Monika Suškevičs , Katrin Karner , Claudia Bethwell , Florian Danzinger , Sonja Kay , Takamasa Nishizawa , Johannes Schuler , Kalev Sepp , Rando Värnik , Michael Glemnitz , Maaria Semm , Christina Umstätter , Tobias Conradt , Felix Herzog , Noëlle Klein , Thomas Wrbka , Peter Zander , Martin Schönhart
{"title":"利益相关者对农业景观服务、生物多样性和四个欧洲案例研究中变化驱动因素的看法","authors":"Monika Suškevičs , Katrin Karner , Claudia Bethwell , Florian Danzinger , Sonja Kay , Takamasa Nishizawa , Johannes Schuler , Kalev Sepp , Rando Värnik , Michael Glemnitz , Maaria Semm , Christina Umstätter , Tobias Conradt , Felix Herzog , Noëlle Klein , Thomas Wrbka , Peter Zander , Martin Schönhart","doi":"10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101563","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Many studies have explored farmers’ perspectives on biodiversity and ecosystem services, but fewer qualitative and cross-country comparisons exist. We develop a socio-ecological system to analyse agricultural landscape services, biodiversity, and drivers that have affected these services in recent decades. Via a systematic stakeholder mapping and 49 semi-structured interviews, we identify stakeholder perceptions of this system. We compare the perceptions across four regional case studies (Austria, Estonia, Germany, Switzerland), and two stakeholder groups (land managers and administrators). The case studies share certain commonalities in perceptions (e.g., provisioning and regulating services discussed in all of them) but also show differences (e.g., changes in biodiversity and landscape services more often perceived in the Swiss and German cases, but less in the Austrian and Estonian case studies). Across all case studies, typical land use change can be attributed to multiple drivers of various strengths, with climate change being the most often perceived driver directly affecting landscape services, followed by policies and market-based drivers, which affect services and biodiversity indirectly via land use. Compared to the administrators (e.g., decision-makers, scientists), the managers (e.g., farmers, NGOs) discuss more often the drivers, like various biodiversity and landscape service categories, as well as climate change, markets, and technologies. However, the administrators focus more on cultural services, policies as drivers, and consider more often links between drivers and landscape services and/or biodiversity. Hence, both of the groups’ (administrators and managers) perceptions partly complement each other. Since policy making should be based on the best knowledge of different stakeholder groups, active knowledge exchange between managers and administrators should be supported and outcome considered in decision making. The resulting regional differences in stakeholder perceptions of the drivers and their respective impact on agricultural landscapes suggest that future agricultural policies need regional targeting and the consideration of landscape-specific characteristics.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":51312,"journal":{"name":"Ecosystem Services","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stakeholder perceptions of agricultural landscape services, biodiversity, and drivers of change in four European case studies\",\"authors\":\"Monika Suškevičs , Katrin Karner , Claudia Bethwell , Florian Danzinger , Sonja Kay , Takamasa Nishizawa , Johannes Schuler , Kalev Sepp , Rando Värnik , Michael Glemnitz , Maaria Semm , Christina Umstätter , Tobias Conradt , Felix Herzog , Noëlle Klein , Thomas Wrbka , Peter Zander , Martin Schönhart\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ecoser.2023.101563\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Many studies have explored farmers’ perspectives on biodiversity and ecosystem services, but fewer qualitative and cross-country comparisons exist. We develop a socio-ecological system to analyse agricultural landscape services, biodiversity, and drivers that have affected these services in recent decades. Via a systematic stakeholder mapping and 49 semi-structured interviews, we identify stakeholder perceptions of this system. We compare the perceptions across four regional case studies (Austria, Estonia, Germany, Switzerland), and two stakeholder groups (land managers and administrators). The case studies share certain commonalities in perceptions (e.g., provisioning and regulating services discussed in all of them) but also show differences (e.g., changes in biodiversity and landscape services more often perceived in the Swiss and German cases, but less in the Austrian and Estonian case studies). Across all case studies, typical land use change can be attributed to multiple drivers of various strengths, with climate change being the most often perceived driver directly affecting landscape services, followed by policies and market-based drivers, which affect services and biodiversity indirectly via land use. Compared to the administrators (e.g., decision-makers, scientists), the managers (e.g., farmers, NGOs) discuss more often the drivers, like various biodiversity and landscape service categories, as well as climate change, markets, and technologies. However, the administrators focus more on cultural services, policies as drivers, and consider more often links between drivers and landscape services and/or biodiversity. Hence, both of the groups’ (administrators and managers) perceptions partly complement each other. Since policy making should be based on the best knowledge of different stakeholder groups, active knowledge exchange between managers and administrators should be supported and outcome considered in decision making. The resulting regional differences in stakeholder perceptions of the drivers and their respective impact on agricultural landscapes suggest that future agricultural policies need regional targeting and the consideration of landscape-specific characteristics.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51312,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ecosystem Services\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ecosystem Services\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041623000566\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ecosystem Services","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041623000566","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Stakeholder perceptions of agricultural landscape services, biodiversity, and drivers of change in four European case studies
Many studies have explored farmers’ perspectives on biodiversity and ecosystem services, but fewer qualitative and cross-country comparisons exist. We develop a socio-ecological system to analyse agricultural landscape services, biodiversity, and drivers that have affected these services in recent decades. Via a systematic stakeholder mapping and 49 semi-structured interviews, we identify stakeholder perceptions of this system. We compare the perceptions across four regional case studies (Austria, Estonia, Germany, Switzerland), and two stakeholder groups (land managers and administrators). The case studies share certain commonalities in perceptions (e.g., provisioning and regulating services discussed in all of them) but also show differences (e.g., changes in biodiversity and landscape services more often perceived in the Swiss and German cases, but less in the Austrian and Estonian case studies). Across all case studies, typical land use change can be attributed to multiple drivers of various strengths, with climate change being the most often perceived driver directly affecting landscape services, followed by policies and market-based drivers, which affect services and biodiversity indirectly via land use. Compared to the administrators (e.g., decision-makers, scientists), the managers (e.g., farmers, NGOs) discuss more often the drivers, like various biodiversity and landscape service categories, as well as climate change, markets, and technologies. However, the administrators focus more on cultural services, policies as drivers, and consider more often links between drivers and landscape services and/or biodiversity. Hence, both of the groups’ (administrators and managers) perceptions partly complement each other. Since policy making should be based on the best knowledge of different stakeholder groups, active knowledge exchange between managers and administrators should be supported and outcome considered in decision making. The resulting regional differences in stakeholder perceptions of the drivers and their respective impact on agricultural landscapes suggest that future agricultural policies need regional targeting and the consideration of landscape-specific characteristics.
期刊介绍:
Ecosystem Services is an international, interdisciplinary journal that is associated with the Ecosystem Services Partnership (ESP). The journal is dedicated to exploring the science, policy, and practice related to ecosystem services, which are the various ways in which ecosystems contribute to human well-being, both directly and indirectly.
Ecosystem Services contributes to the broader goal of ensuring that the benefits of ecosystems are recognized, valued, and sustainably managed for the well-being of current and future generations. The journal serves as a platform for scholars, practitioners, policymakers, and other stakeholders to share their findings and insights, fostering collaboration and innovation in the field of ecosystem services.