Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 108-115 |
| Number of pages | 8 |
| Journal | Ecosystem Services |
| Volume | 23 |
| Publication status | Published - 2017 |
Abstract
We asked whether different stakeholders perceive ecosystem services in similar ways and how these perceptions relate to measured ecosystem properties. Farmers and conservationists were asked to state (1) their preference for ecosystem services and (2) their perception about the value of several grassland vegetation units in providing these services. Additionally, biophysical parameters were collected on 46 plots. Structural equation models were applied to test which stakeholder perceptions corresponded to the data. For conservationists, the services regional belonging and soil fertility were related to conservation value, whereas farmers associated them with forage production. Conservationists’ perception of forage production was related to biomass removal, groundwater level and income from forage production, whereas farmers focused on the potential of ecosystems to produce forage, rather than the actual land use. The conservation perception of farmers was related to low land use intensity, whereas the conservationists associated it with endangered meadow birds. Conservationists associated carbon sequestration with below-ground peat formation, but farmers with above-ground plant productivity. We conclude that perceptions of ecosystem services are strongly influenced by social contexts, involving livelihoods, interests and traditions. Use of stakeholder assessments to establish sustainable land management should consider the fact that stakeholders interpret ecosystem services with different meanings.
Keywords
- Carbon sequestration, Ecosystem properties, Forage production, Nature conservation, Stakeholder perceptions, Structural equation model
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Environmental Science(all)
- Global and Planetary Change
- Social Sciences(all)
- Geography, Planning and Development
- Environmental Science(all)
- Ecology
- Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)
- Agricultural and Biological Sciences (miscellaneous)
- Environmental Science(all)
- Nature and Landscape Conservation
- Environmental Science(all)
- Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law
Sustainable Development Goals
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: Ecosystem Services, Vol. 23, 2017, p. 108-115.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Coupling stakeholder assessments of ecosystem services with biophysical ecosystem properties reveals importance of social contexts.
AU - Cebrian-Piqueras, Miguel Angel
AU - Karrasch, Leena
AU - Kleyer, Michael
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2016 Elsevier B.V.
PY - 2017
Y1 - 2017
N2 - We asked whether different stakeholders perceive ecosystem services in similar ways and how these perceptions relate to measured ecosystem properties. Farmers and conservationists were asked to state (1) their preference for ecosystem services and (2) their perception about the value of several grassland vegetation units in providing these services. Additionally, biophysical parameters were collected on 46 plots. Structural equation models were applied to test which stakeholder perceptions corresponded to the data. For conservationists, the services regional belonging and soil fertility were related to conservation value, whereas farmers associated them with forage production. Conservationists’ perception of forage production was related to biomass removal, groundwater level and income from forage production, whereas farmers focused on the potential of ecosystems to produce forage, rather than the actual land use. The conservation perception of farmers was related to low land use intensity, whereas the conservationists associated it with endangered meadow birds. Conservationists associated carbon sequestration with below-ground peat formation, but farmers with above-ground plant productivity. We conclude that perceptions of ecosystem services are strongly influenced by social contexts, involving livelihoods, interests and traditions. Use of stakeholder assessments to establish sustainable land management should consider the fact that stakeholders interpret ecosystem services with different meanings.
AB - We asked whether different stakeholders perceive ecosystem services in similar ways and how these perceptions relate to measured ecosystem properties. Farmers and conservationists were asked to state (1) their preference for ecosystem services and (2) their perception about the value of several grassland vegetation units in providing these services. Additionally, biophysical parameters were collected on 46 plots. Structural equation models were applied to test which stakeholder perceptions corresponded to the data. For conservationists, the services regional belonging and soil fertility were related to conservation value, whereas farmers associated them with forage production. Conservationists’ perception of forage production was related to biomass removal, groundwater level and income from forage production, whereas farmers focused on the potential of ecosystems to produce forage, rather than the actual land use. The conservation perception of farmers was related to low land use intensity, whereas the conservationists associated it with endangered meadow birds. Conservationists associated carbon sequestration with below-ground peat formation, but farmers with above-ground plant productivity. We conclude that perceptions of ecosystem services are strongly influenced by social contexts, involving livelihoods, interests and traditions. Use of stakeholder assessments to establish sustainable land management should consider the fact that stakeholders interpret ecosystem services with different meanings.
KW - Carbon sequestration
KW - Ecosystem properties
KW - Forage production
KW - Nature conservation
KW - Stakeholder perceptions
KW - Structural equation model
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85004147102&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.009
DO - 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.009
M3 - Article
VL - 23
SP - 108
EP - 115
JO - Ecosystem Services
JF - Ecosystem Services
SN - 2212-0416
ER -