Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A conceptual framework for the governance of multiple ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

While the concept of ecosystem services (ES) is well established in the scientific and policy arenas, its operationalization faces many challenges. Indeed, ES supply, demand and flow are related to ecological and social processes at multiple space and time scales, leading to complex interactions in the provision of multiple ES.

Objectives

To develop a conceptual framework (CF) to facilitate the study and governance of multiple ES in agricultural social-ecological landscapes.

Method

We examined the ecological and social literatures to identify how approaches at the landscape level contribute to a better understanding of ES supply, demand and flow in agricultural systems. After detailing our CF, we use a case study to illustrate how methods from different disciplines can be combined to operationalize our CF.

Results

The literature suggests that the landscape level is likely to be the level of organization that will make it possible to (i) integrate different components of ES co-production, i.e. ecological processes, agricultural practices and social structures, (ii) understand interactions between stakeholders, including ES co-producers and beneficiaries, (iii) explicit ES trade-offs, i.e. social choices between ES.

Conclusion

The production of multiple ES at the landscape level involves different types of interdependencies among ES co-producers and beneficiaries. These need to be addressed in concerted and integrated ways to achieve sustainable and equitable governance of agricultural landscapes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbas F, Merlet J, Morellet N, Verheyden H, Hewison AJM, Cargnelutti B, Angibault JM, Picot D, Rames JL, Lourtet B, Aulagnier S, Daufresne T (2012) Roe deer may markedly alter forest nitrogen and phosphorus budgets across Europe. Oikos 121:1271–1278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alignier A, Raymond L, Deconchat M, Menozzi P, Monteil C, Sarthou J-P, Vialatte A, Ouin A (2014) The effect of semi-natural habitats on aphids and their natural enemies across spatial and temporal scales. Biol Control. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2014.06.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allan E, Bossdorf O, Dormann CF, Prati D, Gossner MM, Tscharntke T, Blüthgen N, Bellach M, Birkhofer K, Boch S, Böhm S, Börschig C, Chatzinotas A, Christ S, Daniel R, Diekötter T, Fischer C, Friedl T, Glaser K, Hallmann C, Hodac L, Hölzel N, Jung K, Klein AM, Klaus VH, Kleinebecker T, Krauss J, Lange M, Morris EK, Müller J, Nacke H, Pašalić E, Rillig MC, Rothenwöhrer C, Schall P, Scherber C, Schulze W, Socher SA, Steckel J, Steffan-Dewenter I, Türke M, Weiner CN, Werner M, Westphal C, Wolters V, Wubet T, Gockel S, Gorke M, Hemp A, Renner SC, Schöning I, Pfeiffer S, König-Ries B, Buscot F, Linsenmair KE, Schulze E-D, Weisser WW, Fischer M (2014) Interannual variation in land-use intensity enhances grassland multidiversity. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:308–313

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Allen TFH, Starr TB (1982) Hierarchy: perspectives for ecological complexity, 2nd edn. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrade TO, Outreman Y, Krespi L, Plantegenest M, Vialatte A, Gauffre B, Baaren Jv (2015) Spatiotemporal variations in aphid-parasitoid relative abundance patterns and food webs in agricultural ecosystems. Ecosphere 6:art113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrieu E, Cabanettes A, Alignier A, Van Halder I, Alard D, Archaux F, Barbaro L, Bouget C, Bailey S, Corcket E, Deconchat M, Vigan M, Villemey A, Ouin A (2017) Edge contrast does not modulate edge effect on plants and pollinators. Basic Appl Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2017.11.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Antrop M (2000) Background concepts for integrated landscape analysis. Agrirc Ecosyst Environ 77:17–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Assessment ME (2005) Millennium ecosystem assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC

  • Balent G, Gibon A (2011) Interactions of grasslands with forest at the landscape level: topical issues and challenges attached to land management in agro–silvo–pastoral landscapes. In: Grassland productivity and ecosystems services, pp 239–250

  • Barnaud C, Antona M (2014) Deconstructing ecosystem services: uncertainties and controversies around a socially constructed concept. Geoforum 56:113–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnaud C, Corbera E, Muradian R, Salliou N, Sirami C, Vialatte A, Choisis J-P, Dendoncker N, Mathevet R, Moreau C, Reyes-García V, Boada M, Deconchat M, Cibien C, Garnier S, Maneja R, Antona M (2018) Ecosystem services, social interdependencies, and collective action: a conceptual framework. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09848-230115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnaud C, Theil L, Choisis J-P, Eychenne C (2015) Les services écosystémiques: une notion savante déconnectée des représentations locales? Une analyse des représentations locales de l’élevage en zone agricole défavorisée. In: Environnement, politiques publiques et pratiques locales. L’Harmattan. Béringuier P, Blot F, Desailly B, Saqalli M, Paris, pp 26–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastian O, Grunewald K, Syrbe R-U, Walz U, Wende W (2014) Landscape services: the concept and its practical relevance. Landscape Ecol 29:1463–1479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Batary P, Fischer J, Báldi A, Crist T, Tscharntke T (2011) Does habitat heterogeneity increase farmland biodiversity? Front Ecol Environ 9:152–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Begg GM, Cook S, Dye R, Ferrante M, Franck P, Lavigne C, Lövei G, Mansion-Vaquié A, Pell JK, Petit S, Quesada N, Ricci B, Wratten S, Birch A (2017) A functional overview of conservation biological control. Crop Prot 97:145–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett EM, Cramer W, Begossi A, Cundill G, Díaz S, Egoh BN, Geijzendorffer IR, Krug CB, Lavorel S, Lazos E, Lebel L, Martín-López B, Meyfroidt P, Mooney HA, Nel JL, Pascual U, Payet K, Harguindeguy NP, Peterson GD, Prieur-Richard A-H, Reyers B, Roebeling P, Seppelt R, Solan M, Tschakert P, Tscharntke T, Turner B, Verburg PH, Viglizzo EF, White PC, Woodward G (2015) Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:76–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ (2009) Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett 12:1394–1404

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berbés-Blázquez M, González JA, Pascual U (2016) Towards an ecosystem services approach that addresses social power relations. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 19:134–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertrand C, Baudry J, Burel F (2016) Seasonal variation in the effect of landscape structure on ground-dwelling arthropods and biological control potential. Basic Appl Ecol 17:678–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi FJJA, Booij CJH, Tscharntke T (2006) Sustainable pest regulation in agricultural landscapes: a review on landscape composition, biodiversity and natural pest control. Proc Biol Sci 273:1715–1727

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bieling C, Plieninger T, Pirker H, Vogl CR (2014) Linkages between landscapes and human well-being: an empirical exploration with short interviews. Ecol Econ 105:19–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanco J, Dendoncker N, Barnaud C, Sirami C (2019) Ecosystem disservices matter: towards their systematic integration within ecosystem service research and policy. Ecosyst Serv 36:100913

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blanco J, Sourdril A, Deconchat M, Ladet S, Andrieu E (2018) Social drivers of rural forest dynamics: a multi-scale approach combining ethnography, geomatic and mental model analysis. Landsc Urban Plan. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.02.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blitzer EJ, Dormann CF, Holzschuh A, Klein A-M, Rand TA, Tscharntke T (2012) Spillover of functionally important organisms between managed and natural habitats. Agric Ecosyst Environ 146:34–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulanger V, Baltzinger C, Said S, Ballon P, Picard J-f, Dupouey J-L (2015) Decreasing deer browsing pressure influenced understory vegetation dynamics over 30 years. Ann For Sci 72:367–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braat LC (2018) Five reasons why the Science publication “Assessing nature’s contributions to people” (Diaz et al. 2018) would not have been accepted in ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 30:A1–A2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bretagnolle V, Gaba S (2015) Weeds for bees? A review. Agron Sustain Dev 35:891–909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burkhard B, Crossman N, Nedkov S, Petz K, Alkemade R (2013) Mapping and modelling ecosystem services for science, policy and practice. Ecosyst Serv Complete. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.04.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter S, Bennett E, Peterson G (2006) Scenarios for ecosystem services: an overview. Ecol Soc 1:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrié R, Andrieu E, Cunningham SA, Lentini PE, Loreau M, Ouin A (2017a) Relationships among ecological traits of wild bee communities along gradients of habitat amount and fragmentation. Ecography 40:85–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrié R, Andrieu E, Ouin A, Steffan-Dewenter I (2017b) Interactive effects of landscape-wide intensity of farming practices and landscape complexity on wild bee diversity. Landscape Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-017-0530-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaplin-Kramer R, O’Rourke M, Blitzer E, Kremen C (2011) A meta-analysis of crop pest and natural enemy response to landscape complexity. Ecol Lett 14:922–932

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Choisis JP, Thévenet C, Gibon A (2012) Analyzing farming systems diversity: a case study in south-western France. Span J Agric Res 10:605–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleaver F (2002) Reinventing institutions: bricolage and the social embeddedness of natural resource management. Eur J Dev Res 14:11–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clement F (2013) For critical social-ecological system studies: integrating power and discourses to move beyond the right institutional fit. Environ Conserv 40:1–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cochet H (2012) The systeme agraire concept in francophone peasant studies. Geoforum 43:128–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins S, Carpenter R, Swinton S, Gragson T, Orenstein D, Grimm N, Grove M, Harlan SL, Knapp A, Kofinas G, Magnuson J, McDowell W, Melack JM, Ogden LA, Robertson GP, Smith MD, Whitmer AC (2011) An integrated conceptual framework for social ecological research. Front Ecol Environ 9:351–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conseil de l’Europe (2000) European landscape convention

  • Costanza R, Andrade F, Antunes P, van den Belt M, Boesch D, Boersma D, Catarino F, Hanna S, Limburg K, Low B, Molitor M, Pereira JG, Rayner S, Santos R, Wilson J, Young M (1999) Ecological economics and sustainable governance of the oceans. Ecol Econ 31:171–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R, d'Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O'Neill RV, Paruelo J, Raskin RG, Sutton P & van den Belt M (1997) The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8009(98)00020-2

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Côté SD, Rooney TP, Tremblay J-P, Dussault C, Waller DM (2004) Ecological impacts of deer overabundance. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 35:113–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Da Ponte E, Kuenzer C, Parker A, Rodas O, Oppelt N, Fleckenstein M (2017) Forest cover loss in Paraguay and perception of ecosystem services: a case study of the Upper Parana Forest. Ecosyst Serv 24:200–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Mooney HA, Pejchar L, Ricketts TH, Salzman J, Shallenberger R (2009) Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front Ecol Environ 7:21–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daw T, Brown K, Rosendo S, Pomeroy R (2011) Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being. Environ Conserv 38:370–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 112:6949–6954

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • De Palma A, Abrahamczyk S, Aizen MA, Albrecht M, Basset Y, Bates A, Blake RJ, Boutin C, Bugter R, Connop S, Cruz-Lopez L, Cunningham SA, Darvill B, Diekotter T, Dorn S, Downing N, Entling MH, Farwig N, Felicioli A, Fonte SJ, Fowler R, Franzen M, Goulson D, Grass I, Hanley ME, Hendrix SD, Herrmann F, Herzog F, Holzschuh A, Jauker B, Kessler M, Knight ME, Kruess A, Lavelle P, Le Feon V, Lentini P, Malone LA, Marshall J, Pachon EM, McFrederick QS, Morales CL, Mudri-Stojnic S, Nates-Parra G, Nilsson SG, Ockinger E, Osgathorpe L, Parra A, Peres CA, Persson AS, Petanidou T, Poveda K, Power EF, Quaranta M, Quintero C, Rader R, Richards MH, Roulston T, Rousseau L, Sadler JP, Samnegard U, Schellhorn NA, Schuepp C, Schweiger O, Smith-Pardo AH, Steffan-Dewenter I, Stout JC, Tonietto RK, Tscharntke T, Tylianakis JM, Verboven HAF, Vergara CH, Verhulst J, Westphal C, Yoon HJ, Purvis A (2016) Predicting bee community responses to land-use changes: effects of geographic and taxonomic biases. Sci Rep. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep31153

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Deconchat M, Gibon A, Cabanettes A, du Bus de Warnaffe G, Hewison M, Garine E, Gavaland A, Lacombe J-P, Ladet S, Monteil C, Ouin A, Sarthou J-P, Sourdril A, Balent G (2007) How to set up a research framework to analyze social-ecological interactive processes in a rural landscape. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01990-120115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dendoncker N, Boeraeve F, Crouzat E, Dufrene M, König A, Barnaud C (2018) How can integrated valuation of ecosystem services help understanding and steering agroecological transitions? Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09843-230112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dendoncker N, Keune H, Jacobs S, Erik G-B (2013) Inclusive ecosystem services valuation. In: Ecosystem services: global issues, local practices, Elsevier, pp 3–12

  • Díaz S, Pascual U, Stenseke M, Martín-López B, Watson RT, Molnár Z, Hill R, Chan KMA, Baste IA, Brauman KA, Polasky S, Church A, Lonsdale M, Larigauderie A, Leadley PW, van Oudenhoven APE, van der Plaat F, Schröter M, Lavorel S, Aumeeruddy-Thomas Y, Bukvareva E, Davies K, Demissew S, Erpul G, Failler P, Guerra CA, Hewitt CL, Keune H, Lindley S, Shirayama Y (2018) Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 359:270–272

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Duru M, Therond O, Martin G, Martin-Clouaire R, Magne M-A, Justes E, Journet E-P, Aubertot J-N, Savary S, Bergez J-E, Sarthou JP (2015) How to implement biodiversity-based agriculture to enhance ecosystem services: a review. Agron Sustain Dev 35:1259–1281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egarter Vigl L, Depellegrin D, Pereira P, de Groot R, Tappeiner U (2017) Mapping the ecosystem service delivery chain: capacity, flow, and demand pertaining to aesthetic experiences in mountain landscapes. Sci Total Environ 574:422–436

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elyakime B, Cabanettes A (2013) Financial evaluation of two models for energy production in small French farm forests. Renew Energy 57:51–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fahrig L, Baudry J, Brotons L, Burel FG, Crist TO, Fuller RJ, Sirami C, Siriwardena GM, Martin J-L (2011) Functional landscape heterogeneity and animal biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Ecol Lett 14:101–112

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fedele G, Locatelli B, Djoudi H (2017) Mechanisms mediating the contribution of ecosystem services to human well-being and resilience. Ecosyst Serv 28:43–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Federico P, Hallam TG, McCracken GF, Purucker ST, Grant WE, Correa-Sandoval AN, Westbrook JK, Medellin RA, Cleveland CJ, Sansone CG, López JD, Betke M, Moreno-Valdez A, Kunz TH (2008) Brazilian free-tailed bats as insect pest regulators in transgenic and conventional cotton crops. Ecol Appl Publ Ecol Soc Am 18:826–837

    Google Scholar 

  • Felipe-Lucia MR, Martín-López B, Lavorel S, Berraquero-Díaz L, Escalera-Reyes J, Comín FA (2015) Ecosystem services flows: why stakeholders’ power relationships matter. PLoS ONE 10:e0132232

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fischer A, Eastwood A (2016) Coproduction of ecosystem services as human–nature interactions—an analytical framework. Land Use Policy 52:41–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol Econ 68:643–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franks JR (2011) The collective provision of environmental goods: a discussion of contractual issues. J Environ Plan Manag 54:637–660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuller R, Gill R (2001) Ecological impacts of increasing numbers of deer in British woodland. Forestry. https://doi.org/10.1093/forestry/74.3.193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galafassi D, Daw T, Munyi L, Brown K, Barnaud C, Fazey I (2017) Learning about social-ecological trade-offs. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08920-220102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garibaldi LA, Steffan-Dewenter I, Kremen C, Morales JM, Bommarco R, Cunningham SA, Carvalheiro LG, Chacoff NP, Dudenhöffer JH, Greenleaf SS, Holzschuh A, Isaacs R, Krewenka K, Mandelik Y, Mayfield MM, Morandin LA, Potts SG, Ricketts TH, Szentgyörgyi H, Viana BF, Westphal C, Winfree R, Klein AM (2011) Stability of pollination services decreases with isolation from natural areas despite honey bee visits. Ecol Lett 14:1062–1072

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garrido P, Elbakidze M, Angelstam P (2017) Stakeholders’ perceptions on ecosystem services in Östergötland’s (Sweden) threatened oak wood-pasture landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 158:96–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibon A (2005) Managing grassland for production, the environment and the landscape. Challenges at the farm and the landscape level. Livest Prod Sci 96:11–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibon A, Mottet A, Ladet S, Fily M (2006) Supporting livestock-farming to sustainable management of natural resources and landscapes: a case study in the Davantaygue valley (Pyrénées, France). In: Book of abstracts of the 57th annual meeting of the european association for animal production 12, 2006; 57 annual meeting of the european association for animal production, Antalya, TUR, 2006-09-17-2006-09-20, pp 98–98

  • Goldman LR, Thompson BH, Daily G (2007) Institutional incentives for managing the landscape: inducing cooperation for the production of ecosystem services. Ecol Econ 64:333–343

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Baggethun E, Ruiz-Pérez M (2011) Economic valuation and the commodification of ecosystem services. Prog Phys Geogr 35:613–628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guyot V, Castagneyrol B, Vialatte A, Deconchat M, Jactel H (2016) Tree diversity reduces pest damage in mature forests across Europe. Biol Lett 12:20151037

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hajer MA (1995) The politics of environmental discourse: ecological modernization and the policy process. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton SK (2015) The ecology of agricultural landscapes: long-term research on the path to sustainability. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holzschuh A, Dormann FC, Tscharntke T, Steffan-Dewenter I (2012) Mass-flowering crops enhance wild bee abundance. Oecologia 172:6

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Chang 28:263–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irby LR, Zidack WE, Johnson JB, Saltiel J (1996) Economic damage to forage crops by native ungulates as perceived by farmers and ranchers in montana. J Range Manag 49:375–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isaac M, Erickson B, Quashie-Sam S, Timmer V (2007) Transfer of knowledge on agroforestry management practices: the structure of farmer advice networks. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02196-120232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelemen E, Nguyen G, Gomiero T, Kovács E, Choisis J-P, Choisis N, Paoletti MG, Podmaniczky L, Ryschawy J, Sarthou J-P, Herzog F, Dennis P, Balázs K (2013) Farmers’ perceptions of biodiversity: lessons from a discourse-based deliberative valuation study. Land Use Policy 35:318–328

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King E, Cavender-Bares J, Balvanera P, Mwampamba T, Polasky S (2015) Trade-offs in ecosystem services and varying stakeholder preferences: evaluating conflicts, obstacles, and opportunities. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07822-200325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koschke L, Fürst C, Frank S, Makeschin F (2012) A multi-criteria approach for an integrated land-cover-based assessment of ecosystem services provision to support landscape planning. Ecol Ind 21:54–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kremen C, Williams NM, Aizen MA, Gemmill-Herren B, LeBuhn G, Minckley R, Packer L, Potts SG, Roulston T, Steffan-Dewenter I, Vázquez DP, Winfree R, Adams L, Crone EE, Greenleaf SS, Keitt TH, Klein A-M, Regetz J, Ricketts TH (2007) Pollination and other ecosystem services produced by mobile organisms: a conceptual framework for the effects of land-use change. Ecol Lett 10:299–314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar M, Kumar P (2008) Valuation of the Ecosystem services: a psycho-cultural perspective. Ecol Econ 64:808–819

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landis D (2016) Designing Agricultural Landscapes for Biodiversity-Based Ecosystem Services. Basic Appl Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2016.07.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larigauderie A, Mooney HA (2010) The Intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services: moving a step closer to an IPCC-like mechanism for biodiversity. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 2:9–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leeuwis C, van den Ban AW (2004) Communication for rural innovation: rethinking agricultural extension. Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lefebvre M, Espinosa M, Gomez y Paloma S, Paracchini ML, Piorr A, Zasada I (2015) Agricultural landscapes as multi-scale public good and the role of the common agricultural policy. J Environ Planning Manag 58:2088–2112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lescourret F, Magda D, Richard G, Adam-Blondon A-F, Baudry J, Bardy M, Doussan I, Dumont B, Lefèvre F, Litrico I, Martin-Clouaire R, Montuelle B, Pellerin S, Plantegenest M, Tancoigne E, Thomas A, Guyomard H, Soussana J-F (2015) A social–ecological approach to managing multiple agro-ecosystem services. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:68–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Losey JE, Vaughan M (2006) The economic value of ecological services provided by insects. Bioscience 56:311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maalouly M, Franck P, Bouvier J-C, Toubon J-F, Lavigne C (2013) Codling moth parasitism is affected by semi-natural habitats and agricultural practices at orchard and landscape levels. Agric Ecosyst Environ 169:33–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maass JM, Balvanera P, Castillo A, Daily GC, Mooney HA, Ehrlich P, Quesada M, Miranda A, Jaramillo VJ, García-Oliva F, Martínez-Yrizar A, Cotler H, López-Blanco J, Pérez-Jiménez A, Búrquez A, Tinoco C, Ceballos G, Barraza L, Ayala R, Sarukhán J (2005) Ecosystem services of tropical dry forests: insights from longterm ecological and social research on the Pacific coast of Mexico. Ecol Soc 10:1–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maine JJ, Boyles JG (2015) Bats initiate vital agroecological interactions in corn. Proc Nat Acad Sci 112:12438–12443

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Manuel-Navarrete D, Gallopín GC, Blanco M, Díaz-Zorita M, Ferraro DO, Herzer H, Laterra P, Murmis MR, Podestá GP, Rabinovich J, Satorre EH, Torres F, Viglizzo EF (2009) Multi-causal and integrated assessment of sustainability: the case of agriculturization in the Argentine Pampas. Environ Dev Sustain 11:621–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marrec R, Caro G, Miguet P, Badenhausser I, Plantegenest M, Vialatte A, Bretagnolle V, Gauffre B (2017) Spatiotemporal dynamics of the agricultural landscape mosaic drives distribution and abundance of dominant carabid beetles. Landscape Ecol 32:2383–2398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martín-López B, Gómez-Baggethun E, García-Llorente M, Montes C (2014) Trade-offs across value-domains in ecosystem services assessment. Ecol Ind 37:220–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga I, Amo DGD, 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • McLeod JG, Campbell CA, Dyck FB, Vera CL (1992) Optimum seeding date for winter wheat in Southwestern Saskatchewan. Agron J 84:86–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monteiro L, Lavigne C, Ricci B, Franck P, Toubon J-F, Sauphanor B (2013) Predation of codling moth eggs is affected by pest management practices at orchard and landscape levels. Agric Ecosyst Environ 166:4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreau C, Barnaud C, Mathevet R (2019) Conciliate agriculture with landscape and biodiversity conservation: a role-playing game to explore trade-offs among ecosystem services through social learning. Sustainability 11:310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morellet N, Moorter B, Cargnelutti B, Angibault J-M, Lourtet B, Merlet J, Ladet S, Hewison A (2011) Landscape composition influences roe deer habitat selection at both home range and landscape scale. Landscape Ecol 26:999–1010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosse D (1997) The symbolic making of a common property resource: history, ecology and locality in a tank-irrigated landscape in South India. Dev Change 28:467–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller F, de Groot R, Willemen L (2010) Ecosystem services at the landscape scale: the need for integrative approaches. Landscape 23:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Muradian R, Rival L (2012) Between markets and hierarchies: the challenge of governing ecosystem services. Ecosyst Serv 1:93–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson M (1971) The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups, second printing with new preface and appendix (Harvard Economic Studies). Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Opdam P, Coninx I, Dewulf A, Steingröver E, Vos C, van der Wal M (2016) Does information on landscape benefits influence collective action in landscape governance? Curr Opin Environ Sustain 18:107–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (1990) Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. The Political economy of institutions and decisions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2005) Understanding institutional diversity. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2010) Beyond markets and states: polycentric governance of complex economic systems. Am Econ Rev 100:641–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E, Gardner R, Walker J (1994) Rules, games, and common-pool resources. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl-Wostl C, Craps M, Dewulf A, Mostert E, Tabara D, Taillieu T (2007) Social Learning and water resources management. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-02037-120205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palomo I, Felipe-Lucia MR, Bennett EM, Martín-López B, Pascual U (2016) Chapter six—disentangling the pathways and effects of ecosystem service co-production. In: Woodward G, Bohan DA (eds) Advances in ecological research, vol 54. Ecosystem services: from biodiversity to society, Part 2. Academic Press, Cambridge, pp 245–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelosi C, Goulard M, Balent G (2010) The spatial scale mismatch between ecological processes and agricultural management: do difficulties come from underlying theoretical frameworks? Agric Ecosyst Environ 139:455–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson G, Harmáčková Z, Meacham M, Queiroz C, Jiménez-Aceituno A, Kuiper J, Malmborg K, Sitas N, Bennett E (2018) Welcoming different perspectives in IPBES: “nature’s contributions to people” and “ecosystem services”. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10134-230139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel D, Wilson C, McCullum C, Huang R, Dwen P, Flack J, Tran Q, Saltman T, Cliff B (1997) Economic and environmental benefits of biodiversity. Bioscience 47:747–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plieninger T, Kizos T, Bieling C, Le Dû-Blayo L, Budniok M-A, Bürgi M, Crumley C, Girod G, Howard P, Kolen J, Kuemmerle T, Milcinski G, Palang H, Trommler K, Verburg P (2015) Exploring ecosystem-change and society through a landscape lens: recent progress in European landscape research. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-07443-200205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Potschin M, Haines-Young R (2013) Landscapes, sustainability and the place-based analysis of ecosystem services. Landscape Ecol 28:1053–1065

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prager K (2015) Agri-environmental collaboratives as bridging organisations in landscape management. J Environ Manage 161:375–384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Prager K, Reed M, Scott A (2012) Encouraging collaboration for the provision of ecosystem services at a landscape scale—rethinking agri-environmental payments. Land Use Policy 29:244–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Primmer E, Furman E (2012) Operationalising ecosystem service approaches for governance: do measuring, mapping and valuing integrate sector-specific knowledge systems? Ecosyst Serv 1:85–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puech C, Poggi S, Baudry J, Aviron S (2015) Do farming practices affect natural enemies at the landscape scale? Landscape Ecol 30:125–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putman RJ, Moore NP (2002) Impact of deer in lowland Britain on agriculture, forestry and conservation habitats. Mammal Rev 28:141–164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 10:119–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rand AT, Tylianakis J, Tscharntke T (2006) Spillover edge effects: the dispersal of agriculturally subsidized insect natural enemies into adjacent natural habitats. Ecol Lett 9:603–614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM (2010) Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 107:5242–5247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond MC, Kenter JO, Plieninger T, Turner NJ, Alexander KA (2015) Comparing instrumental and deliberative paradigms underpinning the assessment of social values for cultural ecosystem services. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.07.033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond L, Vialatte A, Plantegenest M (2014) Combination of morphometric and isotopic tools for studying spring migration dynamics in Episyrphus balteatus. Ecosphere 5:art88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricci B, Franck P, Toubon J-F, Bouvier J-C, Sauphanor B, Lavigne C (2009) The influence of landscape on insect pest dynamics: a case study in southeastern France. Landscape Ecol 24:337–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robards MD, Schoon ML, Meek CL, Engle NL (2011) The importance of social drivers in the resilient provision of ecosystem services. Glob Environ Change 21:522–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson PG, Gross KL, Hamilton SK, Landis DA, Schmidt TM, Snapp SS, Swinton SM (2014) Farming for ecosystem services: an ecological approach to production agriculture. Bioscience 64:404–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez J, Beard J, Bennett E, Cumming G, Cork S, Agard J, Dobson A, Peterson G (2006) Trade-offs across space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01667-110128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Röling NG, Wagemakers MA (1998) A new practise: facilitating sustainable agriculture. In: Röling G, Wagemakers MA (eds) Facilitating sustainable agriculture: participatory learning and adaptive management in times of environmental uncertainty. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Roume A, Deconchat M, Raison L, Balent G, Ouin A (2011) Edge effects on ground beetles at the woodlot-field interface are short-range and asymmetrical. Agric For Entomol 13:395–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryschawy J, Joannon A, Choisis J-P, Gibon A, Le Gal P-Y (2013) Evaluating innovative scenarios to enhance mixed crop-livestock farms sustainability

  • Salliou N, Barnaud C (2017) Landscape and biodiversity as new resources for agro-ecology? Insights from farmers’ perspectives. Ecol Soc 22:16

    Google Scholar 

  • Salliou N, Barnaud C, Vialatte A, Monteil C (2017) A participatory Bayesian belief network approach to explore ambiguity among stakeholders about socio-ecological systems. Environ Modell Softw 96:199–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salliou N, Vialatte A, Monteil C, Barnaud C (2019) First use of participatory Bayesian modeling to study habitat management at multiple scales for biological pest control. Agron Sustain Dev 39:7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarthou J-P, Ouin A, Arrignon F, Barreau G, Bouyjou B (2005) Landscape parameters explain the distribution and abundance of Episyrphus balteatus (Diptera: Syrphidae). Eur J Entomol 102:539–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schellhorn NA, Gagic V, Bommarco R (2015) Time will tell: resource continuity bolsters ecosystem services. Trends Ecol Evol 30:524–530

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitz J, Hahn M, Brühl CA (2014) Agrochemicals in field margins—an experimental field study to assess the impacts of pesticides and fertilizers on a natural plant community. Agric Ecosyst Environ 193:60–69

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Scholte SSK, van Teeffelen AJA, Verburg PH (2015) Integrating socio-cultural perspectives into ecosystem service valuation: a review of concepts and methods. Ecol Econ 114:67–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Selman P (2006) Planning at the landscape scale, vol 12. RTPI library series edition, Routledge, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Shackleton CM, Ruwanza S, Sanni GKS, Bennett S, Lacy PD, Modipa R, Mtati N, Sachikonye M, Thondhlana G (2016) Unpacking Pandora’s box: understanding and categorising ecosystem disservices for environmental management and human wellbeing. Ecosystems 19:587–600

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirami C, Caplat P, Popy S et al (2017) Impacts of global change on species distributions: obstacles and solutions to integrate climate and land use. Glob Ecol Biogeogr 26:385–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith HF, Sullivan CA (2014) Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—farmers’ perceptions. Ecol Econ 98:72–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sourdril A, Andrieu E, Cabanettes A, Elyakime B, Ladet S (2012) How to maintain domesticity of usages in small rural forests? lessons from forest management continuity through a french case study. Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04746-170206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spangenberg JH, Görg C, Truong DT, Tekken V, Bustamante JV, Settele J (2014) Provision of ecosystem services is determined by human agency, not ecosystem functions. Four case studies. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manage 10:40–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stallman HR (2011) Ecosystem services in agriculture: determining suitability for provision by collective management. Ecol Econ 71:131–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swinton S, Lupi F, Robertson GP, Hamilton S (2007) Ecosystem services and agriculture: cultivating agricultural ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecol Econ 64:245–252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teixeira FZ, Bachi L, Blanco J, Zimmermann I, Welle I, Carvalho-Ribeiro SM (2019) Perceived ecosystem services (ES) and ecosystem disservices (EDS) from trees: insights from three case studies in Brazil and France. Landscape Ecol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00778-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Termorshuizen WJ, Opdam P (2009) Landscape services as a bridge between landscape ecology and sustainable development. Landscape Ecol 24:1037–1052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Therond O, Duru M, Roger-Estrade J, Richard G (2017) A new analytical framework of farming system and agriculture model diversities. A review. Agron Sustain Dev. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-017-0429-7

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Thierry H, Vialatte A, Choisis J-P, Gaudou B, Parry H, Monteil C (2017) Simulating spatially-explicit crop dynamics of agricultural landscapes: the ATLAS simulator. Ecol Inform 40:62–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson Hobbs N (1996) Modification of ecosystems by ungulates. J Wildl Manag 60:695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turkelboom F, Leone M, Jacobs S, Turkelboom F, Leone M, Jacobs S, Kelemen E, García-Llorente M, Baró F, Termansen M, Barton DN, Berry P, Stange E, Thoonen M, Kalóczkai Á, Vadineanu A, Castro AJ, Czúcz B, Röckmann C, Wurbs D, Odee D, Preda E, Gómez-Baggethun E, Rusch GM, Pastur GM, Palomo I, Dick J, Casaer J, van Dijk J, Priess JA, Langemeyer J, Mustajoki J, Kopperoinen L, Baptist MJ, 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 29:566–578

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasseur C, Joannon A, Aviron S, Burel F, Jean-Marc M, Baudry J (2013) The cropping systems mosaic: how does the hidden heterogeneity of agricultural landscapes drive arthropod populations? Agric Ecosyst Environ 166:3–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verburg PH, van Berkel DB, van Doorn AM, van Eupen M, van den Heiligenberg HARM (2010) Trajectories of land use change in Europe: a model-based exploration of rural futures. Landscape Ecol 25:217–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veres A, Petit S, Conord C, Lavigne C (2013) Does landscape composition affect pest abundance and their control by natural enemies? A review. Agric Ecosyst Environ 166:110–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vialatte A, Simon J-C, Dedryver C-A, Fabre F, Plantegenest M (2006) Tracing individual movements of aphids reveals preferential routes of population transfers in agroecosystems. Ecol Appl Publ Ecol Soc Am 16:839–844

    Google Scholar 

  • Vialatte A, Tsafack N, Hassan DA, Duflot R, Plantegenest M, Ouin A, Villenave-Chasset J, Ernoult A (2017) Landscape potential for pollen provisioning for beneficial insects favours biological control in crop fields. Landscape Ecol 32:465–480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Villamagna AM, Angermeier PL, Bennett EM (2013) Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: a conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery. Ecol Complex 15:114–121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vuillot C, Coron N, Calatayud F, Sirami C, Mathevet R, Gibon A (2016) Ways of farming and ways of thinking: do farmers’ mental models of the landscape relate to their land management practices? Ecol Soc. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08281-210135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J (2013) Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes. Landscape Ecol 28:999–1023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang W, Ricketts T, Kremen C, Carney K, Swinton S (2007) Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecol Econ 64:253–260

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the INRA Metaprogram Ecoserv for supporting part of their projects on ecosystem services.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dynafor, Université de Toulouse, INRA, INPT, INPT - EI PURPAN, Toulouse, Castanet-Tolosan, France

    Aude Vialatte, Cecile Barnaud, Julien Blanco, Annie Ouin, Jean-Philippe Choisis, Emilie Andrieu, David Sheeren, Sylvie Ladet, Marc Deconchat, Floriane Clément, Diane Esquerré & Clelia Sirami

  2. Ltser Zone Atelier « Pyrénées Garonne », 31320, Toulouse, Auzeville Tolosane, France

    Aude Vialatte, Cecile Barnaud, Julien Blanco, Annie Ouin, Jean-Philippe Choisis, Emilie Andrieu, David Sheeren, Sylvie Ladet, Marc Deconchat, Floriane Clément, Diane Esquerré & Clelia Sirami

Authors
  1. Aude Vialatte
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cecile Barnaud
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Julien Blanco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Annie Ouin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jean-Philippe Choisis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Emilie Andrieu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. David Sheeren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sylvie Ladet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Marc Deconchat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Floriane Clément
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Diane Esquerré
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Clelia Sirami
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aude Vialatte.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vialatte, A., Barnaud, C., Blanco, J. et al. A conceptual framework for the governance of multiple ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes. Landscape Ecol 34, 1653–1673 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00829-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-019-00829-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation