IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecomod/v416y2020ics0304380019303977.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Reconciling biodiversity conservation, food production and farmers’ demand in agricultural landscapes

Author

Listed:
  • Montoya, Daniel
  • Gaba, Sabrina
  • de Mazancourt, Claire
  • Bretagnolle, Vincent
  • Loreau, Michel

Abstract

Efficient management of agricultural management should consider multiple services and stakeholders. Yet, it remains unclear how to guarantee ecosystem services for multiple stakeholders’ demands, especially considering the observed biodiversity decline following reductions in semi-natural habitat (SNH), and global change. Here, we use an ecosystem service model of intensively-managed agricultural landscapes to derive the best landscape compositions for different stakeholders’ demands, and how they vary with stochasticity and the degree of pollination dependence of crops. We analyse three groups of stakeholders assumed to value different ecosystem services most – individual farmers (crop yield per area), agricultural unions (landscape production) and conservationists (biodiversity). Additionally, we consider a social average scenario that aims at maximizing multifunctionality. Trade-offs among stakeholders’ demands strongly depend on the degree of pollination dependence of crops, the strength of environmental and demographic stochasticity, and the relative amount of an ecosystem service demanded by each stakeholder. Intermediate amounts of SNH deliver relatively high levels of the three services (social average). Our analysis further suggests that the current levels of SNH protection lie below these intermediate amounts of SNH in intensively-managed agricultural landscapes. Given the worldwide trends in agriculture and global change, current policies should start to consider factors such as crop type and stochasticity, as they can strongly influence best landscape compositions for different stakeholders. Our results suggest ways of managing landscapes to reconcile several actors’ demands and ensure for biodiversity conservation and food production.

Suggested Citation

  • Montoya, Daniel & Gaba, Sabrina & de Mazancourt, Claire & Bretagnolle, Vincent & Loreau, Michel, 2020. "Reconciling biodiversity conservation, food production and farmers’ demand in agricultural landscapes," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 416(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecomod:v:416:y:2020:i:c:s0304380019303977
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2019.108889
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380019303977
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2019.108889?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. Turkelboom, Francis & Leone, Michael & Jacobs, Sander & Kelemen, Eszter & García-Llorente, Marina & Baró, Francesc & Termansen, Mette & Barton, David N. & Berry, Pam & Stange, Erik & Thoonen, Marijk, 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.
    2. Baró, Francesc & Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & Haase, Dagmar, 2017. "Ecosystem service bundles along the urban-rural gradient: Insights for landscape planning and management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 147-159.
    3. Cruz-Garcia, Gisella S. & Sachet, Erwan & Vanegas, Martha & Piispanen, Kyle, 2016. "Are the major imperatives of food security missing in ecosystem services research?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 19(C), pages 19-31.
    4. Shoyama, Kikuko & Yamagata, Yoshiki, 2014. "Predicting land-use change for biodiversity conservation and climate-change mitigation and its effect on ecosystem services in a watershed in Japan," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 25-34.
    5. Teixeira, Heitor Mancini & Vermue, Ardjan J. & Cardoso, Irene Maria & Peña Claros, Marielos & Bianchi, Felix J.J.A., 2018. "Farmers show complex and contrasting perceptions on ecosystem services and their management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 44-58.
    6. Ding, Helen & Chiabai, Aline & Silvestri, Silvia & Nunes, Paulo A.L.D., 2016. "Valuing climate change impacts on European forest ecosystems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 141-153.
    7. Martinez-Harms, Maria Jose & Bryan, Brett A. & Figueroa, Eugenio & Pliscoff, Patricio & Runting, Rebecca K. & Wilson, Kerrie A., 2017. "Scenarios for land use and ecosystem services under global change," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 56-68.
    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. Lombardi, G.V. & Parrini, Silvia & Atzori, R. & Stefani, G. & Romano, D. & Gastaldi, M. & Liu, G., 2021. "Sustainable agriculture, food security and diet diversity. The case study of Tuscany, Italy," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 458(C).
    2. Paulin, M.J. & Rutgers, M. & de Nijs, T. & Hendriks, A.J. & Koopman, K.R. & Van Buul, T. & Frambach, M. & Sardano, G. & Breure, A.M., 2020. "Integration of local knowledge and data for spatially quantifying ecosystem services in the Hoeksche Waard, the Netherlands," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 438(C).
    3. Gerling, Charlotte & Schöttker, Oliver & Hearne, John, 2022. "The ”climate adaptation problem” in biodiversity conservation: the role of reversible conservation investments in optimal reserve design under climate change," MPRA Paper 114812, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Gerling, Charlotte & Schöttker, Oliver & Hearne, John, 2022. "Keep it or Leave it - the Role of Reversible Conservation Investments in Optimal Reserve Design under Climate Change," VfS Annual Conference 2022 (Basel): Big Data in Economics 264058, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    5. Gerling, Charlotte & Schöttker, Oliver & Hearne, John, 2022. "Optimal time series in the reserve design problem under climate change," MPRA Paper 114691, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Gerling, Charlotte & Schöttker, Oliver & Hearne, John, 2022. "Irreversible and partly reversible investments in the optimal reserve design problem: the role of flexibility under climate change," MPRA Paper 112089, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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. Heinze, Alan & Bongers, Frans & Ramírez Marcial, Neptalí & García Barrios, Luis E. & Kuyper, Thomas W., 2022. "Farm diversity and fine scales matter in the assessment of ecosystem services and land use scenarios," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    2. Yang Bai & Thomas O. Ochuodho & Jian Yang & Domena A. Agyeman, 2021. "Bundles and Hotspots of Multiple Ecosystem Services for Optimized Land Management in Kentucky, United States," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-14, January.
    3. Wang, Yahui & Dai, Erfu & Yin, Le & Ma, Liang, 2018. "Land use/land cover change and the effects on ecosystem services in the Hengduan Mountain region, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 55-67.
    4. Raviv, Orna & Shiri, Zemah-Shamir & Ido, Izhaki & Alon, Lotan, 2021. "The effect of wildfire and land-cover changes on the economic value of ecosystem services in Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve, Israel," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    5. Cui, Fengqi & Tang, Haiping & Zhang, Qin & Wang, Bojie & Dai, Luwei, 2019. "Integrating ecosystem services supply and demand into optimized management at different scales: A case study in Hulunbuir, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    6. 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).
    7. Taboada, Angela & García-Llamas, Paula & Fernández-Guisuraga, José Manuel & Calvo, Leonor, 2021. "Wildfires impact on ecosystem service delivery in fire-prone maritime pine-dominated forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    8. Lorena Peña & Miren Onaindia & Beatriz Fernández de Manuel & Ibone Ametzaga-Arregi & Izaskun Casado-Arzuaga, 2018. "Analysing the Synergies and Trade-Offs between Ecosystem Services to Reorient Land Use Planning in Metropolitan Bilbao (Northern Spain)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, November.
    9. Angela Pilogallo & Francesco Scorza, 2022. "Ecosystem Services Multifunctionality: An Analytical Framework to Support Sustainable Spatial Planning in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-15, March.
    10. Aryal, Kishor & Maraseni, Tek & Apan, Armando, 2023. "Examining policy−institution−program (PIP) responses against the drivers of ecosystem dynamics. A chronological review (1960–2020) from Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    11. Antonio J. Castro & Cristina Quintas-Soriano & Jodi Brandt & Carla L. Atkinson & Colden V. Baxter & Morey Burnham & Benis N. Egoh & Marina García-Llorente & Jason P. Julian & Berta Martín-López & Feli, 2018. "Applying Place-Based Social-Ecological Research to Address Water Scarcity: Insights for Future Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-13, May.
    12. Balzan, Mario V & Caruana, Julio & Zammit, Annrica, 2018. "Assessing the capacity and flow of ecosystem services in multifunctional landscapes: Evidence of a rural-urban gradient in a Mediterranean small island state," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 711-725.
    13. Bolaños-Valencia, Ingrid & Villegas-Palacio, Clara & López-Gómez, Connie Paola & Berrouet, Lina & Ruiz, Aura, 2019. "Social perception of risk in socio-ecological systems. A qualitative and quantitative analysis," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    14. Pietrzyk-Kaszyńska, Agata & Olszańska, Agnieszka & Rechciński, Marcin & Tusznio, Joanna & Grodzińska-Jurczak, Małgorzata, 2022. "Divergent or convergent? Prioritization and spatial representation of ecosystem services as perceived by conservation professionals and local leaders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    15. Mayer, Alex & Jones, Kelly & Hunt, David & Manson, Robert & Carter Berry, Z. & Asbjornsen, Heidi & Wright, Timothy Max & Salcone, Jacob & Lopez Ramirez, Sergio & Ã vila-Foucat, Sophie & Von Thaden Uga, 2022. "Assessing ecosystem service outcomes from payments for hydrological services programs in Veracruz, Mexico: Future deforestation threats and spatial targeting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    16. Van Oijstaeijen, Wito & Van Passel, Steven & Back, Phil & Cools, Jan, 2022. "The politics of green infrastructure: A discrete choice experiment with Flemish local decision-makers," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    17. Chiara Cortinovis & Grazia Zulian & Davide Geneletti, 2018. "Assessing Nature-Based Recreation to Support Urban Green Infrastructure Planning in Trento (Italy)," Land, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-20, September.
    18. Xiaolu Yan & Xinyuan Li & Chenghao Liu & Jiawei Li & Jingqiu Zhong, 2022. "Scales and Historical Evolution: Methods to Reveal the Relationships between Ecosystem Service Bundles and Socio-Ecological Drivers—A Case Study of Dalian City, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(18), pages 1-20, September.
    19. Hani Amir Aouissi & Alexandru-Ionuţ Petrişor & Mostefa Ababsa & Maria Boştenaru-Dan & Mahmoud Tourki & Zihad Bouslama, 2021. "Influence of Land Use on Avian Diversity in North African Urban Environments," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-16, April.
    20. Armands Auzins & Uchendu Eugene Chigbu, 2021. "Values-Led Planning Approach in Spatial Development: A Methodology," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-19, April.

    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:ecomod:v:416:y:2020:i:c:s0304380019303977. 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.journals.elsevier.com/ecological-modelling .

    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.