Advertisement

Perceived ecosystem services synergies, trade-offs, and bundles in European high nature value farming landscapes

  • Tobias PlieningerEmail author
  • Mario Torralba
  • Tibor Hartel
  • Nora Fagerholm
Research Article

Abstract

Context

Around 30% of European agricultural landscapes are classified as high nature value (HNV) farmlands. Current policies emphasize the multifunctionality of these landscapes, but little is known about the positive and negative associations of multiple ecosystem services within HNV farmland.

Objectives

This study aims to identify perceived ecosystem services synergies, trade-offs, and bundles in agricultural landscapes of HNV from a socio-cultural perspective.

Methods

We performed a participatory mapping survey of 10 ecosystem services categories among 2301 rural residents in 13 European sites. We analyzed bivariate synergies and trade-offs between perceived ecosystem services through nonparametric correlation analyses. Spatial bundles of perceived ecosystem services were identified through hierarchical cluster analysis. Multinomial logit models were used to assess the influence of land cover on generating associations of ecosystem services.

Results

We find two strong and 16 moderate synergies of perceived ecosystem services (out of 46 possible ecosystem services pairs), mainly among different cultural ecosystem services. We do not reveal moderate or strong trade-offs. We identify five spatial bundles of ecosystem services, termed “Ecosystem services coldspots”, “Wild harvesting ranges”, “Nature areas”, “Recreational spaces”, and “Ecosystem services hotspots”. Of all land-cover co-variates, natural areas, urban areas, and roads have the strongest explanatory power.

Conclusions

Our study complements prevailing biophysical and economic analyses of ecosystem services synergies, trade-offs and bundles by a spatially explicit, socio-cultural perspective. We conclude that socio-cultural mapping of ecosystem services is useful for understanding the perceived multifunctionality of a landscape.

Keywords

Agricultural landscapes Cross-site analysis Ecosystem services bundles Landscape management PPGIS Socio-cultural valuation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We particularly thank our local facilitators in the 13 study sites. We acknowledge funding through Grant 613520 from the European Commission (Project AGFORWARD, 7th Framework Program). This research contributes to the Programme on Ecosystem Change and Society (www.pecs-science.org).

Supplementary material

10980_2019_775_MOESM1_ESM.docx (307 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 306 kb)

References

  1. Ament JM, Moore CA, Herbst M, Cumming GS (2017) Cultural ecosystem services in protected areas: understanding bundles, trade-offs, and synergies. Conserv Lett 10(4):439–449Google Scholar
  2. Andersen E, Baldock D, Bennet H, Beaufoy G, Bignal E, Brouwer F, Elbersen B, Eiden G, Godeschalk F, Jones G, McCracken D, Nieuwenhuizen W, van Eupen M, Hennekes S, Zervas G (2003) Developing a high nature value area indicator. Final report. European Environment Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersson E, Barthel S, Ahrné K (2007) Measuring social–ecological dynamics behind the generation of ecosystem services. Ecol Appl 17(5):1267–1278Google Scholar
  4. Andersson E, Nykvist B, Malinga R, Jaramillo F, Lindborg R (2015a) A social–ecological analysis of ecosystem services in two different farming systems. Ambio 44(1):102–112Google Scholar
  5. Andersson E, Tengö M, McPhearson T, Kremer P (2015b) Cultural ecosystem services as a gateway for improving urban sustainability. Ecosyst Serv 12:165–168Google Scholar
  6. Aue B, Diekötter T, Gottschalk TK, Wolters V, Hotes S (2014) How High Nature Value (HNV) farmland is related to bird diversity in agro-ecosystems—towards a versatile tool for biodiversity monitoring and conservation planning. Agric Ecosyst Environ 194:58–64Google Scholar
  7. Baró F, Gómez-Baggethun E, Haase D (2017) Ecosystem service bundles along the urban–rural gradient: insights for landscape planning and management. Ecosyst Serv 24:147–159Google Scholar
  8. Batáry P, Dicks LV, Kleijn D, Sutherland WJ (2015) The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management. Conserv Biol 29(4):1006–1016Google Scholar
  9. Beery TH, Raymond CM, Kyttä M, Olafsson AS, Plieninger T, Sandberg M, Stenseke M, Tengö M, Jönsson KI (2017) Fostering incidental experiences of nature through green infrastructure planning. Ambio 46(7):717–730Google Scholar
  10. Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ (2009) Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett 12(12):1394–1404Google Scholar
  11. Birge T, Toivonen M, Kaljonen M, Herzon I (2017) Probing the grounds: developing a payment-by-results agri-environment scheme in Finland. Land Use Policy 61:302–315Google Scholar
  12. Brown G, Fagerholm N (2015) Empirical PPGIS/PGIS mapping of ecosystem services: a review and evaluation. Ecosyst Serv 13:119–133Google Scholar
  13. Brown G, Raymond CM (2014) Methods for identifying land use conflict potential using participatory mapping. Landsc Urban Plan 122:196–208Google Scholar
  14. Brunet L, Tuomisaari J, Lavorel S, Crouzat E, Bierry A, Peltola T, Arpin I (2018) Actionable knowledge for land use planning: making ecosystem services operational. Land Use Policy 72:27–34Google Scholar
  15. Burton RJF, Paragahawewa UH (2011) Creating culturally sustainable agri-environmental schemes. J Rural Stud 27(1):95–104Google Scholar
  16. Castro AJ, Verburg PH, Martín-López B, Garcia-Llorente M, Cabello J, Vaughn CC, López E (2014) Ecosystem service trade-offs from supply to social demand: a landscape-scale spatial analysis. Landsc Urban Plan 132:102–110Google Scholar
  17. Chan KMA, Balvanera P, Benessaiah K, Chapman M, Díaz S, Gómez-Baggethun E, Gould R, Hannahs N, Jax K, Klain S, Luck GW, Martín-López B, Muraca B, Norton B, Ott K, Pascual U, Satterfield T, Tadaki M, Taggart J, Turner N (2016) Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113(6):1462–1465Google Scholar
  18. Chan KMA, Guerry AD, Balvanera P, Klain S, Satterfield T, Basurto X, Bostrom A, Chuenpagdee R, Gould R, Halpern BS, Hannahs N, Levine J, Norton B, Ruckelshaus M, Russell R, Tam J, Woodside U (2012) Where are cultural and social in ecosystem services? A framework for constructive engagement. Bioscience 62(8):744–756Google Scholar
  19. Cooper T, Arblaster K, Baldock D, Farmer M, Beaufoy G, Jones G, Poux X, McCracken D, Bignal E, Elbersen B, Wascher D, Angelstam P, Roberge J-M, Pointereau P, Seffer J, Galvanek D (2007) Final report for the study on HNV indicators for evaluation. Contract Notice 2006-G4-04. Institute for European Environmental Policy, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. Cord AF, Bartkowski B, Beckmann M, Dittrich A, Hermans-Neumann K, Kaim A, Lienhoop N, Locher-Krause K, Priess J, Schröter-Schlaack C, Schwarz N, Seppelt R, Strauch M, Václavík T, Volk M (2017) Towards systematic analyses of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies: main concepts, methods and the road ahead. Ecosyst Serv 28C:264–272Google Scholar
  21. Daw TM, Coulthard S, Cheung WWL, Brown K, Abunge C, Galafassi D, Peterson GD, McClanahan TR, Omukoto JO, Munyi L (2015) Evaluating taboo trade-offs in ecosystems services and human well-being. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(22):6949–6954Google Scholar
  22. de Snoo GR, Herzon I, Staats H, Burton RJF, Schindler S, van Dijk J, Lokhorst AM, Bullock JM, Lobley M, Wrbka T, Schwarz G, Musters CJM (2013) Toward effective nature conservation on farmland: making farmers matter. Conserv Lett 6(1):66–72Google Scholar
  23. Dittrich A, Seppelt R, Václavík T, Cord AF (2017) Integrating ecosystem service bundles and socio-environmental conditions—a national scale analysis from Germany. Ecosyst Serv 28C:273–282Google Scholar
  24. Dorresteijn I, Loos J, Hanspach J, Fischer J (2015) Socioecological drivers facilitating biodiversity conservation in traditional farming landscapes. Ecosyst Health Sustain 1(9):1–9Google Scholar
  25. Doxa A, Paracchini ML, Pointereau P, Devictor V, Jiguet F (2012) Preventing biotic homogenization of farmland bird communities: the role of High Nature Value farmland. Agric Ecosyst Environ 148:83–88Google Scholar
  26. EEA (2016) European forest ecosystems—state and trends. Report No 5/2016. European Environment Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  27. Fagerholm N, Käyhkö N, Ndumbaro F, Khamis M (2012) Community stakeholders’ knowledge in landscape assessments—mapping indicators for landscape services. Ecol Indic 18:421–433Google Scholar
  28. Fagerholm N, Oteros-Rozas E, Raymond CM, Torralba M, Moreno G, Plieninger T (2016) Assessing linkages between ecosystem services, land-use and well-being in an agroforestry landscape using public participation GIS. Appl Geogr 74:30–46Google Scholar
  29. Felipe-Lucia MR, Comín FA, Bennett EM (2014) Interactions among ecosystem services across land uses in a floodplain agroecosystem. Ecol Soc 19(1):art. 20Google Scholar
  30. Fischer J, Abson DJ, Butsic V, Chappell MJ, Ekroos J, Hanspach J, Kuemmerle T, Smith HG, von Wehrden H (2014) Land sparing versus land sharing: moving forward. Conserv Lett 7(3):149–157Google Scholar
  31. Fischer J, Hartel T, Kuemmerle T (2012) Conservation policy in traditional farming landscapes. Conserv Lett 5(3):167–175Google Scholar
  32. Freeman OE, Duguma LA, Minang PA (2015) Operationalizing the integrated landscape approach in practice. Ecol Soc 20(1):art. 24Google Scholar
  33. García-Martín M, Fagerholm N, Bieling C, Gounaridis D, Kizos T, Printsmann A, Müller M, Lieskovský J, Plieninger T (2017) Participatory mapping of landscape values in a Pan-European perspective. Landscape Ecol 32:2133–2150Google Scholar
  34. García-Nieto AP, García-Llorente M, Iniesta-Arandia I, Martín-López B (2013) Mapping forest ecosystem services: from providing units to beneficiaries. Ecosyst Serv 4:126–138Google Scholar
  35. González-Esquivel CE, Gavito ME, Astier M, Cadena-Salgado M, del-Val E, Villamil-Echeverri L, Merlín-Uribe Y, Balvanera P (2015) Ecosystem service trade-offs, perceived drivers, and sustainability in contrasting agroecosystems in central Mexico. Ecol Soc 20(1):art. 38Google Scholar
  36. Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2013) Common international classification of ecosystem services (CICES): consultation on version 4, August–December 2012Google Scholar
  37. Hanspach J, Hartel T, Milcu AI, Mikulcak F, Dorresteijn I, Loos J, von Wehrden H, Kuemmerle T, Abson D, Kovács-Hostyánszki A, Báldi A, Fischer F (2014) A holistic approach to studying social–ecological systems and its application to southern Transylvania. Ecol Soc 19(4):art. 32Google Scholar
  38. Hicks CC, Graham NAJ, Cinner JE (2013) Synergies and tradeoffs in how managers, scientists, and fishers value coral reef ecosystem services. Glob Environ Change 23(6):1444–1453Google Scholar
  39. Howe C, Suich H, Vira B, Mace GM (2014) Creating win–wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being: a meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Glob Environ Change 28:263–275Google Scholar
  40. Huntsinger L, Oviedo JL (2013) Ecosystem services are social–ecological services in a traditional pastoral system: the case of California Mediterranean rangelands. Ecol Soc 19(1):art. 8Google Scholar
  41. Ives CD, Giusti M, Fischer J, Abson DJ, Klaniecki K, Dorninger C, Laudan J, Barthel S, Abernethy P, Martín-López B, Raymond CM, Kendal D, von Wehrden H (2017) Human–nature connection: a multidisciplinary review. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 26–27:106–113Google Scholar
  42. Karimi A, Brown G (2017) Assessing multiple approaches for modelling land-use conflict potential from participatory mapping data. Land Use Policy 67:253–267Google Scholar
  43. Keenleyside C, Beaufoy G, Tucker G, Jones G (2014) High nature value farming throughout EU-27 and its financial support under the CAP. Institute for European Environmental Policy, LondonGoogle Scholar
  44. Koohafkan P, Altieri MA (2010) Globally important agricultural heritage systems: a legacy for the future. UN-FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  45. Lomba A, Alves P, Jongman RHG, McCracken DI (2015) Reconciling nature conservation and traditional farming practices: a spatially explicit framework to assess the extent of High Nature Value farmlands in the European countryside. Ecol Evol 5(5):1031–1044Google Scholar
  46. Lomba A, Guerra C, Alonso J, Honrado JP, Jongman R, McCracken D (2014) Mapping and monitoring High Nature Value farmlands: challenges in European landscapes. J Environ Manag 143:140–150Google Scholar
  47. Maes J, Paracchini ML, Zulian G, Dunbar MB, Alkemade R (2012) Synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem service supply, biodiversity, and habitat conservation status in Europe. Biol Conserv 155:1–12Google Scholar
  48. Magliocca N, Rudel T, Verburg P, McConnell W, Mertz O, Gerstner K, Heinimann A, Ellis E (2015) Synthesis in land change science: methodological patterns, challenges, and guidelines. Reg Environ Change 15:211–226Google Scholar
  49. Mann C, Plieninger T (2017) The potential of landscape labelling approaches for integrated landscape management in Europe. Landsc Res 42(8):904–920Google Scholar
  50. Martín-López B, Gómez-Baggethun E, García-Llorente M, Montes C (2014) Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecol Indic 37A:220–228Google Scholar
  51. 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(6):art. e38970Google Scholar
  52. Martín-López B, Palomo I, García-Llorente M, Iniesta-Arandia I, Castro AJ, García Del Amo D, Gómez-Baggethun E, Montes C (2017) Delineating boundaries of social–ecological systems for landscape planning: a comprehensive spatial approach. Land Use Policy 66:90–104Google Scholar
  53. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) Ecosystems and human well-being: a framework for assessment. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  54. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  55. Mouchet MA, Lamarque P, Martín-López B, Crouzat E, Gos P, Byczek C, Lavorel S (2014) An interdisciplinary methodological guide for quantifying associations between ecosystem services. Glob Environ Change 28:298–308Google Scholar
  56. Mouchet MA, Paracchini ML, Schulp CJE, Stürck J, Verkerk PJ, Verburg PH, Lavorel S (2017) Bundles of ecosystem (dis)services and multifunctionality across European landscapes. Ecol Indic 73:23–28Google Scholar
  57. Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Tallis H, Cameron DR, Chan KMA, Daily GC, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Lonsdorf E, Naidoo R, Ricketts TH, Shaw MR (2009) Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Front Ecol Environ 7(1):4–11Google Scholar
  58. O’Rourke E, Kramm N (2012) High nature value (HNV) farming and the management of upland diversity. A review. Eur Countrys 4(2):116–133Google Scholar
  59. Palomo I, Felipe-Lucia MR, Bennett EM, Martín-López B, Pascual U (2016) Disentangling the pathways and effects of ecosystem service co-production. Adv Ecol Res 54:245–283Google Scholar
  60. Paracchini ML, Zulian G, Kopperoinen L, Maes J, Schägner JP, Termansen M, Zandersen M, Perez-Soba M, Scholefield PA, Bidoglio G (2014) Mapping cultural ecosystem services: a framework to assess the potential for outdoor recreation across the EU. Ecol Indic 45:371–385Google Scholar
  61. Plieninger T, Bieling C (2013) Resilience-based perspectives to guiding high nature value farmland through socio-economic change. Ecol Soc 18(4):art. 20Google Scholar
  62. Plieninger T, Dijks S, Oteros-Rozas E, Bieling C (2013) Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33:118–129Google Scholar
  63. Plieninger T, Hartel T, Martin-Lopez B, Beaufoy G, Bergmeier E, Kirby K, Montero MJ, Moreno G, Oteros-Rozas E, Van Uytvanck J (2015) Wood-pastures of Europe: geographic coverage, social–ecological values, conservation management, and policy implications. Biol Conserv 190:70–79Google Scholar
  64. Plieninger T, Kohsaka R, Bieling C, Hashimoto S, Kamiyama C, Kizos T, Penker M, Kieninger P, Shaw BJ, Sioen GB, Yoshida Y, Saito O (2018) Fostering biocultural diversity in landscapes through place-based food networks: a “solution scan” of European and Japanese models. Sustain Sci 13(1):219–233Google Scholar
  65. Plieninger T, Raymond CM, Oteros-Rozas E (2016) Cultivated lands. In: Potschin M, Haines-Young R, Fish R, Turner K (eds) Routledge handbook of ecosystem services. Routledge, London, pp 442–451Google Scholar
  66. Power AG (2010) Ecosystem services and agriculture: tradeoffs and synergies. Philos Trans R Soc B 365(1554):2959–2971Google Scholar
  67. Qiu J, Turner MG (2013) Spatial interactions among ecosystem services in an urbanizing agricultural watershed. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(29):12149–12154Google Scholar
  68. Queiroz C, Meacham M, Richter K, Norström AV, Andersson E, Norberg J, Peterson G (2015) Mapping bundles of ecosystem services reveals distinct types of multifunctionality within a Swedish landscape. Ambio 44(1):89–101Google Scholar
  69. Rabbinge R, Bindraban PS (2012) Making more food available: promoting sustainable agricultural production. J Integr Agric 11(1):1–8Google Scholar
  70. Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM (2010) Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(11):5242–5247Google Scholar
  71. Raymond CM, Singh GG, Benessaiah K, Bernhardt JR, Levine J, Nelson H, Turner NJ, Norton B, Tam J, Chan KMA (2013) Ecosystem services and beyond: using multiple metaphors to understand human–environment relationships. Bioscience 63(7):536–546Google Scholar
  72. Renard D, Rhemtulla JM, Bennett EM (2015) Historical dynamics in ecosystem service bundles. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112(43):13411–13416Google Scholar
  73. Reyers B, Biggs R, Cumming GS, Elmqvist T, Hejnowicz AP, Polasky S (2013) Getting the measure of ecosystem services: a social–ecological approach. Front Ecol Environ 11(5):268–273Google Scholar
  74. Ribeiro PF, Santos JL, Bugalho MN, Santana J, Reino L, Beja P, Moreira F (2014) Modelling farming system dynamics in High Nature Value Farmland under policy change. Agric Ecosyst Environ 183:138–144Google Scholar
  75. Rodriguez JP, Beard TD, Bennett EM, Cumming GS, Cork SJ, Agard J, Dobson AP, Peterson GD (2006) Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecol Soc 11(1):art. 28Google Scholar
  76. Saidi N, Spray C (2018) Ecosystem services bundles: challenges and opportunities for implementation and further research. Environ Res Lett 13(11):art. 113001Google Scholar
  77. Sayer J, Sunderland T, Ghazoul J, Pfund J-L, Sheil D, Meijaard E, Venter M, Boedhihartono AK, Day M, Garcia C, van Oosten C, Buck LE (2013) Ten principles for a landscape approach to reconciling agriculture, conservation, and other competing land uses. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 110(21):8349–8356Google Scholar
  78. Scholte SSK, van Teeffelen AJA, Verburg PH (2015) Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: a review of concepts and methods. Ecol Econ 114:67–78Google Scholar
  79. Smith P, Gregory PJ, van Vuuren D, Obersteiner M, Havlik P, Rounsevell M, Woods J, Stehfest E, Bellarby J (2010) Competition for land. Philos Trans R Soc B 365(1554):2941–2957Google Scholar
  80. Spake R, Lasseur R, Crouzat E, Bullock JM, Lavorel S, Parks KE, Schaafsma M, Bennett EM, Maes J, Mulligan M, Mouchet M, Peterson GD, Schulp CJE, Thuiller W, Turner MG, Verburg PH, Eigenbrod F (2017) Unpacking ecosystem service bundles: towards predictive mapping of synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services. Glob Environ Change 47:37–50Google Scholar
  81. Strohbach MW, Kohler ML, Dauber J, Klimek S (2015) High Nature Value farming: from indication to conservation. Ecol Indic 57:557–563Google Scholar
  82. Stürck J, Verburg PH (2017) Multifunctionality at what scale? A landscape multifunctionality assessment for the European Union under conditions of land use change. Landscape Ecol 32(3):481–500Google Scholar
  83. Tengberg A, Fredholm S, Eliasson I, Knez I, Saltzman K, Wetterberg O (2012) Cultural ecosystem services provided by landscapes: assessment of heritage values and identity. Ecosyst Serv 2:14–26Google Scholar
  84. Torralba M, Oteros-Rozas E, Moreno G, Plieninger T (2018) Exploring the role of management in the coproduction of ecosystem services from Spanish wooded rangelands. Rangel Ecol Manag 71:549–559Google Scholar
  85. Turkelboom F, Leone M, Jacobs S, Kelemen E, García-Llorente M, Baró F, Termansen M, Barton D, Berry P, Stange E, Thoonen M, Kalóczkai Á, Vadineanu A, Castro A, Czúcz B, Röckmann C, Wurbs D, Odee D, Preda E, Gómez-Baggethun E, Rusch G, Pastur GM, Palomo I, Dick J, Casaer J, Jv Dijk, Priess J, Langemeyer J, Mustajoki J, Kopperoinen L, Baptist M, Peri PL, Mukhopadhyay R, Aszalós R, Roy SB, Luque S, Rusch V (2018) When we cannot have it all: ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning. Ecosyst Serv 29:566–578Google Scholar
  86. Turner KG, Odgaard MV, Bøcher PK, Dalgaard T, Svenning J-C (2014) Bundling ecosystem services in Denmark: trade-offs and synergies in a cultural landscape. Landsc Urban Plan 125:89–104Google Scholar
  87. Uthes S, Matzdorf B (2013) Studies on agri-environmental measures: a survey of the literature. Environ Manag 51(1):251–266Google Scholar
  88. Van Riper CJ, Kyle GT (2014) Capturing multiple values of ecosystem services shaped by environmental worldviews: a spatial analysis. J Environ Manag 145:374–384Google Scholar
  89. Vierikko K, Elands B, Niemelä J, Andersson E, Buijs A, Fischer LK, Haase D, Kabisch N, Kowarik I, Luz AC, Olafsson Stahl A, Száraz L, Van der Jagt A, Konijnendijk van den Bosch C (2016) Considering the ways biocultural diversity helps enforce the urban green infrastructure in times of urban transformation. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 22:7–12Google Scholar
  90. Ward JH Jr (1963) Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. J Am Stat Assoc 58(301):236–244Google Scholar
  91. Wilkinson C, Saarne T, Peterson GD, Colding J (2013) Strategic spatial planning and the ecosystem services concept—an historical exploration. Ecol Soc 18(1):art. 37Google Scholar
  92. Zasada I (2011) Multifunctional peri-urban agriculture—a review of societal demands and the provision of goods and services by farming. Land Use Policy 28(4):639–648Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Social-Ecological Interactions in Agricultural SystemsUniversity of KasselWitzenhausenGermany
  2. 2.University of GöttingenGöttingenGermany
  3. 3.Department of Biology and Ecology in Hungarian and Center of Systems Biology, Biodiversity and BioresourcesBabes-Bolyai UniversityCluj-NapocaRomania
  4. 4.Department of Geography and GeologyUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations