4.7 Article

Coupling stakeholder assessments of ecosystem services with biophysical ecosystem properties reveals importance of social contexts

期刊

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
卷 23, 期 -, 页码 108-115

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.009

关键词

Stakeholder perceptions; Ecosystem properties; Nature conservation; Carbon sequestration; Forage production; Structural equation model

资金

  1. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research [01LL0911]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We asked whether different stakeholders perceive ecosystem services in similar ways and how these perceptions relate to measured ecosystem properties. Farmers and conservationists were asked to state (1) their preference for ecosystem services and (2) their perception about the value of several grassland vegetation units in providing these services. Additionally, biophysical parameters were collected on 46 plots. Structural equation models were applied to test which stakeholder perceptions corresponded to the data. For conservationists, the services regional belonging and soil fertility were related to conservation value, whereas farmers associated them with forage production. Conservationists' perception of forage production was related to biomass removal, groundwater level and income from forage production, whereas farmers focused on the potential of ecosystems to produce forage, rather than the actual land use. The conservation perception of farmers was related to low land use intensity, whereas the conservationists associated it with endangered meadow birds. Conservationists associated carbon sequestration with below-ground peat formation, but farmers with above-ground plant productivity. We conclude that perceptions of ecosystem services are strongly influenced by social contexts, involving livelihoods, interests and traditions. Use of stakeholder assessments to establish sustainable land management should consider the fact that stakeholders interpret ecosystem services with different meanings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据