Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Regional Environmental Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

  • Bardgett RD (2005) The biology of soil: a community and ecosystem approach. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrera-Bassols N, Zinck JA (2003) Ethnopedology: a worldwide view on the soil knowledge of local people. Geoderma 111:171–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrios E (2007) Soil biota, ecosystem services and land productivity. Ecol Econ 64:269–285

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Billgren C, Holmén H (2008) Approaching reality: comparing stakeholder analysis and cultural theory in the context of natural resource management. Land Use Policy 25:550–562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd J, Banzhaf S (2007) What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecol Econ 63:616–626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. http://www.teebweb.org, accessed 26 December 2010

  • Buijs AE, Fischer A, Rink D, Young JC (2008) Looking beyond superficial knowledge gaps: understanding public representations of biodiversity. Int J Biodiver Sci Manag 4:65–80

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 84:231–243

    Google Scholar 

  • Costanza R (2008) Ecosystem services: multiple classification systems are needed. Biol Conser 141:350–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 18:508–520

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Diaz S, Fargione J, Stuart Chapin F, Tilman D (2006) Biodiversity Loss Threatens Human Well-Being. PLoS Biol 4:1300–1305

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 104:20684–20689

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dominati E, Patterson M, Mackay A (2010) A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils. Ecol Econ 69:1858–1868

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 32:253–263

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Earl G, Curtis A, Allan C (2010) Towards a duty of care for biodiversity. Environ Manag 45:682–696

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eurostat (2010) Statistics explained. Agriculture and the environment. (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Agriculture_and_the_environment, 22/10/2010)

  • Fischer A, Young JC (2007) Understanding mental constructs of biodiversity: implications for biodiversity management and conservation. Biol Conser 136:271–282

    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 

  • 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 

  • Grace JB (1999) The factors controlling species density in herbaceous plant communities: an assessment. Perspect Plant Ecol Evol System 2:1–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grawitz M (2001). Méthodes des sciences sociales. Dalloz

  • Grimble R, Wellard K (1997) Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agric Syst 55:173–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haines-Young R (2009) Land use and biodiversity relationships. Land Use Policy 26:S178–S186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 75:3–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 134:559–570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Larrère R, Fleury P, Payant L (2007) La « nature » des éleveurs : sur les représentations de la biodiversité dans les Alpes du Nord. Ruralia. http://ruralia.revues.org/document1846.html

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, France

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 42:459–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 143:195–202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 59:47–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsden T, Sonnino R (2008) Rural development and the regional state: denying multifunctional agriculture in the UK. J Rural Stud 24:422–431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MEA (2005) Millennium ecosystem assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Island Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Menzel S, Teng J (2009) Ecosystem services as a stakeholder-driven concept for conservation science. Conserv Biol 24:907–909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 1:46–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan DL (1997) Focus groups as qualitative research, 2nd edn. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 122:392–398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • NEA (2010) Website of the UK National Ecosystem Assessment: http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/, accessed on 22 September 2010

  • 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 122:312–324

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 10

  • 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 5:32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quétier F, Lavorel S, Thuillier W, Davies I (2007) Plant-trait-based modelling assessment of ecosystem services sensitivity to land-use change. Ecol Appl 17:2377–2386

    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 

  • 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 90:1933–1949

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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–S123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 39:930–941

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sandhu HS, Wratten SD, Cullen R (2010) Organic agriculture and ecosystem services. Environ Sci Policy 13:1–7

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • 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 108:274–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simoncini R (2009) Developing an integrated approach to enhance the delivering of environmental goods and services by agro-ecosystems. Reg Environ Change 9:153–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh SP (2002) Balancing the approaches of environmental conservation by considering ecosystem services as well as biodiversity. Curr Sci 82:1331–1335

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 45:670–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 29:541–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 413–425

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 118:115–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Europe

    Google Scholar 

  • Vira B, Adams WM (2009) Ecosystem services and conservation strategy: beware the silver bullet. Conserv Lett 2:158–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 119:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank all participants of interviews for their contributions and the time they devoted to our study, as well as all the students and people who helped to conduct the interviews. We also thank Philippe Fleury and Fabien Quétier for their useful advice, and the Joseph Fourier Alpine Station for logistical support. This research was conducted on the long-term research site “Zone Atelier Alpes”, a member of the ILTER-Europe network (ZAA publication no xxxx) and on the LTER site “Stubai Valley”, a member of the Austrian LTSER Platform “Tyrolean Alps”. This work was supported by ANR, NERC and FWF through the FP6 BiodivERsA Eranet VITAL project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratoire d’Ecologie Alpine, CNRS UMR 5553, Université Joseph Fourier, BP 53, 38041, Grenoble Cedex 9, France

    Pénélope Lamarque & Sandra Lavorel

  2. Institute for Ecology, University of Innsbruck, Sternwartestrasse 15, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria

    Ulrike Tappeiner & Ute Szukics

  3. Soil and Ecosystem Ecology Laboratory, Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YQ, UK

    Catherine Turner & Richard D. Bardgett

  4. Institute for Sociology, University of Innsbruck, Universitätsstraße 15, 6020, Innsbruck, Austria

    Melanie Steinbacher & Markus Schermer

Authors
  1. Pénélope Lamarque
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ulrike Tappeiner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Catherine Turner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Melanie Steinbacher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Richard D. Bardgett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Ute Szukics
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Markus Schermer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Sandra Lavorel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pénélope Lamarque.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lamarque, P., Tappeiner, U., Turner, C. et al. Stakeholder perceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowledge on soil fertility and biodiversity. Reg Environ Change 11, 791–804 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-011-0214-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-011-0214-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation