Stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes: A case study in the North China Plain

IF 6.1 1区农林科学 Q1 AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Agricultural Systems Pub Date : 2024-11-29 DOI:10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104187

Jiali Cheng , Andries Richter , Wen-Feng Cong , Zhan Xu , Zhengyuan Liang , Chaochun Zhang , Fusuo Zhang , Wopke van der Werf , Jeroen C.J. Groot

{"title":"Stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes: A case study in the North China Plain","authors":"Jiali Cheng , Andries Richter , Wen-Feng Cong , Zhan Xu , Zhengyuan Liang , Chaochun Zhang , Fusuo Zhang , Wopke van der Werf , Jeroen C.J. Groot","doi":"10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>CONTEXT</h3><div>Intensive agriculture is under pressure from changing demands from society, prompting the need to redesign agricultural landscapes to provide multiple ecosystem services (ESs). However, implementation of changed practices requires positive engagement from stakeholders. Therefore, their perspective on ecosystem services needs to be known.</div></div><div><h3>OBJECTIVE</h3><div>This study investigates stakeholders' perspectives on multiple ESs in Quzhou County, an area in the North China Plain used for intensified cereal production. We aim to elucidate perspectives within and across diverse stakeholder groups (farmers, companies, citizens, academics, village and township heads, and county government staff).</div></div><div><h3>METHODS</h3><div>Employing the Q methodology, we identified differences in perspectives within stakeholder groups and we compared the similarities and differences of those perspectives across stakeholder groups. We also investigated how farmers' personal and household characteristics were related to the perspectives they held.</div></div><div><h3>RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS</h3><div>Significant differences in preference emerged among stakeholder groups. Academics assigned higher importance to regulating and supporting services than other stakeholder groups and companies assigned less importance to cultural services. We identified 18 distinct perspectives across seven stakeholder groups. These perspectives showed a combination of preferences for at least two different ES categories. Most of the perspectives prioritize provisioning services whereas only few perspectives prioritize supporting services.</div></div><div><h3>SIGNIFICANCE</h3><div>This study exemplifies a bottom-up approach for systematically analyzing stakeholder perspectives on the relative importance of ESs derived from agricultural landscapes. The revealed differences and complexity of stakeholder perspectives can inform decision-making on the redesign of agricultural landscapes with stakeholder engagement. Recognizing areas of consensus and conflict can guide efforts to promote agroecologically sound practices and policies.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7730,"journal":{"name":"Agricultural Systems","volume":"223 ","pages":"Article 104187"},"PeriodicalIF":6.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Agricultural Systems","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X24003378","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

CONTEXT

Intensive agriculture is under pressure from changing demands from society, prompting the need to redesign agricultural landscapes to provide multiple ecosystem services (ESs). However, implementation of changed practices requires positive engagement from stakeholders. Therefore, their perspective on ecosystem services needs to be known.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigates stakeholders' perspectives on multiple ESs in Quzhou County, an area in the North China Plain used for intensified cereal production. We aim to elucidate perspectives within and across diverse stakeholder groups (farmers, companies, citizens, academics, village and township heads, and county government staff).

METHODS

Employing the Q methodology, we identified differences in perspectives within stakeholder groups and we compared the similarities and differences of those perspectives across stakeholder groups. We also investigated how farmers' personal and household characteristics were related to the perspectives they held.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

Significant differences in preference emerged among stakeholder groups. Academics assigned higher importance to regulating and supporting services than other stakeholder groups and companies assigned less importance to cultural services. We identified 18 distinct perspectives across seven stakeholder groups. These perspectives showed a combination of preferences for at least two different ES categories. Most of the perspectives prioritize provisioning services whereas only few perspectives prioritize supporting services.

SIGNIFICANCE

This study exemplifies a bottom-up approach for systematically analyzing stakeholder perspectives on the relative importance of ESs derived from agricultural landscapes. The revealed differences and complexity of stakeholder perspectives can inform decision-making on the redesign of agricultural landscapes with stakeholder engagement. Recognizing areas of consensus and conflict can guide efforts to promote agroecologically sound practices and policies.

Abstract Image

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Agricultural Systems 农林科学-农业综合

CiteScore

13.30

自引率

7.60%

发文量

174

审稿时长

30 days

期刊介绍： Agricultural Systems is an international journal that deals with interactions - among the components of agricultural systems, among hierarchical levels of agricultural systems, between agricultural and other land use systems, and between agricultural systems and their natural, social and economic environments. The scope includes the development and application of systems analysis methodologies in the following areas: Systems approaches in the sustainable intensification of agriculture; pathways for sustainable intensification; crop-livestock integration; farm-level resource allocation; quantification of benefits and trade-offs at farm to landscape levels; integrative, participatory and dynamic modelling approaches for qualitative and quantitative assessments of agricultural systems and decision making; The interactions between agricultural and non-agricultural landscapes; the multiple services of agricultural systems; food security and the environment; Global change and adaptation science; transformational adaptations as driven by changes in climate, policy, values and attitudes influencing the design of farming systems; Development and application of farming systems design tools and methods for impact, scenario and case study analysis; managing the complexities of dynamic agricultural systems; innovation systems and multi stakeholder arrangements that support or promote change and (or) inform policy decisions.