Valuation of ecosystem services by stakeholders operating at different levels: insights from the Portuguese cultural montado landscape

  • Inês T. do RosárioEmail author
  • Rui Rebelo
  • Ursula Caser
  • Lia Vasconcelos
  • Margarida Santos-Reis
Original Article


Montado is a savannah-like cultural landscape characteristic of the western Iberian Peninsula that is of high ecological and socio-economic value. Montado sites provide a multitude of services including materials (mostly valuable cork), food for free-ranging livestock, agricultural products, game, and tourism. Several stakeholders operate at various levels in these systems, all of whom must be involved in assessments of the value of these ecosystem services. We used a series of participatory workshops at local and regional levels to assess the ecosystem services most valued by these stakeholders. We also evaluated their awareness of the threats to montado and their vision for its future provision of ecosystem services. As expected, among the 12 categories of ecosystem services we assessed, stakeholders valued “materials” most, confirming the importance of cork in this landscape. However, regulating services were also highly valued, revealing strong awareness among stakeholders about montado ecology. Cultural services were more highly valued at the local level, demonstrating that local stakeholders have a strong attachment to their farms. All stakeholders were particularly aware of the threat of climate change, but regional stakeholders had a more negative perception for the future. The greater optimism of local stakeholders may be due to their greater realism and/or emotional connections to their farms. Our findings demonstrate that stakeholders are receptive to climate mitigation measures, but corresponding policy should consider local differences in management and land-use patterns.


Socio-cultural valuation Agro-forest systems Climate change Aridity Farm Participatory process 



The authors would like to thank all stakeholders who kindly participated in this research and particularly the farm managers of the LTsER Montado platform. We also wish to thank Adriana Príncipe Silva for providing aridity values for all study sites and to John O’Brien for his diligent proofreading.

Funding information

This research was funded by the OPERA project funded from the European Union’s Seventh Programme for Research (GA: 308393) and eLTER H2020 an EC-funded project (GA: 654359)

Supplementary material

10113_2019_1527_MOESM1_ESM.docx (873 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 873 kb)


  1. Almeida M, Azeda C, Guiomar N, Pinto-Correia T (2016) The effects of grazing management in montado fragmentation and heterogeneity. Agrofor Syst 90(1):69–85. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anton C, Young J, Harrison PA, Musche M, Bela G, Feld CK, Harrington R, Haslett JR, Pataki G, Rounsevell MDA, Skourtos M, Sousa JP, Sykes MT, Tinch R, Vandewalle M, Watt A, Settele J (2010) Research needs for incorporating the ecosystem service approach into EU biodiversity conservation policy. Biodivers Conserv 19:2979–2994. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. APCOR (2016) APCOR’s Cork Yearbook 2016. Santa Maria de Lamas.
  4. APCOR (n.d.) APCOR. Retrieved from Accessed 10 July 2017
  5. Arkema KK, Abramson SC, Dewsbury BM (2006) Marine ecosystem-based management: from characterization to implementation. Front Ecol Environ 4(10):525–532.[525:MEMFCT]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barredo, JI, Bastrup-Birk A, Teller A, Onaindia M, Fernández de Manuel B, Madariaga I, Rodríguez-Loinaz G, Pinho P, Nunes A, Ramos A, Batista M, Mimo S, Cordovil C, Branquinho C, Grêt-Regamey A, Bebi P, Brunner SH, Weibel B, Kopperoinen L, Itkonen P, Viinikka A, Chirici G, Bottalico F, Pesola L, Vizzarri M, Garfì V, Antonello L, Barbati A, Corona P, Cullotta S, Giannico V, Lafortezza R, Lombardi F, Marchetti M, Nocentini S, Riccioli F, Travaglini D, Sallustio L, Rosário I, von Essen M, Nicholas KA, Máguas C, Rebelo R, Santos-Reis M, Santos-Martín F, Zorrilla-Miras P, Montes C, Benayas J, Martín-López B, Snäll T, Berglund H, Bengtsson J, Moen J, Busetto L, San-Miguel-Ayanz J, Thurner M, Beer C, Santoro M, Carvalhais N, Wutzler T, Schepaschenko D, Shvidenko A, Kompter E, Ahrens B, Levick SR, Schmullius C (2015) Mapping and assessment of forest ecosystems and their services – Applications and guidance for decision making in the framework of MAES. EUR 27751 EN.
  7. Bernués A, Rodríguez-Ortega T, Alfnes F, Clemetsen M, Eik LO (2015) Quantifying the multifunctionality of fjord and mountain agriculture by means of sociocultural and economic valuation of ecosystem services. Land Use Policy 48:170–178. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blondel J (2006) The “design” of Mediterranean landscapes: a millennial story of humans and ecological systems during the historic period. Hum Ecol 34(5):713–729. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Böck K, Muhar S, Muhar A, Polt R (2015) The ecosystem services concept: gaps between science and practice in river landscape management. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society 24(1):32–40. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brasier C (1996) Phytophthora cinnamomi and oak decline in southern Europe. Environmental constraints including climate change. Annals Sci For 53:347–358 Retrieved from Accessed 25 Jan 2019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bryan BA, Raymond CM, Crossman ND, Macdonald DH (2010) Targeting the management of ecosystem services based on social values: where, what, and how? Landsc Urban Plan 97:111–122. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bugalho MN, Caldeira MC, Pereira JS, Aronson J, Pausas JG (2011) Mediterranean cork oak savannas require human use to sustain biodiversity and ecosystem services. Front Ecol Environ 9(5):278–286. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chan KMA, Satterfield T, Goldstein J (2012) Rethinking ecosystem services to better address and navigate cultural values. Ecol Econ 74:8–18. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Costa A, Pereira H, Madeira M (2010) Analysis of spatial patterns of oak decline in cork oak woodlands in Mediterranean conditions. Ann For Sci 67:204. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Costa AC, Santos JA, Pinto JG, Costa AC, Santos JA, Pinto JG (2012) Climate change scenarios for precipitation extremes in Portugal. Theor Appl Climatol 108:217–234. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L (2010) Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex 7:260–272. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Decreto-Lei no 155/2004, Pub. L. No. 155/2004 2004 Retrieved from Accessed 28 Jan 2018
  18. Decreto-Lei no. 169/2001, Pub. L. No. 169/2001 (2001) Retrieved from Accessed 28 Jan 2018
  19. Díaz-Villa MD, Marañón T, Arroyo J, Garrido B (2003) Soil seed bank and floristic diversity in a forest-grassland mosaic in southern Spain. J Veg Sci 14(5):701–709.[0701:SSBAFD]2.0.CO;2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dick J, Orenstein DE, Holzer JM, Wohner C, Achard A, Andrews C, Avriel-Avni N, Beja P, Blond N, Cabello J, Chen C, Díaz-Delgado R, GVl G, Gingrich S, Izakovicova Z, Krauze K, Lamouroux N, Leca S, Melecis V, Miklós K, Mimikou M, Niedrist G, Piscart C, Postolache C, Psomas A, Santos-Reis M, Tappeiner U, Vanderbilt K, Van Ryckegem G (2018) What is socio-ecological research delivering? A literature survey across 25 international LTSER platforms. Sci Total Environ 622–623:1225–1240. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Domingos T, Oliveira das Neves A, Marta-Pedroso C (2014) Relatório Final da Avaliação Contínua do Programa de Desenvolvimento Rural do Continente 2007- 2013 (ProDeR) do ano 2013. In: Martins H, da Silva Vieira R, Alves M, Porta M, Ferreira G (eds) . Instituto de Estudos Sociais e Económicos e Instituto Politécnico de Bragança, Lisboa e BragançaGoogle Scholar
  22. EEA (2004) High Nature Value Farmland e Characteristics. Trends and Policy Challenges, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  23. EU (2013). Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services. Retrieved from Accessed 27 Jan 2018
  24. European Commission. (2005). Agri-environment measures overview on general principles, types of measures, and application European Commission Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development Unit G-4 -Evaluation of Measures applied to Agriculture, Studies. Retrieved from Accessed 28 Jan 2018
  25. Fagerholm N, Torralba M, Burgess PJ, Plieninger T (2016) A systematic map of ecosystem services assessments around European agroforestry. Ecol Indic 62:47–65. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. FAO (n.d.) FAOSTAT. Retrieved January 31, 2018, from Accessed 27 Jan 2018
  27. Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68(3):643–653 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. García-Llorente M, Martín-lópez B, Díaz S, Montes C (2011) Can ecosystem properties be fully translated into service values? An economic valuation of aquatic plant services. Ecol Appl 21:3083–3103. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Godinho S, Santos AP, Sá-Sousa P (2011) Montado management effects on the abundance and conservation of reptiles in Alentejo, Southern Portugal. Agrofor Syst 82:197–207. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Godinho S, Gil A, Guiomar N, Neves N, Pinto-Correia T (2016) A remote sensing-based approach to estimating montado canopy density using the FCD model: a contribution to identifying HNV farmlands in southern Portugal. Agrofor Syst 90(1):23–34. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gonçalves P, Alcobia S, Simões L, Santos-Reis M (2012) Effects of management options on mammal richness in a Mediterranean agro-silvo-pastoral system. Agrofor Syst 85:383–395. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Guerra CA, Maes J, Geijzendorffer I, Metzger MJ (2016) An assessment of soil erosion prevention by vegetation in Mediterranean Europe: current trends of ecosystem service provision. Ecol Indic 60:213–222. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2013) Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): consultation on version 4, August-December 2012. EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003. Download at or
  34. Hein L, van Koppen K, de Groot RS, van Ierland EC (2006) Spatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 57:209–228. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hein L, van Koppen CSAK, van Ierland EC, Leidekker J (2016) Temporal scales, ecosystem dynamics, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystems services. Ecosyst Serv 21:109–119. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Aguilera P, Montes C, Martín-López B (2014) Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services: uncovering the links between values, drivers of change, and human well-being. Ecol Econ 108:36–48. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lamarque P, Tappeiner U, Turner C, Steinbacher M, Bardgett RD, Szukics U, Schermer M, Lavorel S (2011) Stakeholder perceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowledge on soil fertility and biodiversity. Reg Environ Chang 11:791–804. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lehner B, Oll P, Alcamo J, Henrichs T, Kaspar F (2006) Estimating the impact of global change on flood and drought risks in Europe: a continental, integrated analysis. Clim Chang 75:273–299. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga I, García Del Amo D, Gómez-Baggethun E, Oteros-Rozas E, Palacios-Agundez I, Willaarts B, González JA, Santos-Martín F, Onaindia M, López-Santiago C, Montes C (2012) Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS One 7:e38970. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  41. Molina M, Pardo-de-Santayana M, García E, Aceituno-Mata L, Morales R, Tardío J (2012) Exploring the potential of wild food resources in the Mediterranean region: natural yield and gathering pressure of the wild asparagus (Asparagus acutifolius L.). Span J Agric Res 10(4):1090. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Moreira AC, Martins JMS (2005) Influence of site factors on the impact of Phytophthora cinnamomi in cork oak stands in Portugal. For Pathol 35(3):145–162. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ogaya R, Peñuelas J (2006) Tree growth, mortality, and above-ground biomass accumulation in a holm oak forest under a five-year experimental field drought. Plant Ecol 189(2):291–299. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Palomo I, Martín-López B, Potschin M, Haines-Young R, Montes C (2013) National Parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: mapping ecosystem service flows. Ecosyst Serv 4:104–116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Peh KS-H, Balmford A, Bradbury RB, Brown C, Butchart SHM, Hughes FMR, Stattersfield AJ, Thomas DHL, Walpole M, Birch JC (2013) Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessment (TESSA). Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  46. Pinheiro AC, Ribeiro AN, Surový P (2008) Economic implications of different cork oak forest management systems. Int J Sustain Soc 1(2):149–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pinto-Correia T (2000) Future development in Portuguese rural areas: how to manage agricultural support for landscape conservation? Landsc Urban Plan 50:95–106. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pinto-Correia T, Mascarenhas J (1999) Contribution to the extensification/intensification debate: new trends in the Portuguese montado. Landsc Urban Plan 46:125–131. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pinto-Correia T, Ribeiro N, Sá-Sousa P (2011) Introducing the montado, the cork and holm oak agroforestry system of Southern Portugal. Agrofor Syst 82:99–104. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Plieninger T, van der Horst D, Schleyer C, Bieling C (2014) Sustaining ecosystem services in cultural landscapes. Ecol Soc 19:59. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Raymond CM, Brown G, Robinson GM (2011) The influence of place attachment, and moral and normative concerns on the conservation of native vegetation: a test of two behavioural models. J Environ Psychol 31(4):323–335. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Saarikoski H, Primmer E, Saarela SR, Antunes P, Aszalós R, Baró F, Berry P, Garcia Blanko G, Goméz-Baggethun E, Carvalho L, Dick J, Dunford R, Hanzu M, Harrison PA, Izakovicova Z, Kertész M, Kopperoinen L, Köhler B, Langemeyer J, Lapola D, Liquete C, Luque S, Mederly P, Niemelä J, Palomo I, Martinez Pastur G, Peri P, Preda E, Priess JA, Santos R, Schleyer C, Turkelboom F, Vadineanu A, Verheyden W, Vikström S, Young J (2018) Institutional challenges in putting ecosystem service knowledge in practice. Ecosyst Serv 29:579–598. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Santos R, Antunes P, Ring I, Clemente P (2015a) Engaging local private and public actors in biodiversity conservation: the role of agri-environmental schemes and ecological fiscal transfers; engaging local private and public actors in biodiversity conservation: the role of agri-environmental schemes an. Environ Policy Gov 25:83–96. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Santos R, Clemente P, Brouwer R, Antunes P, Pinto R (2015b) Landowner preferences for agri-environmental agreements to conserve the montado ecosystem in Portugal. Ecol Econ 118:159–167. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Scannell L, Gifford R (2010) The relations between natural and civic place attachment and pro-environmental behavior. J Environ Psychol 30(3):289–297. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Seppelt R, Dormann CF, Eppink FV, Lautenbach S, Schmidt S (2011) A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J Appl Ecol 48(3):630–636. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shackley S, Kersey J, Wilby R, Fleming P (2001) Changing by degrees: the potential impacts of climate change in the east midlands. Ashgate, Aldershot Retrieved from Accessed 25 Jan 2018Google Scholar
  58. da Silva PM, Aguiar C a S, Niemelä J, Sousa JP, Serrano ARM (2008) Cork-oak woodlands as key-habitats for biodiversity conservation in Mediterranean landscapes: a case study using rove and ground beetles (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae, Carabidae). Biodivers Conserv 18(3):605–619. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Surová D, Pinto-Correia T (2008) Landscape preferences in the cork oak Montado region of Alentejo, southern Portugal: searching for valuable landscape characteristics for different user groups. Landsc Res 33:311–330. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Svobodova K, Vondrus J, Filova L, Besta M (2011) The role of familiarity with the landscape in visual landscape preferences. J Landscape Stud 4:11–24Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.cE3c – Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Environmental ChangesFaculdade de Ciências da Universidade de LisboaLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Mediatedomain, LdaLisbonPortugal
  3. 3.DCEA – Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering. Faculty of Sciences & TechnologyNOVA University of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations