IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v223y2025ics0308521x24003378.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes: A case study in the North China Plain

Author

Listed:
  • Cheng, Jiali
  • Richter, Andries
  • Cong, Wen-Feng
  • Xu, Zhan
  • Liang, Zhengyuan
  • Zhang, Chaochun
  • Zhang, Fusuo
  • van der Werf, Wopke
  • Groot, Jeroen C.J.

Abstract

Intensive agriculture is under pressure from changing demands from society, prompting the need to redesign agricultural landscapes to provide multiple ecosystem services (ESs). However, implementation of changed practices requires positive engagement from stakeholders. Therefore, their perspective on ecosystem services needs to be known.

Suggested Citation

  • Cheng, Jiali & Richter, Andries & Cong, Wen-Feng & Xu, Zhan & Liang, Zhengyuan & Zhang, Chaochun & Zhang, Fusuo & van der Werf, Wopke & Groot, Jeroen C.J., 2025. "Stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes: A case study in the North China Plain," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:223:y:2025:i:c:s0308521x24003378
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104187
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X24003378
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104187?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. repec:sae:envval:v:12:y:2003:i:2:p:143-154 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Maria Fay Rola‐Rubzen & Thelma Paris & Jacob Hawkins & Bibek Sapkota, 2020. "Improving Gender Participation in Agricultural Technology Adoption in Asia: From Rhetoric to Practical Action," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 113-125, March.
    3. Mahlalela, Linda Siphiwo & Jourdain, Damien & Mungatana, Eric Dada & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark, 2022. "Diverse stakeholder perspectives and ecosystem services ranking: Application of the Q-methodology to Hawane Dam and Nature Reserve in Eswatini," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    4. Cuppen, Eefje & Breukers, Sylvia & Hisschemöller, Matthijs & Bergsma, Emmy, 2010. "Q methodology to select participants for a stakeholder dialogue on energy options from biomass in the Netherlands," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(3), pages 579-591, January.
    5. Iniesta-Arandia, Irene & García-Llorente, Marina & Aguilera, Pedro A. & Montes, Carlos & Martín-López, Berta, 2014. "Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services: uncovering the links between values, drivers of change, and human well-being," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 36-48.
    6. Weifeng Zhang & Guoxin Cao & Xiaolin Li & Hongyan Zhang & Chong Wang & Quanqing Liu & Xinping Chen & Zhenling Cui & Jianbo Shen & Rongfeng Jiang & Guohua Mi & Yuxin Miao & Fusuo Zhang & Zhengxia Dou, 2016. "Closing yield gaps in China by empowering smallholder farmers," Nature, Nature, vol. 537(7622), pages 671-674, September.
    7. Buchel, Sophie & Frantzeskaki, Niki, 2015. "Citizens’ voice: A case study about perceived ecosystem services by urban park users in Rotterdam, the Netherlands," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 12(C), pages 169-177.
    8. repec:plo:pone00:0038970 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Bredin, Yennie K. & Lindhjem, Henrik & van Dijk, Jiska & Linnell, John D.C., 2015. "Mapping value plurality towards ecosystem services in the case of Norwegian wildlife management: A Q analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 198-206.
    10. Breyne, Johanna & Dufrêne, Marc & Maréchal, Kevin, 2021. "How integrating 'socio-cultural values' into ecosystem services evaluations can give meaning to value indicators," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    11. Bernués, Alberto & Alfnes, Frode & Clemetsen, Morten & Eik, Lars Olav & Faccioni, Georgia & Ramanzin, Maurizio & Ripoll-Bosch, Raimon & Rodríguez-Ortega, Tamara & Sturaro, Enrico, 2019. "Exploring social preferences for ecosystem services of multifunctional agriculture across policy scenarios," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    12. de Groot, Rudolf & Brander, Luke & van der Ploeg, Sander & Costanza, Robert & Bernard, Florence & Braat, Leon & Christie, Mike & Crossman, Neville & Ghermandi, Andrea & Hein, Lars & Hussain, Salman & , 2012. "Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 50-61.
    13. Yajuan Chen & Qian Zhang & Wenping Liu & Zhenrong Yu, 2017. "Analyzing Farmers’ Perceptions of Ecosystem Services and PES Schemes within Agricultural Landscapes in Mengyin County, China: Transforming Trade-Offs into Synergies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-18, August.
    14. 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.
    15. Paul Swagemakers & Maria Dolores Dominguez Garcia & Amanda Onofa Torres & Henk Oostindie & Jeroen C. J. Groot, 2017. "A Values-Based Approach to Exploring Synergies between Livestock Farming and Landscape Conservation in Galicia (Spain)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-16, October.
    16. Madhuri & Upasna Sharma, 2020. "How do farmers perceive climate change? A systematic review," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 162(3), pages 991-1010, October.
    17. Wang, Xiaoqi & Zhao, Xueyan, 2023. "Farmers' perception and choice preference of grassland ecosystem services: Evidence from the northeastern region of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    18. Brian E. Roe & David R. Just, 2009. "Internal and External Validity in Economics Research: Tradeoffs between Experiments, Field Experiments, Natural Experiments, and Field Data," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1266-1271.
    19. 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.
    20. Zoderer, Brenda Maria & Tasser, Erich & Carver, Steve & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2019. "Stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem service supply and ecosystem service demand bundles," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 1-1.
    21. Lima, Flávia Pereira & Bastos, Rogério Pereira, 2019. "Perceiving the invisible: Formal education affects the perception of ecosystem services provided by native areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    22. Zhang, Weixin & Yu, Yang & Wu, Xiuqin & Pereira, Paulo & Lucas Borja, Manuel Esteban, 2020. "Integrating preferences and social values for ecosystem services in local ecological management: A framework applied in Xiaojiang Basin Yunnan province, China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    23. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    24. 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.
    25. Scholte, Samantha S.K. & van Teeffelen, Astrid J.A. & Verburg, Peter H., 2015. "Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: A review of concepts and methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 67-78.
    26. Parra-López, Carlos & Groot, Jeroen C.J. & Carmona-Torres, Carmen & Rossing, Walter A.H., 2008. "Integrating public demands into model-based design for multifunctional agriculture: An application to intensive Dutch dairy landscapes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(4), pages 538-551, November.
    27. Sneegas, Gretchen & Beckner, Sydney & Brannstrom, Christian & Jepson, Wendy & Lee, Kyungsun & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2021. "Using Q-methodology in environmental sustainability research: A bibliometric analysis and systematic review," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Yaofeng Yang & Yajuan Chen & Zhenrong Yu & Pengyao Li & Xuedong Li, 2020. "How Does Improve Farmers’ Attitudes toward Ecosystem Services to Support Sustainable Development of Agriculture? Based on Environmental Kuznets Curve Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-16, October.
    2. Jones, Sarah K. & Boundaogo, Mansour & DeClerck, Fabrice A. & Estrada-Carmona, Natalia & Mirumachi, Naho & Mulligan, Mark, 2019. "Insights into the importance of ecosystem services to human well-being in reservoir landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    3. Grimsrud, Kristine & Graesse, Maximo & Lindhjem, Henrik, 2020. "Using the generalised Q method in ecological economics: A better way to capture representative values and perspectives in ecosystem service management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 170(C).
    4. Lima, Flávia Pereira & Bastos, Rogério Pereira, 2019. "Perceiving the invisible: Formal education affects the perception of ecosystem services provided by native areas," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    5. Xia, Zheyi & Yuan, Chengcheng & Gao, Yang & Shen, Zhen & Liu, Kui & Huang, Yuwen & Wei, Xue & Liu, Liming, 2023. "Integrating perceptions of ecosystem services in adaptive management of country parks: A case study in peri-urban Shanghai, China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    6. Manuela Rozalia Gabor & Nicoleta Cristache, 2021. "Q or R Factor Analysis for Subjectiveness Measurement in Consumer Behavior? A Study Case on Durable Goods Buying Behavior in Romania," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-24, May.
    7. Winkler, Klara J. & Nicholas, Kimberly A., 2016. "More than wine: Cultural ecosystem services in vineyard landscapes in England and California," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 86-98.
    8. Huaranca, Laura Liliana & Iribarnegaray, Martín Alejandro & Albesa, Federico & Volante, José Norberto & Brannstrom, Christian & Seghezzo, Lucas, 2019. "Social Perspectives on Deforestation, Land Use Change, and Economic Development in an Expanding Agricultural Frontier in Northern Argentina," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Wang, Zhifang & Fu, Hongpeng & Jian, Yuqing & Qureshi, Salman & Jie, Hua & Wang, Lu, 2022. "On the comparative use of social media data and survey data in prioritizing ecosystem services for cost-effective governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    10. Buckwell, Andrew & Fleming, Christopher & Muurmans, Maggie & Smart, James C.R. & Ware, Dan & Mackey, Brendan, 2020. "Revealing the dominant discourses of stakeholders towards natural resource management in Port Resolution, Vanuatu, using Q-method," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    11. Mahlalela, Linda Siphiwo & Jourdain, Damien & Mungatana, Eric Dada & Lundhede, Thomas Hedemark, 2022. "Diverse stakeholder perspectives and ecosystem services ranking: Application of the Q-methodology to Hawane Dam and Nature Reserve in Eswatini," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    12. Córdoba, Gisela S. & Zepharovich, Elena, 2022. "How rural actors relate to nature. Perceptions of ecosystem services in the semi-arid Chaco of northern Argentina," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    13. Ibán Vázquez-González & María do Mar Pérez-Fra & Ana Isabel García-Arias & Bernardo Valdês-Paços & Edelmiro López-Iglesias, 2021. "Rendered Agroecosystem Services and Dysservices of Dairy Farming: A Bottom-Up Approach in Galicia (Spain)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-20, July.
    14. Paudyal, Kiran & Baral, Himlal & Keenan, Rodney John, 2018. "Assessing social values of ecosystem services in the Phewa Lake Watershed, Nepal," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 67-81.
    15. Dou, Yuehan & Yu, Xiubo & Bakker, Martha & De Groot, Rudolf & Carsjens, Gerrit J. & Duan, Houlang & Huang, Chao, 2020. "Analysis of the relationship between cross-cultural perceptions of landscapes and cultural ecosystem services in Genheyuan region, Northeast China," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 43(C).
    16. Suškevičs, Monika & Karner, Katrin & Bethwell, Claudia & Danzinger, Florian & Kay, Sonja & Nishizawa, Takamasa & Schuler, Johannes & Sepp, Kalev & Värnik, Rando & Glemnitz, Michael & Semm, Maaria & Um, 2023. "Stakeholder perceptions of agricultural landscape services, biodiversity, and drivers of change in four European case studies," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    17. Busch, Christin & Specht, Kathrin & Inostroza, Luis & Falke, Matthias & Zepp, Harald, 2024. "Disentangling cultural ecosystem services co-production in urban green spaces through social media reviews," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    18. Schmidt, Katja & Walz, Ariane & Martín-López, Berta & Sachse, René, 2017. "Testing socio-cultural valuation methods of ecosystem services to explain land use preferences," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 26(PA), pages 270-288.
    19. 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).
    20. Amy Phillips & Ahmed Z. Khan & Frank Canters, 2021. "Use-Related and Socio-Demographic Variations in Urban Green Space Preferences," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-22, March.

    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:agisys:v:223:y:2025:i:c:s0308521x24003378. 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/agsy .

    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.