IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v4y2015i4p938-956d56745.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using an Agroecosystem Services Approach to Assess Tillage Methods: A Case Study in the Shikma Region

Author

Listed:
  • Hila Sagie

    (Open Landscape Institute (Machon Deshe), Negev 2 St., Tel Aviv 66186, Israel)

  • Uri Ramon

    (Open Landscape Institute (Machon Deshe), Negev 2 St., Tel Aviv 66186, Israel)

Abstract

The use of ecosystem services (ES) in agricultural management is expanding; however, its integration in decision making processes is still challenging. This project was formulated to examine the ES approach and its usefulness with regard to management dilemmas. The Shikma region, north of the Negev Desert, was chosen as a case study. The management issue identified was the effect of various alternatives (minimum-tillage, no-tillage, straw-mulch and stubble-grazing) on the supply of ES. The expert-based ES assessments’ findings reveal that no-tillage has the potential to increase many agroecosystem services and be more profitable for the farmer and the public. However, trade-offs between different ES and among stakeholder groups make it difficult to reach an unequivocal conclusion. As we have found, the process of the study is as important as the results. Throughout the project, an effort was made to engage stakeholders and policy-makers and to define decision-making processes. The study suggests that the ES approach can be useful in expanding the scope of agricultural management beyond provisioning services and create collaborations among farmers, communities, national institutions and environmental organizations to advance conservation agriculture. The study provides guidelines for conducting a productive ES assessment process that will lead to enhanced awareness and implementation.

Suggested Citation

  • Hila Sagie & Uri Ramon, 2015. "Using an Agroecosystem Services Approach to Assess Tillage Methods: A Case Study in the Shikma Region," Land, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-19, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:4:y:2015:i:4:p:938-956:d:56745
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/4/4/938/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/4/4/938/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lichtenberg, Erik, 2001. "Adoption Of Soil Conservation Practices: A Revealed Preference Approach," Working Papers 28609, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    2. Swinton, Scott M. & Lupi, Frank & Robertson, G. Philip & Hamilton, Stephen K., 2007. "Ecosystem services and agriculture: Cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 245-252, December.
    3. 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.
    4. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    5. Erwin Wauters & Erik Mathijs, 2014. "The adoption of farm level soil conservation practices in developed countries: a meta-analytic review," International Journal of Agricultural Resources, Governance and Ecology, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(1), pages 78-102.
    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. Benjamin Burkhard & Stefan Hotes & Hubert Wiggering, 2016. "Agro(Eco)System Services—Supply and Demand from Fields to Society," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-4, April.
    2. Sagie, Hila & Orenstein, Daniel E., 2022. "Benefits of Stakeholder integration in an ecosystem services assessment of Mount Carmel Biosphere Reserve, Israel," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    3. Negev, Maya & Sagie, Hila & Orenstein, Daniel E. & Zemah Shamir, Shiri & Hassan, Yousef & Amasha, Hani & Raviv, Orna & Fares, Nasrin & Lotan, Alon & Peled, Yoav & Wittenberg, Lea & Izhaki, Ido, 2019. "Using the ecosystem services framework for defining diverse human-nature relationships in a multi-ethnic biosphere reserve," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(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. Alamanos, Angelos & Koundouri, Phoebe, 2022. "Economics of Incorporating Ecosystem Services into Water Resource Planning and Management," MPRA Paper 122046, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Oscar Montes de Oca Munguia & Rick Llewellyn, 2020. "The Adopters versus the Technology: Which Matters More when Predicting or Explaining Adoption?," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(1), pages 80-91, March.
    3. Posthumus, H. & Rouquette, J.R. & Morris, J. & Gowing, D.J.G. & Hess, T.M., 2010. "A framework for the assessment of ecosystem goods and services; a case study on lowland floodplains in England," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1510-1523, May.
    4. 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).
    5. Jessica Rudnick & Mark Lubell & Sat Darshan S. Khalsa & Stephanie Tatge & Liza Wood & Molly Sears & Patrick H. Brown, 2021. "A farm systems approach to the adoption of sustainable nitrogen management practices in California," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(3), pages 783-801, September.
    6. Bastian, Olaf & Syrbe, Ralf-Uwe & Rosenberg, Matthias & Rahe, Doreen & Grunewald, Karsten, 2013. "The five pillar EPPS framework for quantifying, mapping and managing ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 15-24.
    7. Joël Houdet & Charlotte Pavageau & Michel Trommetter & Jacques Weber, 2009. "Accounting for changes in biodiversity and ecosystem services from a business perspective," Working Papers hal-00434450, HAL.
    8. Skaalsveen, Kamilla & Ingram, Julie & Urquhart, Julie, 2020. "The role of farmers' social networks in the implementation of no-till farming practices," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    9. Ando Fahda Aulia & Harpinder Sandhu & Andrew C. Millington, 2020. "Quantifying the Economic Value of Ecosystem Services in Oil Palm Dominated Landscapes in Riau Province in Sumatra, Indonesia," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(6), pages 1-23, June.
    10. Fengjiao Ma & A. Egrinya Eneji & Jintong Liu, 2014. "Understanding Relationships among Agro-Ecosystem Services Based on Emergy Analysis in Luancheng County, North China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 6(12), pages 1-20, November.
    11. Ruzzante, Sacha & Labarta, Ricardo & Bilton, Amy, 2021. "Adoption of agricultural technology in the developing world: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    12. Schirpke, Uta & Scolozzi, Rocco & De Marco, Claudio & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2014. "Mapping beneficiaries of ecosystem services flows from Natura 2000 sites," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 170-179.
    13. Alexander P. Helling & David S. Conner & Sarah N. Heiss & Linda S. Berlin, 2015. "Economic Analysis of Climate Change Best Management Practices in Vermont Agriculture," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-22, September.
    14. Bijttebier, J. & Ruysschaert, G. & Hijbeek, R. & Werner, M. & Pronk, A.A. & Zavattaro, L. & Bechini, L. & Grignani, C. & ten Berge, H. & Marchand, F. & Wauters, E., 2018. "Adoption of non-inversion tillage across Europe: Use of a behavioural approach in understanding decision making of farmers," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 460-471.
    15. Montes de Oca Munguia, Oscar & Pannell, David J. & Llewellyn, Rick & Stahlmann-Brown, Philip, 2021. "Adoption pathway analysis: Representing the dynamics and diversity of adoption for agricultural practices," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    16. 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).
    17. Sean F. Ellis & Mark Masters & Kent D. Messer & Collin Weigel & Paul J. Ferraro, 2021. "The Problem of Feral Hogs and the Challenges of Providing a Weak‐Link Public Good," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(3), pages 985-1002, September.
    18. Valbuena, Diego & Tui, Sabine Homann-Kee & Erenstein, Olaf & Teufel, Nils & Duncan, Alan & Abdoulaye, Tahirou & Swain, Braja & Mekonnen, Kindu & Germaine, Ibro & Gérard, Bruno, 2015. "Identifying determinants, pressures and trade-offs of crop residue use in mixed smallholder farms in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 107-118.
    19. 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).
    20. Salaisook, Phastraporn & Faysse, Nicolas & Tsusaka, Takuji W., 2020. "Reasons for adoption of sustainable land management practices in a changing context: A mixed approach in Thailand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(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:jlands:v:4:y:2015:i:4:p:938-956:d:56745. 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.