owen & Daly, Karen & Kakonyi, Gabriella & Ezzati, Golnaz & Moloney, Thomas & Thornton, Steven F, 2019. "Mapping the pathways towards farm-level sustainable intensification of agriculture: an exploratory network 3 analysis of stakeholders’ views," SocArXiv 2rqjd, Center for Open Science.
    15. Rebecca E. Morss & Julie L. Demuth & Ann Bostrom & Jeffrey K. Lazo & Heather Lazrus, 2015. "Flash Flood Risks and Warning Decisions: A Mental Models Study of Forecasters, Public Officials, and Media Broadcasters in Boulder, Colorado," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(11), pages 2009-2028, November.
    16. Teixeira, Aurora A.C. & Tavares-Lehmann, Ana Teresa, 2014. "Human capital intensity in technology-based firms located in Portugal: Does foreign ownership matter?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(4), pages 737-748.
    17. Wilson Charles Wilson & Maja Slingerland & Frederick P. Baijukya & Hannah Zanten & Simon Oosting & Ken E. Giller, 2021. "Integrating the soybean-maize-chicken value chains to attain nutritious diets in Tanzania," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 13(6), pages 1595-1612, December.
    18. Smith, Chris M. & Shaw, Duncan, 2019. "The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 403-416.
    19. Stöllinger, Roman, 2013. "International spillovers in a world of technology clubs," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 19-35.
    20. Gerner, Nadine V. & Nafo, Issa & Winking, Caroline & Wencki, Kristina & Strehl, Clemens & Wortberg, Timo & Niemann, André & Anzaldua, Gerardo & Lago, Manuel & Birk, Sebastian, 2018. "Large-scale river restoration pays off: A case study of ecosystem service valuation for the Emscher restoration generation project," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(PB), pages 327-338.

    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:forpol:v:119:y:2020:i:c:s1389934119305878. 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/forpol .

    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.