Skip to main content

Table 5 Description of selected studies

From: Public perception of ecosystem and social services produced by Sardinia extensive dairy sheep farming systems

RQ 1: Has previous literature analysed the population's perception towards ASOs in the context of agroecosystems?
Authors Title Years Journal Sector considered Reference Area Type of farming considered Aim of the analysis Ecosystem services considered
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
RQ 1: Has previous literature analysed the population's perception towards ASOs in the context of agroecosystems?
  Preliminary phase Users interviewed (preliminary phase) Type of users interviewed (preliminary phase) Users interviewed (secondary phase) Type of users interviewed (secondary phase) Methodology Results
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
RQ 2: Is there evidence for which ASOs provided by the primary sector are most appreciated?
  Authors Title Years Journal Sector considered Reference Area Type of farming considered Aim of the analysis Ecosystem services considered
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
RQ 2: Is there evidence for which ASOs provided by the primary sector are most appreciated?
  Preliminary phase Users interviewed (preliminary phase) Type of users interviewed (preliminary phase) Users interviewed (secondary phase) Type of users interviewed (secondary phase) Methodology Results
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
RQ 3: Has previous literature provided an economic evaluation of primary sector ASOs, especially concerning breeding systems?
  Authors Title Years Journal Sector considered Reference area Type of farming considered Aim of the analysis Ecosystem services considered
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
RQ 3: Has previous literature provided an economic evaluation of primary sector ASOs, especially concerning breeding systems?
  Preliminary phase Users interviewed (preliminary phase) Type of users interviewed (preliminary phase) Users interviewed (secondary phase) Type of users interviewed (secondary phase) Methodology Results
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)