Regional Environmental Change

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 791–804 | Cite as

Stakeholder perceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowledge on soil fertility and biodiversity

  • Pénélope Lamarque
  • Ulrike Tappeiner
  • Catherine Turner
  • Melanie Steinbacher
  • Richard D. Bardgett
  • Ute Szukics
  • Markus Schermer
  • Sandra Lavorel
Original Article


The concept of ecosystem services is increasingly being used by scientists and policy makers. However, most studies in this area have focussed on factors that regulate ecosystem functions (i.e. the potential to deliver ecosystem services) or the supply of ecosystem services. In contrast, demand for ecosystem services (i.e. the needs of beneficiaries) or understanding of the concept and the relative ranking of different ecosystem services by beneficiaries has received limited attention. The aim of this study was to identify in three European mountain regions the ecosystem services of grassland that different stakeholders identify (which ecosystem services for whom), the relative rankings of these ecosystem services, and how stakeholders perceive the provision of these ecosystem services to be related to agricultural activities. We found differences: (1) between farmers’ perceptions of ecosystem services across regions and (2) within regions, between knowledge of ecosystem services gained by regional experts through education and farmers’ local field-based knowledge. Nevertheless, we identified a common set of ecosystem services that were considered important by stakeholders across the three regions, including soil stability, water quantity and quality, forage quality, conservation of botanical diversity, aesthetics and recreation (for regional experts), and forage quantity and aesthetic (for local farmers). We observed two contrasting stakeholder representations of the effects of agricultural management on ecosystem services delivery, one negative and the other positive (considering low to medium management intensity). These representations were determined by stakeholders’ perceptions of the relationships between soil fertility and biodiversity. Overall, differences in perceptions highlighted in this study show that practitioners, policy makers and researchers should be more explicit in their uses of the ecosystem services concept in order to be correctly understood and to foster improved communication among stakeholders.


Ecosystem services Biodiversity Soil fertility Stakeholders’ perceptions Mountain grasslands 


  1. Bardgett RD (2005) The biology of soil: a community and ecosystem approach. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrera-Bassols N, Zinck JA (2003) Ethnopedology: a worldwide view on the soil knowledge of local people. Geoderma 111:171–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barrios E (2007) Soil biota, ecosystem services and land productivity. Ecol Econ 64:269–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ (2009) Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett 12:1394–1404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Billgren C, Holmén H (2008) Approaching reality: comparing stakeholder analysis and cultural theory in the context of natural resource management. Land Use Policy 25:550–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ 63:616–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brander L, Gomez-Baggethun E, Martin-Lopez B, Verma M (2009) Chapter 5: The economics of valuing ecosystem services and biodiversity. TEEB-the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: the Ecological and Economic Foundations Available at., accessed 26 December 2010
  8. Buijs AE, Fischer A, Rink D, Young JC (2008) Looking beyond superficial knowledge gaps: understanding public representations of biodiversity. Int J Biodiver Sci Manag 4:65–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheveau M, Imbeau L, Drapeau P, Belanger L (2008) Current status and future directions of traditional ecological knowledge in forest management: a review. For Chron 84:231–243Google Scholar
  10. Costanza R (2008) Ecosystem services: multiple classification systems are needed. Biol Conser 141:350–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Chazal J, Quétier F, Lavorel S, Van Doorn A (2008) Including multiple differing stakeholder values into vulnerability assessments of socio-ecological systems. Glob Environ Change 18:508–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Deyn GB, Shiel RS, Ostle NJ, Mcnamara NP, Oakley S, Young I, Freeman C, Fenner N, Quirk H, Bardgett RD (2011) Additional carbon sequestration benefits of grassland diversity restoration. J Appl Ecol. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01925.x
  13. Diaz S, Fargione J, Stuart Chapin F, Tilman D (2006) Biodiversity Loss Threatens Human Well-Being. PLoS Biol 4:1300–1305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diaz S, Lavorel S, de Bello F, Quétier F, Grigulis K, Robson TM (2007) Incorporating plant functional diversity effects in ecosystem service assessments. Proc Nat Acad Sci 104:20684–20689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dominati E, Patterson M, Mackay A (2010) A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils. Ecol Econ 69:1858–1868CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Donnison LM, Griffith GS, Hedger J, Hobbs PJ, Bardgett RD (2000) Management influences on soil microbial communities and their function in botanically diverse hay meadows of northern England and Wales. Soil Biol Biochem 32:253–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Earl G, Curtis A, Allan C (2010) Towards a duty of care for biodiversity. Environ Manag 45:682–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eurostat (2010) Statistics explained. Agriculture and the environment. (, 22/10/2010)
  19. Fischer A, Young JC (2007) Understanding mental constructs of biodiversity: implications for biodiversity management and conservation. Biol Conser 136:271–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68:643–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gibon A (2005) Managing grassland for production, the environment and the landscape. Challenges at the farm and the landscape level. Livest Prod Sci 96:11–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grace JB (1999) The factors controlling species density in herbaceous plant communities: an assessment. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol System 2:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grawitz M (2001). Méthodes des sciences sociales. DallozGoogle Scholar
  24. Grimble R, Wellard K (1997) Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agric Syst 55:173–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haines-Young R (2009) Land use and biodiversity relationships. Land Use Policy 26:S178–S186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavorel S, Lawton JH, Lodge DM, Loreau M, Naeem S, Schmid B, Setala H, Symstad AJ, Vandermeer J, Wardle DA (2005) Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr 75:3–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Klimek S, Richter gen. Kemmermann A, Hofmann M, Isselstein J (2007) Plant species richness and composition in managed grasslands: the relative importance of field management and environmental factors. Biol Conser 134:559–570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lamarque P, Quétier F, Lavorel S (2011) The diversity of the ecosystem services concept and its implications for their assessment and management. Comptes Rendus Biol. doi:10.1016/j.crvi.2010.11.007
  29. Larrère R, Fleury P, Payant L (2007) La « nature » des éleveurs : sur les représentations de la biodiversité dans les Alpes du Nord. Ruralia.
  30. Lavorel S, Grigulis K, Lamarque P, Colace M-P, Garden D, Girel J, Pellet G, Douzet R (2011) Using plant functional traits to understand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystem services. J Ecol 99:135–147. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2745.2010.01753.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Le Roux X, Barbault R, Baudry J, Burel F, Doussan I, Garnier E, Herzog F, Lavorel S, Lifran R, Roger-Estrade J, Sarthou JP, Trommetter M (eds) (2008) Agriculture and biodiversity: benefiting from synergies, multidisciplinary scientific assessment, synthesis report. INRA, FranceGoogle Scholar
  32. Lewan L, Soderqvist T (2002) Knowledge and recognition of ecosystem services among the general public in a drainage basin in Scania, Southern Sweden. Ecol Econ 42:459–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lindemann-Matthies P, Junge X, Matthies D (2010) The influence of plant diversity on people’s perception and aesthetic appreciation of grassland vegetation. Biol Conserv 143:195–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. MacDonald D, Crabtree JR, Wiesinger G, Dax T, Stamou N, Fleury P, Gutierrez Lazpita J, Gibon A (2000) Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: environmental consequences and policy response. J Environ Manag 59:47–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marsden T, Sonnino R (2008) Rural development and the regional state: denying multifunctional agriculture in the UK. J Rural Stud 24:422–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. MEA (2005) Millennium ecosystem assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  37. Menzel S, Teng J (2009) Ecosystem services as a stakeholder-driven concept for conservation science. Conserv Biol 24:907–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mooney H, Larigauderie A, Cesario M, Elmquist T, Hoegh-Guldberg O, Lavorel S, Mace GM, Palmer M, Scholes R, Yahara T (2009) Biodiversity, climate change, and ecosystem services. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 1:46–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Morgan DL (1997) Focus groups as qualitative research, 2nd edn. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  40. Morilhat C, Bernard N, Bournais C, Meyer C, Lamboley C, Giraudoux P (2007) Responses of Arvicola terrestris scherman populations to agricultural practices, and to Talpa europaea abundance in eastern France. Agri Ecosyst Environ 122:392–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. NEA (2010) Website of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment:, accessed on 22 September 2010
  42. O’Farrell PJ, Donaldson JS, Hoffman MT (2007) The influence of ecosystem goods and services on livestock management practices on the Bokkeveld plateau, South Africa. Agric Ecosyst Environ 122:312–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pereira E, Queiroz C, Pereira HM, Vicente L (2005) Ecosystem services and human-well-being: a participatory study in a mountain community in Portugal. Ecol soc 10Google Scholar
  44. Pieroni A, Giusti M (2009) Alpine ethnobotany in Italy: traditional knowledge of gastronomic and medicinal plants among the Occitans of the upper Varaita valley, Piedmont. J Ethnobiol Ethnomed 5:32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Quétier F, Lavorel S, Thuillier W, Davies I (2007) Plant-trait-based modelling assessment of ecosystem services sensitivity to land-use change. Ecol Appl 17:2377–2386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Quétier F, Rivoal F, Marty P, de Chazal J, Thuiller W, Lavorel S (2010) Social representations of an alpine grassland landscape and socio-political discourses on rural development. Reg Environ Change 10:119–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Reed MS, Graves A, Dandy N, Posthumus H, Hubacek K, Morris J, Prell C, Quinn CH, Stringer LC (2009) Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. J Environ Manag 90:1933–1949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Renting H, Rossing WAH, Groot JCJ, Van der Ploeg JD, Laurent C, Perraud D, Stobbelaar DJ, Van Ittersum MK (2009) Exploring multifunctional agriculture. A review of conceptual approaches and prospects for an integrative transitional framework. J Environ Manag 90:S112–S123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Robson TM, Lavorel S, Clement J-C, Roux XL (2007) Neglect of mowing and manuring leads to slower nitrogen cycling in subalpine grasslands. Soil Biol Biochem 39:930–941CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sandhu HS, Wratten SD, Cullen R (2010) Organic agriculture and ecosystem services. Environ Sci Policy 13:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Schmitzberger I, Wrbka T, Steurer B, Aschenbrenner G, Peterseil J, Zechmeister HG (2005) How farming styles influence biodiversity maintenance in Austrian agricultural landscapes. Agric Ecosyst Environ 108:274–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Simoncini R (2009) Developing an integrated approach to enhance the delivering of environmental goods and services by agro-ecosystems. Reg Environ Change 9:153–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Singh SP (2002) Balancing the approaches of environmental conservation by considering ecosystem services as well as biodiversity. Curr Sci 82:1331–1335Google Scholar
  54. Smith RS, Shiel RS, Bardgett RD, Millward D, Corkhill P, Evans P, Quirk H, Hobbs P, Kometa S (2008) Long-term change in vegetation and soil microbial communities during the phased restoration of traditional meadow grassland. J Appl Ecol 45:670–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Spiegelberger T, Matthies D, Muller-Scharer H, Schaffner U (2006) Scale-dependent effects of land use on plant species richness of mountain grassland in the European Alps. Ecography 29:541–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tasser E, Tappeiner U, Cernusca A (2005) Ecological effects of land use changes in the European Alps. In: Huber UM, Bugmann HKM, Reasoner M (eds) Global change and mountain regions—a state of knowledge overview. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 413–425Google Scholar
  57. Tasser E, Walde J, Tappeiner U, Teutsch A, Noggler W (2007) Land-use changes and natural reforestation in the Eastern Central Alps. Agric Ecosyst Environ 118:115–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Termorshuizen JW, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Lands Ecol Vol 24:1037–1052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Turbé A, De Toni A, Benito P, Lavelle P, Lavelle P, Ruiz N, Van der Putten WH, Labouze E, Mudgal S (2010) Soil biodiversity: functions, threats and tools for policy makers. Bio Intelligence Service, IRD, and NIOO, Report for European Commission. DG Environment, EuropeGoogle Scholar
  60. Vira B, Adams WM (2009) Ecosystem services and conservation strategy: beware the silver bullet. Conserv Lett 2:158–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Walker KJ, Stevens PA, Stevens DP, Mountford JO, Manchester SJ, Pywell RF (2004) The restoration and re-creation of species-rich lowland grassland on land formerly managed for intensive agriculture in the UK. Biol Conserv 119:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Zhang W, Ricketts TH, Kremen C, Carney K, Swinton SM (2007) Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol Econ 64:253–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pénélope Lamarque
    • 1
  • Ulrike Tappeiner
    • 2
  • Catherine Turner
    • 3
  • Melanie Steinbacher
    • 4
  • Richard D. Bardgett
    • 3
  • Ute Szukics
    • 2
  • Markus Schermer
    • 4
  • Sandra Lavorel
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, CNRS UMR 5553Université Joseph FourierGrenoble Cedex 9France
  2. 2.Institute for EcologyUniversity of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria
  3. 3.Soil and Ecosystem Ecology Laboratory, Lancaster Environment CentreLancaster UniversityLancasterUK
  4. 4.Institute for SociologyUniversity of InnsbruckInnsbruckAustria

Personalised recommendations