IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i6p2480-d335407.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Are Landscapes under Agroecological Transition Perceived and Appreciated? A Belgian Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Fanny Boeraeve

    (Biodiversity and Landscape, TERRA Teaching and Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liege, Passage des Déportés 2, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium)

  • Marc Dufrêne

    (Biodiversity and Landscape, TERRA Teaching and Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liege, Passage des Déportés 2, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium)

  • Nicolas Dendoncker

    (Department of Geography, Institute Transitions, University of Namur, Rue de Bruxelles 61, 5000 Namur, Belgium)

  • Amandine Dupire

    (Biodiversity and Landscape, TERRA Teaching and Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liege, Passage des Déportés 2, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium
    Architecture and Planning, Urba Folia, Avenue de Canteleu 63, 59650 Villeneuve-d’Ascq, France)

  • Grégory Mahy

    (Biodiversity and Landscape, TERRA Teaching and Research Center, Gembloux Agro-Bio Tech, University of Liege, Passage des Déportés 2, 5030 Gembloux, Belgium)

Abstract

An increasing number of agricultural transition initiatives are taking place, seeking more autonomy and resilience on the farms. This undeniably reshapes the landscape and the delivery of ecosystem services (ES). To date, little research includes the knowledge and perceptions of local communities on rural landscapes in agricultural transition. Yet, farmers shape the landscape and ES delivery, and local inhabitants are directly impacted. The present work aims at assessing the extent to which locals (local inhabitants and farmers) appreciate and view landscapes undergoing agricultural transitions. To do so, questionnaires were submitted to locals enquiring about appreciation and ES perceptions of transitioning landscapes. These landscapes were shown in manipulated photographs simulating an agroecological landscape, a conventional agriculture landscape, and landscapes including each isolated agroecological practice (resulting in six ‘scenarios’). In order to put locals’ perceptions in perspective, the same questionnaire was submitted to ‘ES experts’, and ES perceptions were compared to field-based ES measurements in agroecological and conventional parcels of the same study region. The results show that locals and ES experts appreciate and perceive these scenarios similarly. The agroecological scenario was seen as the most appreciated and the one delivering the most ES, while the conventional one was the least appreciated and seen as the one delivering the least ES. These perceptions of ES delivery partially correspond to the ES field measurements, which showed a similar productivity within agroecological and conventional parcels and more regulating ES in agroecological parcels. We discuss how our results call for the assessment of the multi-performance of agricultural systems in terms of ES rather than focusing on yield only, and how future research addressing agroecological transition should rely on integrated valuations and mixed methods to better embrace the complexity of such transitioning systems.

Suggested Citation

  • Fanny Boeraeve & Marc Dufrêne & Nicolas Dendoncker & Amandine Dupire & Grégory Mahy, 2020. "How Are Landscapes under Agroecological Transition Perceived and Appreciated? A Belgian Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-16, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:6:p:2480-:d:335407
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/6/2480/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/6/2480/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jacobs, Sander & Martín-López, Berta & Barton, David N. & Dunford, Robert & Harrison, Paula A. & Kelemen, Eszter & Saarikoski, Heli & Termansen, Mette & García-Llorente, Marina & Gómez-Baggethun, , 2018. "The means determine the end – Pursuing integrated valuation in practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 515-528.
    2. Keune, Hans & Dendoncker, Nicolas & Popa, Florin & Sander, Jacobs & Kampelmann, Stephan & Boeraeve, Fanny & Dufrêne, Marc & Bauler, Tom & Casaer, Jim & Cerulus, Tanya & De Blust, Geert & Denayer, Bar, 2015. "Emerging ecosystem services governance issues in the Belgium ecosystem services community of practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 212-219.
    3. Mascarenhas, André & Ramos, Tomás B. & Haase, Dagmar & Santos, Rui, 2016. "Participatory selection of ecosystem services for spatial planning: Insights from the Lisbon Metropolitan Area, Portugal," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 87-99.
    4. Jacobs, Sander & Dendoncker, Nicolas & Martín-López, Berta & Barton, David Nicholas & Gomez-Baggethun, Erik & Boeraeve, Fanny & McGrath, Francesca L. & Vierikko, Kati & Geneletti, Davide & Sevecke, , 2016. "A new valuation school: Integrating diverse values of nature in resource and land use decisions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 213-220.
    5. Knowler, Duncan & Bradshaw, Ben, 2007. "Farmers' adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 25-48, February.
    6. Tengberg, Anna & Fredholm, Susanne & Eliasson, Ingegard & Knez, Igor & Saltzman, Katarina & Wetterberg, Ola, 2012. "Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: Assessment of heritage values and identity," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 2(C), pages 14-26.
    7. Schipanski, Meagan E. & Barbercheck, Mary & Douglas, Margaret R. & Finney, Denise M. & Haider, Kristin & Kaye, Jason P. & Kemanian, Armen R. & Mortensen, David A. & Ryan, Matthew R. & Tooker, John & W, 2014. "A framework for evaluating ecosystem services provided by cover crops in agroecosystems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 125(C), pages 12-22.
    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. Zhang, Wei & Ricketts, Taylor H. & Kremen, Claire & Carney, Karen & Swinton, Scott M., 2007. "Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 253-260, December.
    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. Fockaert, Lysander & Mathijs, Erik & Vranken, Liesbet, 2021. "Local Support for Agri-Environmental Measures and the Role of Knowledge and Environmental Attitudes," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315153, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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. Ruiz-Frau, A. & Krause, T. & Marbà , N., 2018. "The use of sociocultural valuation in sustainable environmental management," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 158-167.
    2. Sy, Mariam Maki & Rey-Valette, Hélène & Simier, Monique & Pasqualini, Vanina & Figuières, Charles & De Wit, Rutger, 2018. "Identifying Consensus on Coastal Lagoons Ecosystem Services and Conservation Priorities for an Effective Decision Making: A Q Approach," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C), pages 1-13.
    3. Dendoncker, Nicolas & Turkelboom, Francis & Boeraeve, Fanny & Boerema, Annelies & Broekx, Steven & Fontaine, Corentin & Demeyer, Rolinde & De Vreese, Rik & Devillet, Guénaël & Keune, Hans & Janssens, 2018. "Integrating Ecosystem Services values for sustainability? Evidence from the Belgium Ecosystem Services community of practice," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 31(PA), pages 68-76.
    4. Evans, Nicole M. & Carrozzino-Lyon, Amy L. & Galbraith, Betsy & Noordyk, Julia & Peroff, Deidre M. & Stoll, John & Thompson, Aaron & Winden, Matthew W. & Davis, Mark A., 2019. "Integrated ecosystem service assessment for landscape conservation design in the Green Bay watershed, Wisconsin," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    5. Anna M. Hansson & Eja Pedersen & Niklas P. E. Karlsson & Stefan E. B. Weisner, 2023. "Barriers and drivers for sustainable business model innovation based on a radical farmland change scenario," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(8), pages 8083-8106, August.
    6. Palola, Pirta & Bailey, Richard & Wedding, Lisa, 2022. "A novel framework to operationalise value-pluralism in environmental valuation: Environmental value functions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    7. Bareille, Francois & Boussard, Hugues & Thenail, Claudine, 2020. "Productive ecosystem services and collective management: Lessons from a realistic landscape model," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    8. Tatiana Kaletová & Luis Loures & Rui Alexandre Castanho & Elena Aydin & José Telo da Gama & Ana Loures & Amélie Truchy, 2019. "Relevance of Intermittent Rivers and Streams in Agricultural Landscape and Their Impact on Provided Ecosystem Services—A Mediterranean Case Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(15), pages 1-16, July.
    9. Dennis Junior Choruma & Oghenekaro Nelson Odume, 2019. "Exploring Farmers’ Management Practices and Values of Ecosystem Services in an Agroecosystem Context—A Case Study from the Eastern Cape, South Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(23), pages 1-22, November.
    10. Baba, S.H. & Wani, S.A., 2018. "Ecosystem Management Approach for Agricultural Growth in Mountains: Farmers Perception of Ecosystem Services and Dis-Services in Kashmir-India," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277556, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    11. H. Yildirim & Mélanie Requier-Desjardins & Hélène Rey-Valette, 2017. "Étudier la perception des services écosystémiques pour appréhender le capital environnemental d’un territoire et ses enjeux de développement, le cas de la péninsule de Karaburun en Turquie," Post-Print hal-02043021, HAL.
    12. Barton, D.N. & Kelemen, E. & Dick, J. & Martin-Lopez, B. & Gómez-Baggethun, E. & Jacobs, S. & Hendriks, C.M.A. & Termansen, M. & García- Llorente, M. & Primmer, E. & Dunford, R. & Harrison, P.A. & T, 2018. "(Dis) integrated valuation – Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 529-541.
    13. 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).
    14. Pérez-Soba, Marta & Verweij, Peter & Saarikoski, Heli & Harrison, Paula A. & Barton, David N. & Furman, Eeva, 2018. "Maximising the value of research on ecosystem services: Knowledge integration and guidance tools mediating the science, policy and practice interfaces," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PC), pages 599-607.
    15. Armatas, Christopher A. & Campbell, Robert M. & Watson, Alan E. & Borrie, William T. & Christensen, Neal & Venn, Tyron J., 2018. "An integrated approach to valuation and tradeoff analysis of ecosystem services for national forest decision-making," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 33(PA), pages 1-18.
    16. Ross, Helen & Adhuri, Dedi S. & Abdurrahim, Ali Yansyah & Phelan, Anna, 2019. "Opportunities in community-government cooperation to maintain marine ecosystem services in the Asia-Pacific and Oceania," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    17. Santos-Martín, F. & Zorrilla-Miras, P. & Palomo, I. & Montes, C. & Benayas, J. & Maes, J., 2019. "Protecting nature is necessary but not sufficient for conserving ecosystem services: A comprehensive assessment along a gradient of land-use intensity in Spain," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 43-51.
    18. Shipley, Nathan J. & Johnson, Dana N. & van Riper, Carena J. & Stewart, William P. & Chu, Maria L. & Suski, Cory D. & Stein, Jeffrey A. & Shew, Justin J., 2020. "A deliberative research approach to valuing agro-ecosystem services in a worked landscape," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 42(C).
    19. Bianca Tilliger & Beatriz Rodríguez-Labajos & Jesus Victor Bustamante & Josef Settele, 2015. "Disentangling Values in the Interrelations between Cultural Ecosystem Services and Landscape Conservation—A Case Study of the Ifugao Rice Terraces in the Philippines," Land, MDPI, vol. 4(3), pages 1-26, September.
    20. Córdoba, Diana & Juen, Leandro & Selfa, Theresa & Peredo, Ana Maria & Montag, Luciano Fogaça de Assis & Sombra, Daniel & Santos, Marcos Persio Dantas, 2019. "Understanding local perceptions of the impacts of large-scale oil palm plantations on ecosystem services in the Brazilian Amazon," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).

    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:12:y:2020:i:6:p:2480-:d:335407. 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.