Ecosystem Services of Semi-Natural Habitats Through the Eyes of Farmers
Abstract
Farmers as primary land users have the most power to interact with the land. Therefore, understanding farmers’ perception of ecosystem services (or ESs) through farmers’ eyes is of primary importance: their assessments of ESs and their ideas about the possibilities of maintenance will be crucial for land management decisions. This comparative analysis presents how farmers understand the benefits and non-monetary value of on-farm ESs provided by semi-natural habitats in main cropping systems (arable, orchard, vegetable and vines) across four European agro-climatic zones in 8 European countries (the UK, Germany, France, Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland, Estonia and Hungary). Farmers attitudes towards ESs are ambivalent: they usually build on personal feelings and ethical considerations and at the same time use rational economic arguments. Farmers appreciated ESs in multiple ways (e.g. enjoying aesthetics and sense of place, benefiting from ESs, etc.) and valued it against the harm caused by pests, diseases and weeds (an indication of their success as agriculturalists). Positive attitudes typically go for yield and associated ESs including pollination; whereas negative attitudes are recorded towards Functional Biodiversity. Farmers have their own personal and ethical considerations, but these become dissonant with economic rationale and capacities in maintaining the farm. As a result, farming ideals and the real-world requirements are often in conflict. We also uncovered that the concept of ESs is very well received in each local contexts of farming. The exercise also pointed to the limits of monetary valuation in ES valuation, as they restrict benefits to economics which are seemingly important for maintaining the farm enterprise butless as an ideal for agriculturalists. Farmers mention ‘yields’ as the most important as this is the main success criteria represented by the Common Agriculutral Policy towards farming – however, according to farmers, this becomes problematic as yields are not equal with the money gained in exchange.
References
Baveye, P. C., Baveye, J. & Gowdy, J. (2013): Monetary valuation of ecosystem services: it matters to get the timeline right. – Ecol. Econ. 95: 231–235. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.09.009
Baveye, P. C., Baveye, J. & Gowdy, J. (2016): Soil “Ecosystem” Services and Natural Capital: Critical Appraisal of Research on Uncertain Ground. – Front. Environ. Sci. 4: 41. doi: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fenvs.2016.00041/full
Buijs, A., Fisher, A., Rink, D. & Young, C. J. (2008): Looking beyond superficial knowledge gaps: Understanding public representations of biodiversity. – International Journal of Biodiversity Science and Management 4: 65–80. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3843/Biodiv.4.2:1
Burton, R. J. F. (2004): Seeing Through the ‘Good Farmer’s’ Eyes: Towards Developing an Understanding of the Social Symbolic Value of ‘Productivist’ Behaviour. – Sociol. Ruralis 44: 195–215. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9523.2004.00270.x
De Groot, R., Fisher, B., Christie, M., Aronson, J., Braat, L., Haines-Young, R., Gowdy, J., Killeen, T., Maltby, E., Neuville, A., Polasky, S., Portela, R. & Ring, I. (2010): Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. – Draft Chapter 1 of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) study.
De Schutter, O. & Petrini, C. (2017): Time to put a Common Food Policy on the menu. – In Politico,Op-Ed. Febr 2, 2017. URL: http://www.politico.eu/pro/opinion-time-to-put-a-common-food-policy-on-the-menu/
Duru, M., Therond, O., Martin, G., Martin-Clouaire, R., Magne, M-A., Justes, E., Journet, W-P., Aubertot, J-N., Savary, S., Bergez., J-E. & Sarthou, J-P. (2015): How to implement biodiversity-based agriculture to enhance ecosystem services: a review. – Agron. Sustain. Dev. 35: 1259–1281. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0306-1
Elo, S. & Kyngäs, H. (2008): The Qualitative Content Analysis Process. – J. Adv. Nurs. 62: 107–115. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
FAO (2016): Adapting agriculture to climate change. URL: http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/aj982e/aj982e02.pdf
Fisher, B., Turner, R. K. & Morling, P. (2009): Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. – Ecol. Econ. 68: 643–653. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014
Goldman, R. L., Thompson, B. H. & Daily, G. C. (2007): Institutional incentives for managing the landscape: Inducing cooperation for the production of ecosystem services. – Ecol. Econ, 64: 333–343. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.012
Haines-Young, R. & Potschin, M. (2010): The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being. – In: Raffaelli, D. G. & Frid, C. L. J. (eds.): Ecosystem Ecology: A New Synthesis. – British Ecological Society, Cambridge University Press, pp. 110–139.
Holland, J. M , Jeanneret, P. , Herzog , F., Moonen, A-C., Rossing, W., van der Werf, W., Kiss, J., van D., Entling, M. & Balázs, B. (2014): The QuESSA Project: Quantification of Ecological Services for agriculture. Landscape Management for Functional Biodiversity. – International Osustainable rganisation for Biological Control/West Palaearctic Regional Section Bulletin 100: 55–58.
Holland, J. M., Bianchi, F. J. J. A., Entling, M. H., Moonen, A. C., Smith, B. M. & Jeanneret, P. (2016): Structure, function and management of semi-natural habitats for conservation biological control: A review of European studies. – Pest. Manag. Sci. 72: 1638–1651. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ps.4318
IPES (2017): Towards a Common Food Policy for the European Union. – A 3-year process of research, reflection and citizen engagement. URL: http://www.ipes-food.org/images/Reports/CFP_ConceptNote.pdf
Kelemen, E. (2011): Árak vagy érvek? Módszertani dilemmák a természet szolgáltatásainak értékelésében. – Kovász 3: 31–57.
Kelemen, E, Pataki, Gy., Balázs, B., Bela, Gy., Fabók, V., Kalóczkai, Á., Kohlheb, N., Kovács, E., Kovács Krasznai, E. & Mertens, C. (2014): A nem pénzbeli értékelési módszerek kontextusfüggő alkalmazásának tapasztalatai. – In: Kelemen, E. & Pataky, Gy. (szerk.): Ökoszisztéma szolgáltatások: A természet- és társadalomtudományok metszéspontjában. – Szent István Egyetem, Környezet- és Tájgazdálkodási Intézet; Environmental Social Science Research Group (ESSRG), Gödöllő; Budapest, pp. 56–75.
Kelemen, E. & Pataki, Gy. (2014): Az ökoszisztéma szolgáltatások értékelésének elméleti megalapozása. – In: Kelemen, E. & Pataki, Gy. (szerk.): Ökoszisztéma szolgáltatások: A természet- és társadalomtudományok metszéspontjában. – Gödöllő; Budapest: Szent István Egyetem, Környezet- és Tájgazdálkodási Intézet; Environmental Social Science Research Group (ESSRG), Gödöllő, Budapest, pp. 35–55.
Kelemen, E., Nguyen, G., Gomiero, T., Kovács, E., Choisis, J.-P., Choisis, N., Paoletti, M. G., Podmaniczky, L., Ryschawy, J., Sarthou, J.-P., Herzog, F., Dennis, P. & Balázs, K. (2013): Farmers’ perceptions of biodiversity: Lessons from a discourse-based valuation study. – Land Use Policy 35: 318–328. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.06.005
Kohlbacher, F. (2006): The Use of Qualitative Content Analysis in Case Study Research. – Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 7(1) URL: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/75/153
Kovács, E., Kelemen, E. & Pataki, Gy. (2011): Ökoszisztéma szolgáltatások a tudományterületek és a szakpolitikák metszéspontjaiban. – Természetvédelmi Közlem. 17: 1–11.
Kovács, E., Kelemen, E., Kalóczkai, Á., Margóczi, K. Pataki, Gy., Gébert, J., Málovics, Gy., Bálint, B., Roboz, Á., Krasznai Kovács, E. & Mihók., M. (2015): Understanding the links between ecosystem service trade-offs and conflicts in protected areas. – Ecosyst. Serv. 12: 117–127. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.09.012
Kovács-Hostyánszki, A., Espíndola, A., Vanbergen, A. J., Settele, J., Kremen, C. & Dicks, L. V. (2017): Ecological intensification to mitigate impacts of conventional intensive land use on pollinators and pollination. – Ecol. Lett. 20: 673–689. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ele.12762
Kumar, M. & Kumar, P. (2008): Valuation of the ecosystem services: A psycho-cultural perspective. – Ecol. Econ. 64: 808–819. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.05.008
Lant, C. L., Ruhl, J. B. & Kraft, S. E. (2008): The tragedy of ecosystem services. – BioScience 58: 969–974. doi: http://doi.org/10.1641/B581010
Lele, S., Springate-Baginski, O., Lakerveld, R., Deb, D. & Dash, P. (2013): Ecosystem services: origins, contributions, pitfalls, and alternatives. – Conservat. Soc. 11: 343–358. doi: http://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.125752
Lescourret, F., Magda, D., Richard, G., Adam-Blondon, A. F., Bardy, M., Baudry, J. & Martin-Clouaire, R. (2015): A social–ecological approach to managing multiple agroecosystem services. – Curr. Opin. Sust. 14: 68–75. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.04.001
Martínez-Alier, J. (2002): The environmentalism of the poor. A study of ecological conflicts and valuation. – Edward Elgar. Cheltenham, UK.
Martín-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., et al. (2012): Uncovering ecosystem services bundles through social preferences: Experimental evidence from Spain. – PLoS ONE 7: e38970. doi: http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038970
Mayring, P. (2000): Qualitative Content Analysis. – Forum: Qualitative Social Research. 1(2). Art. 20. URL: doi: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2385
MEA (2005): Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. – Island Press, Washington, DC.
Nahlik, A. M., Kentula, M. E., Fennessy, M. S. & Landers, D. H. (2012): Where is the consensus? A proposed foundation for moving ecosystem service concepts into practice. – Ecol. Econ. 77: 27–35. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.01.001
Norgaard, R. B. (2010): Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. – Ecol. Econ. 69: 1219–1227. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.009
O’Hara, S. U. (1996): Discursive ethics in ecosystems valuation and environmental policy. – Ecol. Econ. 16: 95–107. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8009(95)00085-2
Pasqual, U., Balvanera, P., Díaz, S., Pataki, Gy., Roth, E., Stenseke, M., Watson, R. T., Dessane, E. B., Islar, M., Kelemen, E., Maris, V., Quaas, M., Subramanian, S. M., Wittmer, H., Adlan, A., Ahn, S., Al-Hafedh ,W. S., Amankwah, E., Asah, S.T., Berry, P., Bilgin, A., Breslow, S. J., Bullock, C., Cácere, D., Daly-Hassen H., Figuero,a E., Golden, C.D., Gómez-Baggethun, E., González Jiménez, D., Houdet, J., Keune, H., Kumar, R., Ma, K., May, P. H., Mead, A., O’Farrel, P., Pandit, R., Pengue, W., Pichis Madruga, R., Popa, F., Preston, S., Pacheco-Balanza, D., Saaroski, H., Strassburg, B. B., van den Belt, M., Verma, M., Wickson, F. & Yagi, N. (2017): Valuing nature’s contributions to people: the IPBES approach. – Curr. Opin. Sust. 26: 7–16. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006
Pataki Gy. (szerk.) (2014): A gazdasági versenyképesség és az ökoszisztéma-szolgáltatások összefüggése a mezőgazdálkodás példáján. – kézirat, ESSRG, Budapest, 111 p.
Patton, M. Q. (2002): Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. – Sage, London, 598 p.
Sandhu, H. & Wratten, S. (2013): Ecosystem services in farmland and cities. Ecosystem services in agricultural and urban landscapes. – In: Wratten, S., Sandhu, H., Cullen, R. & Costanza, R., (eds.): Ecosystem Services in Agricultural and Urban Landscapes. – Wiley-Blackwell. Oxford. pp. 1–15.
Santos-Martín, F., Kelemen, E., García-Llorente, M., Jacobs, S., Oteros-Rozas, E., Palomo, I., Barton, D. N., Hevia, V. & Martín-López, B. (2017): Socio-cultural valuation approaches. – In: Burkhard, B., Maes, J. (eds.): Mapping ecosystem services. – Pensoft Publishers. URL: http://ab.pensoft.net/article/12837/list/1/
Silvertown, J. (2015). Have ecosystem services been oversold? – Trends Ecol. Evol. 30: 641–648. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2015.08.007
Smith, H. F. & Sullivan, C.A. (2014): Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes - Farmers’ perceptions.–– Ecol. Econ. 98: 72–80. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.12.008
Soini, K. (2001): Exploring human dimensions of multifunctional landscapes through mapping and map making. – Landscape Urban Plan. 67: 225–239. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00206-7
Stallman, H. R. (2011): Ecosystem services in agriculture: Determining suitability for provision by collective management. – Ecol. Econ. 71: 131–139. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.08.016
Sutherland, L. A., Darnhofer, I., Wilson, G. & Zagata, L. (eds.) (2014): Transition pathways towards sustainability in agriculture: case studies from Europe. – CABI.
Swinton S. M., Lupi F., Robertson G. P., Hamilton S. K. (2007): Ecosystem services and agriculture: cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. – Ecol. Econ. 64: 245–252. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.09.020
TEEB (2015) TEEB for Agriculture & Food: an interim report, United Nations Environment Programme, Geneva, Switzerland. URL: http://www.teebweb.org/agriculture-and-food/
Wilson, M. A. & Howarth, R. B. (2002): Discourse-based valuation of ecosystem services: establishing fair outcomes through group deliberation. – Ecol. Econ. 41: 431–443. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(02)00092-7
Zhang, W., Ricketts, T. H., Kremen, C., Carney, K. & Swinton, S. M. (2007): Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. – Ecol. Econ. 64: 253–260. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.02.024
http1: https://www.essrg.hu/en/quessa/ (letöltés: 2017. március)
