Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding human–nature connections through value networks: the case of ancient wood-pastures of Central Romania

  • Special Feature: Original Article
  • Agroforestry for Sustainable Landscape Management
  • Published:
Sustainability Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Scattered woody vegetation generates multiple socio-economic and environmental benefits to the rural communities. Disregarding values associated with woody vegetation on pastures can decouple individuals from traditional management practices, resulting in the loss of biodiversity-rich farming landscapes. Here we employ semi-structured interviews and network analysis to understand the value networks attributed to scattered mature and large old trees in traditional wood-pastures of Central Romania. In our approach, values connect people to trees as well as other people when all share the same appreciation for trees. Farmers assigned 18 values to the scattered mature and large old trees on wood-pastures. Mature trees were appreciated mainly for their tangible benefits. The removal of a single value (i.e., shade value for livestock) decoupled a large proportion of farmers from the mature tree value network. Conversely, large old trees were appreciated for their socio-cultural values (e.g., identity, history). For these trees, the removal of individual socio-cultural values decoupled a relatively small number of people from the network. We suggest that the adoption of a value network approach to understanding multifunctional farming landscapes such as wood-pastures is important because it allows for (1) the understanding of the connections between people and landscape features (e.g., trees) as well as between people (i.e., through sharing the same values for trees), (2) the inclusion of values in the social–ecological monitoring projects and the understanding of the role of various local initiatives and land ownership forms in shaping the value network, and (3) facilitating the understanding of the circumstances of how formal regulatory policies may influence the multifunctional farming landscape as a social–ecological system.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abbasi A, Hossain L, Leydesdorff L (2012) Betweenness centrality as a driver of preferential attachment in the evolution of research collaboration networks. J Informetr 6:403–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Abrahams B, Sitas N, Esler KJ (2019) Exploring the dynamics of research collaborations by mapping social networks in invasion science. J Environ Manag 229:27–37

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Abson DJ, Fischer J, Leventon J, Newig J, Schomerus T, Vilsmaier U, von Wehrden H, Abernethy P, Ives CD, Jager NW, Lang DJ (2017) Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio 46:30–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Agneessens F, Borgatti SP, Everett MG (2017) Geodesic based centrality: unifying the local and the global. Soc Netw 49:12–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Balázsi Á, Riechers M, Hartel T, Leventon J, Fischer J (2019) The impacts of social-ecological system change on human-nature connectedness: a case study from Transylvania, Romania. Land Use Policy 89:104232

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaufoy G, Blom S, Hartel T, Jones G, Popa R, Poux X, Ruiz J (2015) Europe’s wood pastures: condemned to a slow death by the CAP? A test case for EU agriculture and biodiversity policy. European Forum on Nature Conservation and Pastoralism. Printed by Digitallcategories.

  • Berardo R, Alcañiz I, Hadden J, Jasny L (2016) Networks and the Politics of the Environment. In: Victor Jennifer Nicoll, Montgomery Alexander H, Lubell Mark (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Networks. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 611–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergmeier E, Petermann J, Schröder E (2010) Geobotanical survey of wood-pasture habitats in Europe: diversity, threats and conservation. Biodivers Conserv 19:2995–3014

    Google Scholar 

  • Birge T, Herzon I (2014) Motivations and experiences in managing rare semi-natural biotopes: a case from Finland. Land Use Policy 41:128–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanco J, Sourdril A, Deconchat M, Ladet S, Andrieu E (2019) Social drivers of rural forest dynamics: a multi-scale approach combining ethnography, geomatic and mental model analysis. Landsc Urban Plan 188:132–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobiec A, Podlaski R, Ortyl B, Korol M, Havryliuk S, Öllerer K, Ziobro JM, Pilch K, Dychkevych V, Dudek T, Mázsa K, Varga A, Angelstam P (2019) Top-down segregated policies undermine the maintenance of traditional wooded landscapes: evidence from oaks at the European Union’s eastern border. Landsc Urban Plan 189:247–259

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodin Ö, Alexander SM, Baggio J, Barnes ML, Berardo R, Cumming GS, Dee LE, Fischer AP, Fischer M, Mancilla Garcia M, Guerrero AM, Hileman J, Ingold K, Matous P, Morrison TH, Nohrstedt D, Pittman J, Robins G, Sayles JS (2019) Improving network approaches to the study of complex social–ecological interdependencies. Nat Sustain 2:551–559

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonacich P (1987) Power and centrality—a family of measures. Am J Sociol 92:1170–1182

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonacich P (2007) Some unique properties of eigenvector centrality. Soc Netw 29:555–564

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti SP (2002) Netdraw network visualisation. Harvard, MA, Analytic Technologies

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti SP, Everett MG (1997) Network analysis of 2-mode data. Soc Netw 19:243–269

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC (2002) Ucinet 6 for Windows: Software for Social Network Analysis. Analytic Technologies, Harvard, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti S, Everett M, Johnson J (2013) Analyzing social networks. SAGE Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Buter RK, Van Raan AFJ (2013) Identification and analysis of the highly cited knowledge base of sustainability science. Sustain Sci 8:253–267

    Google Scholar 

  • 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) Opinion: why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113:1462

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fagerholm N, Torralba M, Moreno G, Girardello M, Herzog F, Aviron S, Burgess P, Crous-Duran J, Ferreiro-Domínguez N, Graves A, Hartel T, Măcicăsan V, Kay S, Pantera A, Varga A, Plieninger T (2019) Cross-site analysis of perceived ecosystem service benefits in multifunctional landscapes. Glob Environ Chang 56:134–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielke SJ, Bardsley DK (2014) Regional agricultural governance in peri-urban and rural South Australia: strategies to improve multifunctionality. Sustain Sci 10:231–243

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Garrido P, Elbakidze M, Angelstam P, Plieninger T, Pulido F, Moreno G (2017) Stakeholder perspectives of wood-pasture ecosystem services: a case study from Iberian dehesas. Land Use Policy 60:324–333

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Baggethun E, MingorrÍa S, Reyes-GarcÍa V, Calvet L, Montes C (2010) Traditional ecological knowledge trends in the transition to a market economy: empirical study in the Doñana natural areas. Conserv Biol 24:721–729

    Google Scholar 

  • Haggar J, Pons D, Saenz L, Vides M (2019) Contribution of agroforestry systems to sustaining biodiversity in fragmented forest landscapes. Agr Ecosyst Environ 283:106567

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison PA, Dunford R, Barton DN, Kelemen E, Martín-López B, Norton L, Termansen M, Saarikoski H, Hendriks K, Gómez-Baggethun E, Czúcz B, García-Llorente M, Howard D, Jacobs S, Karlsen M, Kopperoinen L, Madsen A, Rusch G, van Eupen M, Verweij P, Smith R, Tuomasjukka D, Zulian G (2018) Selecting methods for ecosystem service assessment: a decision tree approach. Ecosyst Serv 29:481–498

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartel T (2018) Instrumental, intrinsic and relational values related to traditional wood pastures in Transylvania. In: Local environmental problems and answers in Hungary and Romania. Scientia Publishing, pp 29–45

  • Hartel T, Plieninger T (2014) European wood-pastures in transition - A social-ecological approach. Earthscan from Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, London & New York.

  • Hartel T, Dorresteijn I, Klein C, Mathe O, Moga CI, Ollerer K, Roellig M, von Wehrden H, Fischer J (2013) Wood-pastures in a traditional rural region of Eastern Europe: characteristics, management and status. Biol Cons 166:267–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartel T, Hanspach J, Abson DJ, Mathe O, Moga CI, Fischer J (2014) Bird communities in traditional wood-pastures with changing management in Eastern Europe. Basic Appl Ecol 15:385–395

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartel T, Plieninger T, Varga A (2015) Wood-pastures in Europe. In: Kirby K, Watkins C (eds) Europe’s changing woods and forests: from wildwood to managed landscapes. CABI Publishing, UK/USA.

  • Hartel T, Reti KO, Craioveanu C (2017) Valuing scattered trees from wood-pastures by farmers in a traditional rural region of Eastern Europe. Agr Ecosyst Environ 236:304–311

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartel T, Hanspach J, Moga CI, Holban L, Szapanyos A, Tamas R, Hovath C, Reti KO (2018) Abundance of large old trees in wood-pastures of Transylvania (Romania). Sci Total Environ 613–614:263–270

    Google Scholar 

  • Horcea-Milcu AI, Abson DJ, Dorresteijn I, Loos J, Hanspach J, Fischer J (2018) The role of co-evolutionary development and value change debt in navigating transitioning cultural landscapes: the case of Southern Transylvania. J Environ Plan Manag 61:800–817

    Google Scholar 

  • Hossu CA, Iojă I-C, Onose DA, Niță MR, Popa A-M, Talabă O, Inostroza L (2019) Ecosystem services appreciation of urban lakes in Romania. Synergies and trade-offs between multiple users. Ecosyst Serv 37:100937

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 26–27:106–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang Z-Y, Zeng Y, Liu Z-H, Ma J-F (2019) Identifying critical nodes’ group in complex networks. Phys A 514:121–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Kovács E, Kelemen E, Kiss G, Kalóczkai Á, Fabók V, Mihók B, Megyesi B, Pataki G, Bodorkós B, Balázs B, Bela G, Margóczi K, Roboz Á, Molnár D (2017) Evaluation of participatory planning: lessons from Hungarian natura 2000 management planning processes. J Environ Manag 204:540–550

    Google Scholar 

  • Kremen C, Merenlender AM (2018) Landscapes that work for biodiversity and people. Science 362(6412):eaau6020

    Google Scholar 

  • Langemeyer J, Gómez-Baggethun E, Haase D, Scheuer S, Elmqvist T (2016) Bridging the gap between ecosystem service assessments and land-use planning through Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). Environ Sci Policy 62:45–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno Merino L, Imbern Fernández N, Durán Valsero JJ, Aguilera H (2018) Concentrating solar power plants versus groundwater resources in Mediterranean areas of Spain: the environmental dilemma. J Environ Manag 206:409–417

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosquera-Losada MR, Santiago-Freijanes JJ, Rois-Díaz M, Moreno G, den Herder M, Aldrey-Vázquez JA, Ferreiro-Domínguez N, Pantera A, Pisanelli A, Rigueiro-Rodríguez A (2018) Agroforestry in Europe: a land management policy tool to combat climate change. Land Use Policy 78:603–613

    Google Scholar 

  • Nita A (2019) Empowering impact assessments knowledge and international research collaboration—a bibliometric analysis of environmental impact assessment review journal. Environ Impact Assess Rev 78:106283

    Google Scholar 

  • Özesmi U, Özesmi SL (2004) Ecological models based on people’s knowledge: a multi-step fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Ecol Model 176:43–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Partelow S (2018) A review of the social-ecological systems framework: applications, methods, modifications, and challenges. Ecol Soc 23(4):36

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 Cons 190:70–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Raymond CM, Frantzeskaki N, Kabisch N, Berry P, Breil M, Nita MR, Geneletti D, Calfapietra C (2017) A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environ Sci Policy 77:15–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Roellig M, Costa A, Garbarino M, Hanspach J, Hartel T, Jakobsson S, Lindborg R, Mayr S, Plieninger T, Sammul M, Varga A, Fischer J (2018) Post hoc assessment of stand structure across European wood-pastures: implications for land use policy. Rangel Ecol Manag 71:526–535

    Google Scholar 

  • Rozylowicz L, Nita A, Manolache S, Popescu VD, Hartel T (2019) Navigating protected areas networks for improving diffusion of conservation practices. J Environ Manag 230:413–421

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnegg M (2018) Institutional multiplexity: social networks and community-based natural resource management. Sustain Sci 13:1017–1030

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern PC, Dietz T (1994) The value basis of environmental concern. J Soc Issues 50:65–84

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutcliffe LM, Paulini I, Jones G, Marggraf R, Page N (2013) Pastoral commons use in Romania and the role of the common agricultural policy. Int J Commons 7:58–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Swapan MSH, Iftekhar MS, Li X (2017) Contextual variations in perceived social values of ecosystem services of urban parks: a comparative study of China and Australia. Cities 61:17–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Torralba M, Fagerholm N, Hartel T, Moreno G, Plieninger T (2018) A social-ecological analysis of ecosystem services supply and trade-offs in European wood-pastures. Sci Adv 4:eaar2176

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2010) Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84:523–538

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research (https://uefiscdi.gov.ro), PN-III-P4-ID-PCE-2016-0483. We would like to thank the farmers who participated in the interviews and Árpád Szapanyos for help in data collection. We thank the three anonymous reviewers for comments and suggestions and Edward F. Rozylowicz for proofreading and suggestions, which helped us to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Tibor Hartel and Andreea Nita have contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Hungarian Department of Biology and Ecology and Center of Systems Biology, Biodiversity and Bioresources (Center of “3B”), Babes‐Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania

    Tibor Hartel

  2. Center for Environmental Research, University of Bucharest, 1 Nicolae Balcescu Blvd., 010041, Bucharest, Romania

    Tibor Hartel, Andreea Nita & Laurentiu Rozylowicz

Authors
  1. Tibor Hartel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andreea Nita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Laurentiu Rozylowicz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

TH, AN, and LR designed the methodology and performed the analyses. TH, AN, and LR wrote the manuscript. TH and AN contributed equally to this manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andreea Nita.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Handled by Tobias Plieninger, Georg-August-Universitat Gottingen, Germany.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 20 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hartel, T., Nita, A. & Rozylowicz, L. Understanding human–nature connections through value networks: the case of ancient wood-pastures of Central Romania. Sustain Sci 15, 1357–1367 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00811-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00811-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation