IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i12p6673-d573563.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Role of Selected Ecosystem Services in Different Farming Systems in Poland Regarding the Differentiation of Agricultural Land Structure

Author

Listed:
  • Lidia Luty

    (Department of Statistics and Social Policy, University of Agriculture in Krakow, al. Mickiewicza 21, 31-120 Krakow, Poland)

  • Kamila Musiał

    (Department of Production Systems and Environment, National Research Institute of Animal Production, ul. Krakowska 1, 32-083 Balice, Poland)

  • Monika Zioło

    (Department of Statistics and Social Policy, University of Agriculture in Krakow, al. Mickiewicza 21, 31-120 Krakow, Poland)

Abstract

The functioning of various agroecosystems is nowadays shaped by different farming systems, which may impair their functions, as well as being beneficial to them. The benefits include ecosystem services, defined as economic and noneconomic values gained by humans from ecosystems, through supporting soil formation and nutrient circulation, and the impact of agriculture on climate and biodiversity. Their mutual flow and various disturbances depend on the agroecosystem’s management method, which is associated with the type of management of agricultural land (AL) in individual farms. This paper raises a problem of transformation in the structure of three main farming systems in Poland, in 2004–2018, in relation to the implementation of 16 selected ecosystem services and their scale. Special attention was given to organic farming, as the most environmentally friendly and sustainable. The analysis demonstrates the increase in ALs in that type of production during the analyzed period of time. Disparities of transformation associated with the type of agricultural system were noticeable at the regional level, which were presented in 16 Polish voivodeships. The results of the analysis confirm that the organic system, which is an important carrier of various ecosystem services, gained a stable position. Moreover, areas with integrated farming still do not exceed 0.5% of total agricultural lands in such voivodeships. The analysis of factors influencing the deterioration or disappearance of selected environmental services characterizing agricultural systems indicates the need to depart from an intensive conventional management system.

Suggested Citation

  • Lidia Luty & Kamila Musiał & Monika Zioło, 2021. "The Role of Selected Ecosystem Services in Different Farming Systems in Poland Regarding the Differentiation of Agricultural Land Structure," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-17, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:12:p:6673-:d:573563
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/12/6673/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/12/6673/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bull, J.W. & Jobstvogt, N. & Böhnke-Henrichs, A. & Mascarenhas, A. & Sitas, N. & Baulcomb, C. & Lambini, C.K. & Rawlins, M. & Baral, H. & Zähringer, J. & Carter-Silk, E. & Balzan, M.V. & Kenter, J.O, 2016. "Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats: A SWOT analysis of the ecosystem services framework," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 99-111.
    2. Braat, Leon C. & de Groot, Rudolf, 2012. "The ecosystem services agenda:bridging the worlds of natural science and economics, conservation and development, and public and private policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 4-15.
    3. John M. Antle & Jetse J. Stoorvogel, 2006. "Predicting the Supply of Ecosystem Services from Agriculture," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1174-1180.
    4. Pia Minixhofer & Rosemarie Stangl, 2021. "Green Infrastructures and the Consideration of Their Soil-Related Ecosystem Services in Urban Areas—A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-21, March.
    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. Alicia L. Rihn & Melinda J. Knuth & Bryan J. Peterson & Ariana P. Torres & Julie H. Campbell & Cheryl R. Boyer & Marco A. Palma & Hayk Khachatryan, 2022. "Investigating Drivers of Native Plant Production in the United States Green Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-17, June.

    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. Bélisle, Annie Claude & Wapachee, Alice & Asselin, Hugo, 2021. "From landscape practices to ecosystem services: Landscape valuation in Indigenous contexts," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    2. Baral, Himlal & Guariguata, Manuel R. & Keenan, Rodney J., 2016. "A proposed framework for assessing ecosystem goods and services from planted forests," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PB), pages 260-268.
    3. Larson, Lincoln R. & Keith, Samuel J. & Fernandez, Mariela & Hallo, Jeffrey C. & Shafer, C. Scott & Jennings, Viniece, 2016. "Ecosystem services and urban greenways: What's the public's perspective?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 111-116.
    4. Hendrawan, Dienda C P & Musshoff, Oliver, 2022. "Oil Palm Smallholder Farmers' Livelihood Resilience and Decision Making in Replanting," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322441, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    5. Orchard-Webb, Johanne & Kenter, Jasper O. & Bryce, Ros & Church, Andrew, 2016. "Deliberative Democratic Monetary Valuation to implement the Ecosystem Approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 21(PB), pages 308-318.
    6. Gregg C. Brill & Pippin M. L. Anderson & Patrick O’Farrell, 2022. "Relational Values of Cultural Ecosystem Services in an Urban Conservation Area: The Case of Table Mountain National Park, South Africa," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-28, April.
    7. Frélichová, Jana & VaÄ kář, David & Pártl, Adam & LouÄ ková, Blanka & HarmÃ¡Ä ková, Zuzana V. & Lorencová, EliÅ¡ka, 2014. "Integrated assessment of ecosystem services in the Czech Republic," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 8(C), pages 110-117.
    8. Agudelo, César Augusto Ruiz & Bustos, Sandra Liliana Hurtado & Moreno, Carmen Alicia Parrado, 2020. "Modeling interactions among multiple ecosystem services. A critical review," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 429(C).
    9. Valdivia, Roberto O. & Antle, John M. & Stoorvogel, Jetse J., 2012. "Coupling the Tradeoff Analysis Model with a market equilibrium model to analyze economic and environmental outcomes of agricultural production systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 17-29.
    10. Di Pirro, E. & Sallustio, L. & Capotorti, G. & Marchetti, M. & Lasserre, B., 2021. "A scenario-based approach to tackle trade-offs between biodiversity conservation and land use pressure in Central Italy," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 448(C).
    11. Bojie Wang & Haiping Tang & Qin Zhang & Fengqi Cui, 2020. "Exploring Connections among Ecosystem Services Supply, Demand and Human Well-Being in a Mountain-Basin System, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-15, July.
    12. Karen T. Lourdes & Chris N. Gibbins & Perrine Hamel & Ruzana Sanusi & Badrul Azhar & Alex M. Lechner, 2021. "A Review of Urban Ecosystem Services Research in Southeast Asia," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, January.
    13. Paolo Vassallo & Claudia Turcato & Ilaria Rigo & Claudia Scopesi & Andrea Costa & Matteo Barcella & Giulia Dapueto & Mauro Mariotti & Chiara Paoli, 2021. "Biophysical Accounting of Forests’ Value under Different Management Regimes: Conservation vs. Exploitation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, April.
    14. Fan, Fan & Henriksen, Christian Bugge & Porter, John, 2016. "Valuation of ecosystem services in organic cereal crop production systems with different management practices in relation to organic matter input," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 22(PA), pages 117-127.
    15. Salisu Barau, Aliyu & Stringer, Lindsay C., 2015. "Access to and allocation of ecosystem services in Malaysia's Pulau Kukup Ramsar Site," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 167-173.
    16. Heink, Ulrich & Jax, Kurt, 2019. "Going Upstream — How the Purpose of a Conceptual Framework for Ecosystem Services Determines Its Structure," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 264-271.
    17. Margarita Ignatyeva & Vera Yurak & Alexey Dushin, 2022. "Valuating Natural Resources and Ecosystem Services: Systematic Review of Methods in Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-17, February.
    18. Brathwaite, Angelique & Pascal, Nicolas & Clua, Eric, 2021. "When are payment for ecosystems services suitable for coral reef derived coastal protection?: A review of scientific requirements," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).
    19. Marie Balková & Lucie Kubalíková & Marcela Prokopová & Petr Sedlák & Aleš Bajer, 2021. "Ecosystem Services of Vegetation Features as the Multifunction Anti-Erosion Measures in the Czech Republic in 2019 and Its 30-Year Prediction," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, January.
    20. Brill, Gregg & Anderson, Pippin & O'Farrell, Patrick, 2017. "Urban national parks in the global South: Linking management perceptions, policies and practices to water-related ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 28(PB), pages 185-195.

    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:13:y:2021:i:12:p:6673-:d:573563. 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.