IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v10y2018i12p4812-d191130.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating On-Farm Biodiversity: A Comparison of Assessment Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Vanessa Gabel

    (Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), CH-5070 Frick, Switzerland
    Institute of Organic Agriculture, University of Bonn, D-53115 Bonn, Germany)

  • Robert Home

    (Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), CH-5070 Frick, Switzerland)

  • Sibylle Stöckli

    (Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), CH-5070 Frick, Switzerland)

  • Matthias Meier

    (Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), CH-5070 Frick, Switzerland)

  • Matthias Stolze

    (Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), CH-5070 Frick, Switzerland)

  • Ulrich Köpke

    (Institute of Organic Agriculture, University of Bonn, D-53115 Bonn, Germany)

Abstract

Strategies to stop the loss of biodiversity in agriculture areas will be more successful if farmers have the means to understand changes in biodiversity on their farms and to assess the effectiveness of biodiversity promoting measures. There are several methods to assess on-farm biodiversity but it may be difficult to select the most appropriate method for a farmer’s individual circumstances. This study aims to evaluate the usability and usefulness of four biodiversity assessment methods that are available to farmers in Switzerland. All four methods were applied to five case study farms, which were ranked according to the results. None of the methods were able to provide an exact statement on the current biodiversity status of the farms, but each method could provide an indication, or approximation, of one or more aspects of biodiversity. However, the results also showed that it is possible to generate different statements on the state of biodiversity on the same farms by using different biodiversity assessment methods. All methods showed strengths and weaknesses so, when choosing a method, the purpose of the biodiversity assessment should be kept in the foreground and the limitations of the chosen methods should be considered when interpreting the outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Vanessa Gabel & Robert Home & Sibylle Stöckli & Matthias Meier & Matthias Stolze & Ulrich Köpke, 2018. "Evaluating On-Farm Biodiversity: A Comparison of Assessment Methods," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-14, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:12:p:4812-:d:191130
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/12/4812/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/12/4812/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Christian Schader & Lukas Baumgart & Jan Landert & Adrian Muller & Brian Ssebunya & Johan Blockeel & Rainer Weisshaidinger & Richard Petrasek & Dóra Mészáros & Susanne Padel & Catherine Gerrard & Laur, 2016. "Using the Sustainability Monitoring and Assessment Routine (SMART) for the Systematic Analysis of Trade-Offs and Synergies between Sustainability Dimensions and Themes at Farm Level," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(3), pages 1-20, March.
    3. Gallai, Nicola & Salles, Jean-Michel & Settele, Josef & Vaissière, Bernard E., 2009. "Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 810-821, January.
    4. Gallai, Nicola & Salles, Jean-Michel & Settele, Josef & Vaissière, Bernard E., 2009. "Economic valuation of the vulnerability of world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 810-821, January.
    5. Andy Purvis & Andy Hector, 2000. "Getting the measure of biodiversity," Nature, Nature, vol. 405(6783), pages 212-219, May.
    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. Jan Paul Lindner & Horst Fehrenbach & Lisa Winter & Judith Bloemer & Eva Knuepffer, 2019. "Valuing Biodiversity in Life Cycle Impact Assessment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-24, October.
    2. Richard A. Niesenbaum, 2019. "The Integration of Conservation, Biodiversity, and Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(17), pages 1-11, August.

    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. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    2. repec:idb:brikps:64718 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Divinsky, Itai & Becker, Nir & Bar (Kutiel), Pua, 2017. "Ecosystem service tradeoff between grazing intensity and other services - A case study in Karei-Deshe experimental cattle range in northern Israel," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 16-27.
    4. Kontogianni, Areti & Luck, Gary W. & Skourtos, Michalis, 2010. "Valuing ecosystem services on the basis of service-providing units: A potential approach to address the 'endpoint problem' and improve stated preference methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(7), pages 1479-1487, May.
    5. 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.
    6. Divinski, Itai & Becker, Nir & Bar (Kutiel), Pua, 2018. "Opportunity costs of alternative management options in a protected nature park: The case of Ramat Hanadiv, Israel," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 494-504.
    7. Liu, Wenjing & Wang, Jingsheng & Li, Chao & Chen, Baoxiong & Sun, Yufang, 2019. "Using Bibliometric Analysis to Understand the Recent Progress in Agroecosystem Services Research," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 293-305.
    8. Kontogianni, A. & Tourkolias, C. & Machleras, A. & Skourtos, M., 2012. "Service providing units, existence values and the valuation of endangered species: A methodological test," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 97-104.
    9. Stallman, Heidi R., 2011. "Ecosystem services in agriculture: Determining suitability for provision by collective management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 131-139.
    10. 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.
    11. Kathrin Stenchly & Marc Victor Hansen & Katharina Stein & Andreas Buerkert & Wilhelm Loewenstein, 2018. "Income Vulnerability of West African Farming Households to Losses in Pollination Services: A Case Study from Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-12, November.
    12. Grazia Zulian & Joachim Maes & Maria Luisa Paracchini, 2013. "Linking Land Cover Data and Crop Yields for Mapping and Assessment of Pollination Services in Europe," Land, MDPI, vol. 2(3), pages 1-21, September.
    13. Lippert, Christian & Feuerbacher, Arndt & Narjes, Manuel, 2021. "Revisiting the economic valuation of agricultural losses due to large-scale changes in pollinator populations," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    14. Luciano Pilati & Vasco Boatto, 2014. "Jointness in Sites: The Case of Migratory Beekeeping," DEM Discussion Papers 2014/10, Department of Economics and Management.
    15. Nicholas W Calderone, 2012. "Insect Pollinated Crops, Insect Pollinators and US Agriculture: Trend Analysis of Aggregate Data for the Period 1992–2009," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-27, May.
    16. Soy-Massoni, Emma & Langemeyer, Johannes & Varga, Diego & Sáez, Marc & Pintó, Josep, 2016. "The importance of ecosystem services in coastal agricultural landscapes: Case study from the Costa Brava, Catalonia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 43-52.
    17. Miettinen, Antti & Korpela, Eeva-Liisa & Hyytiäinen, Kari & Kuussaari, Mikko, 2014. "Cost-effectiveness of agri-environmental measures when aiming at promoting ecosystem service availability, species diversity or species of conservation concern," 2014 International Congress, August 26-29, 2014, Ljubljana, Slovenia 182686, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Basualdo, Marina & Cavigliasso, Pablo & de Avila, Rubem Samuel & Aldea-Sánchez, Patricia & Correa-Benítez, Adriana & Harms, Jaime Martínez & Ramos, Ana Karen & Rojas-Bravo, Valeska & Salvarrey, Sheena, 2022. "Current status and economic value of insect-pollinated dependent crops in Latin America," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    19. Ioannis Arzoumanidis & Andrea Raggi & Luigia Petti, 2019. "Life Cycle Assessment of Honey: Considering the Pollination Service," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, March.
    20. Lafuite, A.-S. & Loreau, M., 2017. "Time-delayed biodiversity feedbacks and the sustainability of social-ecological systems," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 351(C), pages 96-108.
    21. Patricia A. Henríquez-Piskulich & Constanza Schapheer & Nicolas J. Vereecken & Cristian Villagra, 2021. "Agroecological Strategies to Safeguard Insect Pollinators in Biodiversity Hotspots: Chile as a Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-31, June.

    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:10:y:2018:i:12:p:4812-:d:191130. 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.