IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i10p5609-d556555.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Good Pastures, Good Meadows: Mountain Farmers’ Assessment, Perceptions on Ecosystem Services, and Proposals for Biodiversity Management

Author

Listed:
  • Alexander Wezel

    (Agroecology and Environment Research Unit, Isara, AgroSchool for Life, 69364 Lyon, France)

  • Sibylle Stöckli

    (Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), CH-5070 Frick, Switzerland)

  • Erich Tasser

    (Institute for Alpine Environment, Eurac Research, 39100 Bolzano, Italy)

  • Heike Nitsch

    (Institute for Rural Development (IfLS), 60486 Frankfurt a.M., Germany)

  • Audrey Vincent

    (Isara, Laboratory of Rural Studies Research Unit, AgroSchool for Life, 69364 Lyon, France)

Abstract

An ongoing decrease in habitat and species diversity is occurring in many areas across Europe, including in grasslands in mountain areas, calling for adapted biodiversity management and measures. In this context, we carried out 79 interviews with grassland farmers in five alpine mountain regions in Germany, France, Austria, Italy, and Switzerland. We analyzed farmers’ perceptions about the functions and services of their grasslands, how they qualify “good” grasslands, which grassland management practices have changed over the last 10 years, and proposals to increase species diversity on the farm. They related them primarily to cultural ecosystem services, secondly to provisioning services, and thirdly to regulating and supporting services. Good pastures or meadows were mostly related to composition, quality of forage and productivity, structural criteria, and certain characteristics of soils and topography. The measures for increasing biodiversity that were most frequently proposed were upgrading of forest edges, planting hedges or fruit trees, less or late grassland cutting, reduction or omission of fertilization, and more general extensification of farm productions. Factors hindering the implementation of these measures were mainly increased workload, insufficient time, and a lack of financial means or support to cover additional costs for biodiversity management. These factors have to be taken specifically into account for future policies for enhanced biodiversity management of grasslands, also beyond mountainous areas. Overall, we found that farmers have good but varying knowledge about biodiversity management of their grasslands, but also different perspectives on how to improve it. Here, local initiatives that bring together farmers and flora or fauna specialists to exchange knowledge could be designed and used in participatory pilot schemes to enhance the implementation of improved biodiversity management.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexander Wezel & Sibylle Stöckli & Erich Tasser & Heike Nitsch & Audrey Vincent, 2021. "Good Pastures, Good Meadows: Mountain Farmers’ Assessment, Perceptions on Ecosystem Services, and Proposals for Biodiversity Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-15, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:10:p:5609-:d:556555
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/10/5609/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/10/5609/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wezel, Alexander & Vincent, Audrey & Nitsch, Heike & Schmid, Otto & Dubbert, Monika & Tasser, Erich & Fleury, Philippe & Stöckli, Sybille & Stolze, Matthias & Bogner, Daniel, 2018. "Farmers’ perceptions, preferences, and propositions for result-oriented measures in mountain farming," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 117-127.
    2. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod, 2009. "Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 631-647.
    3. Ben A. Woodcock & Nicholas J. B. Isaac & James M. Bullock & David B. Roy & David G. Garthwaite & Andrew Crowe & Richard F. Pywell, 2016. "Impacts of neonicotinoid use on long-term population changes in wild bees in England," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 7(1), pages 1-8, November.
    4. Bieling, Claudia & Plieninger, Tobias & Pirker, Heidemarie & Vogl, Christian R., 2014. "Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: An empirical exploration with short interviews," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 19-30.
    5. Tasser, Erich & Schirpke, Uta & Zoderer, Brenda Maria & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2020. "Towards an integrative assessment of land-use type values from the perspective of ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    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. Canessa, Carolin & Venus, Terese E. & Wiesmeier, Miriam & Mennig, Philipp & Sauer, Johannes, 2023. "Incentives, Rewards or Both in Payments for Ecosystem Services: Drawing a Link Between Farmers' Preferences and Biodiversity Levels," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 213(C).
    2. Nowak-Olejnik, Agnieszka & Mocior, Ewelina & Hibner, Joanna & Tokarczyk, Natalia, 2020. "Human perceptions of cultural ecosystem services of semi-natural grasslands: The influence of plant communities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 46(C).
    3. 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).
    4. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    5. D'Alberto, R. & Targetti, S. & Schaller, L. & Bartolini, F. & Eichhorn, T. & Haltia, E. & Harmanny, K. & Le Gloux, F. & Nikolov, D. & Runge, T. & Vergamini, D. & Viaggi, D., 2024. "A European perspective on acceptability of innovative agri-environment-climate contract solutions," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    6. Hannah Romanowski & Lauren Blake, 2023. "Neonicotinoid seed treatment on sugar beet in England: a qualitative analysis of the controversy, existing policy and viability of alternatives," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 13(3), pages 453-472, September.
    7. Breustedt, Gunnar & Schulz, Norbert & Latacz-Lohmann, Uwe, 2013. "Kalibrierung von Vertragsnaturschutzprogrammen mittels eines zweistufigen Discrete-Choice-Experimentes," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 62(04), pages 1-17, November.
    8. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    9. Barr, Rhona F. & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Investigating fishers' preferences for the design of marine Payments for Environmental Services schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 91-103.
    10. Kanchanaroek, Yingluck & Aslam, Uzma, 2017. "Assessing Farmers’ Preferences To Participate In Agri-environment Policies In Thailand," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 260888, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. Zandersen, Marianne & Oddershede, Jakob Stoktoft & Pedersen, Anders Branth & Nielsen, Helle Ørsted & Termansen, Mette, 2021. "Nature Based Solutions for Climate Adaptation - Paying Farmers for Flood Control," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    12. Soy-Massoni, Emma & Langemeyer, Johannes & Varga, Diego & Sáez, Marc & Pintó, Josep, 2016. "The importance of ecosystem services in coastal agricultural landscapes: Case study from the Costa Brava, Catalonia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 43-52.
    13. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).
    14. Elena Cervelli & Stefania Pindozzi & Emilia Allevato & Luigi Saulino & Roberto Silvestro & Ester Scotto di Perta & Antonio Saracino, 2022. "Landscape Planning Integrated Approaches to Support Post-Wildfire Restoration in Natural Protected Areas: The Vesuvius National Park Case Study," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-25, July.
    15. Egarter Vigl, Lukas & Marsoner, Thomas & Schirpke, Uta & Tscholl, Simon & Candiago, Sebastian & Depellegrin, Daniel, 2021. "A multi-pressure analysis of ecosystem services for conservation planning in the Alps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 47(C).
    16. Patricia A. Henríquez-Piskulich & Constanza Schapheer & Nicolas J. Vereecken & Cristian Villagra, 2021. "Agroecological Strategies to Safeguard Insect Pollinators in Biodiversity Hotspots: Chile as a Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-31, June.
    17. Centner, Terence J. & Brewer, Brady & Leal, Isaac, 2018. "Reducing damages from sulfoxaflor use through mitigation measures to increase the protection of pollinator species," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 70-76.
    18. Cranford, Matthew & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Credit-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 503-520.
    19. Bui Bich Xuan & Erlend Dancke Sandorf, 2020. "Potential for Sustainable Aquaculture: Insights from Discrete Choice Experiments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 77(2), pages 401-421, October.
    20. Jane Mills & Hannah Chiswell & Peter Gaskell & Paul Courtney & Beth Brockett & George Cusworth & Matt Lobley, 2021. "Developing Farm-Level Social Indicators for Agri-Environment Schemes: A Focus on the Agents of Change," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-22, July.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:10:p:5609-:d:556555. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.