Table 5 Description of selected studies

1a

Balázsi Á., Dänhardt J., Collins S., Schweiger O., Settele J., Hartel T

Understanding cultural ecosystem services related to farmlands: Expert survey in Europe

2021

Land Use Policy

Agriculture

Europe

–

To assess the understanding and perceptions on the usefulness and acceptance of the cultural ecosystem services concept by experts working in the science-policy-implementation interface related to agricultural landscapes of Europe

Cultural:

Recreation and ecotourism; aesthetic, spiritual, religious, educational, cultural heritage values, inspiration, sense of places, knowledge systems, social relationships, and cultural diversity

1b

Bernués A., Rodríguez-Ortega T., Ripoll-Bosch R., Alfnes F

Socio-cultural and economic valuation of ecosystem services provided by Mediterranean mountain agroecosystems

2014

PLoS ONE

Farming

Guara Natural Park, northeast Espana

Meat sheep farming

Determine the economic, social, and cultural value of ecosystem services derived from mountain agroecosystems in the Euro-Mediterranean region

Cultural:

Maintenance of the agricultural landscape

Supporting:

Conservation of biodiversity; fire prevention

Provisioning:

Production of quality food linked to the territory

1c

Leroy G., Hoffmann I., From T., Hiemstra S.J., Gandini G

Perception of livestock ecosystem services in grazing areas

2018

Animal

Farming

42 countries (53.7% European e 46.3% extra-European)

General

Investigate how ecosystem services (except provisioning) related to livestock grazing are perceived across countries

Regulating:

Habitat; water quality; cycling regulation; clime and air; erosion and avalanche; bush encroachment; fire control; pest and disease; control of crop residues and eradication of weeds; seed dispersal

Cultural:

Cultural–historical and natural heritage; knowledge systems, educational, landscape, recreational, spiritual, and religious values

Supporting:

Nutrient cycling; support of primary production

1d

York E.C., Brunson M.W., Hulvey K.B

Influence of Ecosystem Services on Management Decisions by Public Land Ranchers in the Intermountain West, USA

2019

Rangeland Ecology and Management

Farming

Intermountain West—Western USA

Cattle (95%) and sheep (7%)

Identify which ES drive pasture management decisions

Regulating:

Control of crop residues and eradication of weeds, bush encroachment and fire, erosion, and avalanche; regulation of climate and air quality, pest and disease, quality and cyclin water; seed dispersal

Cultural:

Cultural, historical and natural heritage; knowledge systems; educational, landscape, recreational, spiritual and religious values

Provisioning:

Habitat; nutrient cycling

Supporting:

Support of primary production

1e

Boeraeve F., Dufrêne M., Dendoncker N., Dupire A., Mahy G

How are landscapes under agroecological transition perceived and appreciated? A Belgian case study

2020

Sustainability (Switzerland)

Agriculture and farming

Hainaut—Belgium

Cattle

Assess the extent to which locals (local inhabitants and Farmers) appreciate and view landscapes undergoing agricultural transitions

Regulating:

Water pollution, flood, and erosion protection; pest control; landscape aesthetics; soil fertility

Cultural:

Recreation and education inspiration; heritage; social cohesion

Supporting:

Biodiversity

Provisioning:

Food production

1a

Only this

81

Experts from the following areas of activity formed our target group: (a) sustainable agriculture, landscape ecology, grassland management; (b) nature conservation, cultural heritage conservation (i.e. conservationist profile); (c) ecosystem services research; (d) policy on environment and rural development

–

–

Social analysis through questionnaires by mail and post

The results show a wide knowledge and acceptance of the cultural ecosystem services concept within such expert communities. Especially the aesthetic, cultural heritage, educational and recreational values were considered the most relevant CES subcategories

1b

Yes

88

Five Focus Groups (FG): two with livestock farmers (n = 11) that used pastures within the park, and three with citizens (n = 22) residents in neighbouring cities

504

102 citizens of Guara Natural Park, 402 inhabitants of the Aragon region

Choice experiment

Cultural services (particularly the aesthetic and recreational values of the landscape), supporting services (biodiversity maintenance) and some regulating services (particularly fire risk prevention) were clearly recognised by both farmers and citizens. The prevention of forest fires (≈50% of total willingness to pay) was valued by the general population as a key ecosystem service delivered by these agroecosystems, followed by the production of specific quality products linked to the territory (≈20%), biodiversity (≈20%) and cultural landscapes (≈10%). The value given by local residents to the last two ecosystem services differed considerably (≈10 and 25% for biodiversity and cultural landscape, respectively). The Total Economic Value of mountain agroecosystems was ≈120 € person − 1 year − 1, three times the current level of support of agro-environmental policies

1c

Yes

Qualitative pilot survey by FAO in 2013

44 Europeans and 38 non-Europeans

Scientists and other experts working in grassland-related fields from 42 countries

Case study analysis

A large proportion of respondents reported either positive or very positive impacts for some cultural ES, namely cultural, historical and natural heritage (84%), knowledge systems and educational values (77%), landscape values (74%), and for some supporting and regulating ES, namely habitat provision (66%), nutrient cycling (65%), and bush encroachment/fire control (66%). Depending on the ES, between 0%, for spiritual and religious values, and 17%, for water quality and cycling regulation, respondents reported a negative or very negative impact. Respondents reported those impacts as more positive in Europe, in protected areas and where several species were present in the grazing area

1d

Yes

11

Professionals in cooperative state agencies

287

Ranchers

Qualitative analysis through data-gathering through semi-structured “key informant interviews” before and large-scale survey after

The analysis identified services ranchers believe rangelands provide. The most frequently selected were provisioning or cultural services: forage for livestock (98.4%), demonstrating good stewardship to the public or other ranchers (95.9%), and maintaining a family legacy for future generations (93.8%). The least frequently selected were oil and gas production (11.4%), renewable energy production (21.9%) and income from tourism, recreation experiences and hunting leases (22.3%)

1e

Only this

37

9 local inhabitants, 2 local farmers, 2 agroecological, 2 ES experts

–

–

Qualitative analysis by questionnaire and mixed linear model

Both locals and experts see the agroecological scenario as delivering more ES and the conventional scenario as delivering the least ES. The agroecological scenario was seen as the most appreciated and the one delivering the most ES, while the conventional one was the least appreciated and seen as the one delivering the least ES

2a

Bernués A., Tello-García E., Rodríguez-Ortega T., Ripoll-Bosch R., Casasús I

Agricultural practices, ecosystem services and sustainability in High Nature Value farmland: Unraveling the perceptions of farmers and nonfarmers

2016

Land Use Policy

Farming

Mountains of the Spanish Northeast (Central and pre-Pyrenees)

Meat cattle and sheep farming

Analyse the perceptions of farmers and nonfarmers regarding the relationships between agriculture and the environment in areas of naturalistic interest and the environment

Regulating:

Air quality, water flows, and climate regulation; disturbance (forest fires) and soil fertility/erosion prevention; water purification/waste management; pollination; biological control (pests)

Cultural:

Aesthetic; recreation/tourism; culture/art; spiritual experience; education/cognitive dev

Supporting:

Lifecycle maintenance; gene pool protection

Provisioning:

Food (meat and milk); water; raw materials (firewood, forage, mushrooms); genetic, medicinal, and ornamental resources

2b

López-Santiago C.A., Oteros-Rozas E., Martín-López B., Plieninger T., Martín E.G., González J.A

Using visual stimuli to explore the social perceptions of ecosystem services in cultural landscapes: The case of transhumance in Mediterranean Spain

2014

Ecology and Society

Agriculture and farming

Conquense Drove Road—Espana

Cattle and Sheep farming

Compare the perception of ES deriving from two different landscapes (pine forest and cultivated fields); investigate the perception of ES in landscapes with or without drove road dedicated to transhumance; analyse the links between the perception of ES and the socio-cultural and demographic characteristics of the sample

Regulating:

Air purification; plant regeneration; fire prevention; soil erosion control; habitat for species; connectivity

Cultural:

Aesthetic values; cultural identity; tourism; hunting; tranquillity/relaxation

Provisioning:

Feed for animals; gathering; food from agriculture; wood and timber; livestock

2c

Montrasio R., Mattiello S., Zucaro M., Genovese D., Battaglini L

The perception of ecosystem services of mountain farming and of a local cheese: An analysis for the touristic valorisation of an inner alpine area

2020

Sustainability (Switzerland)

Farming

Valli di Lanzo, Piedmont

Dairy cattle farming

Evaluate the community’s perception towards livestock farming in the Lanzo Valleys and the typical product; investigate the consumers’ habits and preferences to detect possible positive impacts on mountain tourism

Regulating:

Control of fire, invasive species, and soil erosion; Improvement in water quality; pollination

Cultural:

Cultural identity; environmental education; inspiration for arts and culture; maintenance of landscape; recreational opportunities; religious experiences

Supporting:

Habitat maintenance; maintenance of local breeds

Provisioning:

Food production; maintenance of biodiversity; production of fertilizers, wool, and leather

2a

Only this

88

Five Focus Groups (FG): one with farmers of meat sheep, mixed agriculture sheep, one with farmers of cattle farmers with few or no agricultural crops, and three with nonfarmers

–

–

Focus groups

The farmers were very knowledgeable of ecosystem services (particularly regulation), the interactions among them, and their relationships with agricultural practices, particularly grazing management. Nonfarmers were less knowledgeable of ecosystem services, particularly regulation, and identified fewer relationships with agricultural practices. However, nonfarmers were highly concerned about the provision of quality food products and several cultural ecosystem services

2b

Yes

Information collected from a study by Oteros-Rozas et al. (2012)

314

191 residents and 123 non-residents

Qualitative analysis by a questionnaire that includes visual stimuli

Overall, respondents recognized the higher capacity of forests to deliver a wider range of ecosystem services to society compared with croplands. Provisioning services were mostly associated with cropland, whereas regulating services and cultural ecosystem services tended to be related to forests. All three types of ecosystem services were more perceived by respondents when a drove road was present in each landscape. However, differences in the visual perception of ecosystem services supply and preference for transhumance landscapes emerged in relation to certain socio-demographic and cultural respondent characteristics such as a previous relationship with transhumance and agriculture, rural/urban origin and identity, environmental awareness, and cultural attachment to a place

2c

Only this

233

Residents and non-residents

–

–

Qualitative analysis by a questionnaire

The respondents had a very positive awareness of the impact of mountain livestock farming in the Lanzo Valleys. The most important perceived ESs are cultural identity and maintenance of local breeds. Women, non-residents, and respondents with an intermediate education level generally had a more positive perception of ESs. There was a very low perception of disservices derived from mountain animal farming

3a

Bernués A., Alfnes F., Clemetsen M., Eik L.O., Faccioni G., Ramanzin M., Ripoll-Bosch R., Rodríguez-Ortega T., Sturaro E

Exploring social preferences for ecosystem services of multifunctional agriculture across policy scenarios

2019

Ecosystem Services

Farming

Guara Natural Park (Espana), Aurland Municipality (Norway), Province of Trento (Italy)

Meat sheep farming (Espana), meat sheep farming and dairy goats farming (Norway), dairy cattle farming (Italy)

Analyse social preferences for ES and associated willingness to pay in three European multifunctional agroecosystems in Europe (Mediterranean, Atlantic, Alpine) under alternative agrienvironmental policy scenarios

Regulating:

Fire and water prevention; soil fertility in the Atlantic areas

Cultural:

Agricultural landscape maintenance

Supporting:

Biodiversity conservation

Provisioning:

High-quality food

3b

Bernués A., Rodríguez-Ortega T., Alfnes F., Clemetsen M., Eik L.O

Quantifying the multifunctionality of fjord and mountain agriculture by means of socio-cultural and economic valuation of ecosystem services

2015

Land Use Policy

Farming

Aurland, southeast Norway

Meat sheep farming and dairy goats farming

Define the value of the main functions performed by fjords and mountain agroecosystems in the Nordic countries by means of the ecosystem services framework

Regulating:

Soil fertility

Cultural:

Agricultural landscape

Supporting

Biodiversity

Provisioning:

Quality products linked to the territory

3d

Bielski S., Marks-Bielska R., Novikova A., Vaznonis B

Assessing the value of agroecosystem services in warmia and mazury province using choice experiments

2021

Agriculture (Switzerland)

Agriculture

Warmia e Mazury region—Poland

–

Assess the non-market values of agroecosystem services in an exceptionally environmentally rich area of the Warmia and Mazury region (Poland), identifying consumers’ preferences for them

Regulating:

Water quality

Cultural:

Agricultural landscape

Supporting:

Biodiversity

3e

Rewitzer S., Huber R., Grêt-Regamey A., Barkmann J

Economic valuation of cultural ecosystem service changes to a landscape in the Swiss Alps

2017

Ecosystem Services

Agriculture and farming

Visp—Swiss

Cattle

Advance the notion that the economic valuation of cultural ecosystem services is, principally, not more problematic than the economic valuation of non-cultural ecosystem services

Regulating:

Protection against natural hazards

Cultural:

Agricultural heritage; aesthetic value of landscape

Supporting:

Biodiversity

3a

Yes

–

Representative panellists

1044

Resident

Choice experiments and questionnaire

Some lessons were delivered. (i) Value of ES: biodiversity and regulating ecosystem services always produce welfare gains; people, however, perceive trade-offs between delivery of agricultural landscapes and quality food products. Nevertheless, preferences are heterogeneous and vary across regions, scenarios, and ES. (ii) Policymaking: society’s willingness to pay for ecosystem service delivery largely exceeds the current level of public support. Moreover, further abandonment and intensification of agriculture are clearly rejected by the public. (iii) Methodological: monetary valuation is context-dependent, and extrapolation of economic values can be misleading

3b

–

43; 312

Socio-cultural analysis: farmers (27), local businesses (9), representatives of governmental agencies (3) and non-profit organizations (4) involved in the conservation of environmental and cultural heritage

Choice experiment: Resident of Aurland (72) and inhabitant near Bergen (240)

Socio-cultural analysis and Choice experiment

The socio-cultural perceptions of multifunctionality among local stakeholders were similar, but differences in the relative importance of the functions reflected particular interests (agriculture compared with tourism). Both the local and the general populations attached great importance to the production and availability of quality foods. The general population showed very homogenous preferences among ecosystem services, but local people rated them very differently. Local people ranked a more agricultural landscape very high. The total economic value of fjord and mountain agroecosystem was 850 € per person per year. The willingness to pay for the provision of ecosystem services under a policy scenario of further development of multifunctional agriculture clearly exceeded the current level of public support. The welfare loss that society would experience in a scenario of further abandonment of agriculture was even greater

3d

–

–

–

353

Residents

Choice experiment

Residents were concerned about environmental issues that may be caused by agriculture. There was a demand for the provision of agroecosystem services. Marginal willingness to pay values were the highest for water quality (EUR 1.94), followed by wildlife population (EUR 1.02) and agricultural landscape (EUR 0.85)

3e

Yes

117

Local inhabitants

252

Local inhabitants

Pre-studies (semi-structured interviews, stakeholder workshop); pilot study (n = 117); discrete choice experiment

Citizen support was expressed for agricultural heritage and biodiversity-rich dry grasslands. Aesthetic impacts of settlement extension and grassland intensification reduced the economic value of development options impacting the Visp landscape. Estimated marginal willingness-to-pay ranged from 410 CHF (1 CHF approx. 0.8 EUR in 2013)/person/year for 60 additional ha of dry grassland to 833 CHF for the visual impact of settlement expansion (by changes of the tax bill)