通过农业实践共同生产生态系统服务:对巴西亚马逊地区支持小农的利益相关者的看法

IF 1 4区农林科学 Q3 AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Cahiers Agricultures Pub Date : 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1051/CAGRI/2021006

Antonio Gabriel Lima Resque, M. Piketty, E. Coudel, S. Messad, Christophe Le Page

{"title":"通过农业实践共同生产生态系统服务:对巴西亚马逊地区支持小农的利益相关者的看法","authors":"Antonio Gabriel Lima Resque, M. Piketty, E. Coudel, S. Messad, Christophe Le Page","doi":"10.1051/CAGRI/2021006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper investigates the perceptions of a diversity of stakeholders supporting smallholders in the eastern Brazilian Amazon about ecosystem services and agricultural practices. Our results come from 30 semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders in two contrasting municipalities in this region (Paragominas and Irituia). We identified 17 different ecosystem services and 15 agricultural practices. Using a multidimensional scaling (MDS), we differentiated the stakeholders’ perceptions of co-production of ecosystem services. The most mentioned ecosystem services are food supply, regulation of water cycles, soil fertility and erosion prevention. Overall, there is a positive perception that agricultural practices are providing ecosystem services. Biodiversity-based practices are associated with the provision of a broad range of ecosystem services whereas mechanical-chemical practices are mainly linked to food supply. Use of fire, deforestation and use of chemical pesticides are perceived as having most negative effects on the provision of ecosystem services. The type of activity performed by the stakeholders and their municipality are the main factors influencing their perception of ecosystem services co-production. In conclusion, the concept of co-production of ecosystem services related to agroecosystems is relevant as local actors recognize a diversity of effects of agricultural practices on service provision.","PeriodicalId":55294,"journal":{"name":"Cahiers Agricultures","volume":"17 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Co-production of ecosystem services through agricultural practices: perception of stakeholders supporting smallholders in the Brazilian Amazon\",\"authors\":\"Antonio Gabriel Lima Resque, M. Piketty, E. Coudel, S. Messad, Christophe Le Page\",\"doi\":\"10.1051/CAGRI/2021006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper investigates the perceptions of a diversity of stakeholders supporting smallholders in the eastern Brazilian Amazon about ecosystem services and agricultural practices. Our results come from 30 semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders in two contrasting municipalities in this region (Paragominas and Irituia). We identified 17 different ecosystem services and 15 agricultural practices. Using a multidimensional scaling (MDS), we differentiated the stakeholders’ perceptions of co-production of ecosystem services. The most mentioned ecosystem services are food supply, regulation of water cycles, soil fertility and erosion prevention. Overall, there is a positive perception that agricultural practices are providing ecosystem services. Biodiversity-based practices are associated with the provision of a broad range of ecosystem services whereas mechanical-chemical practices are mainly linked to food supply. Use of fire, deforestation and use of chemical pesticides are perceived as having most negative effects on the provision of ecosystem services. The type of activity performed by the stakeholders and their municipality are the main factors influencing their perception of ecosystem services co-production. In conclusion, the concept of co-production of ecosystem services related to agroecosystems is relevant as local actors recognize a diversity of effects of agricultural practices on service provision.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55294,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cahiers Agricultures\",\"volume\":\"17 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cahiers Agricultures\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1051/CAGRI/2021006\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cahiers Agricultures","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1051/CAGRI/2021006","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 3

摘要

本文调查了巴西东部亚马逊地区支持小农的各种利益相关者对生态系统服务和农业实践的看法。我们的结果来自对该地区两个截然不同的城市(Paragominas和Irituia)的主要利益相关者进行的30次半结构化访谈。我们确定了17种不同的生态系统服务和15种农业实践。利用多维尺度(MDS)，我们区分了利益相关者对生态系统服务共同生产的看法。提到最多的生态系统服务是食物供应、水循环调节、土壤肥力和防止侵蚀。总体而言，人们对农业实践提供生态系统服务的看法是积极的。基于生物多样性的做法与提供广泛的生态系统服务有关，而机械化学做法主要与粮食供应有关。人们认为，使用火、砍伐森林和使用化学农药对提供生态系统服务的负面影响最大。利益相关者及其市政当局开展的活动类型是影响他们对生态系统服务共同生产看法的主要因素。总之，联合生产与农业生态系统有关的生态系统服务的概念是相关的，因为当地行动者认识到农业做法对服务提供的各种影响。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Co-production of ecosystem services through agricultural practices: perception of stakeholders supporting smallholders in the Brazilian Amazon

This paper investigates the perceptions of a diversity of stakeholders supporting smallholders in the eastern Brazilian Amazon about ecosystem services and agricultural practices. Our results come from 30 semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders in two contrasting municipalities in this region (Paragominas and Irituia). We identified 17 different ecosystem services and 15 agricultural practices. Using a multidimensional scaling (MDS), we differentiated the stakeholders’ perceptions of co-production of ecosystem services. The most mentioned ecosystem services are food supply, regulation of water cycles, soil fertility and erosion prevention. Overall, there is a positive perception that agricultural practices are providing ecosystem services. Biodiversity-based practices are associated with the provision of a broad range of ecosystem services whereas mechanical-chemical practices are mainly linked to food supply. Use of fire, deforestation and use of chemical pesticides are perceived as having most negative effects on the provision of ecosystem services. The type of activity performed by the stakeholders and their municipality are the main factors influencing their perception of ecosystem services co-production. In conclusion, the concept of co-production of ecosystem services related to agroecosystems is relevant as local actors recognize a diversity of effects of agricultural practices on service provision.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Cahiers Agricultures 农林科学-农业综合

CiteScore

2.00

自引率

22.20%

发文量

审稿时长

3 months

期刊介绍： Cahiers Agricultures is a - mainly - French language scientific journal on world farming systems, how they are changing and their role in society. It is aimed at all those – researchers, field workers, teachers – who are interested in a holistic reflection on the agricultural world. Cahiers Agricultures gives priority to research on agriculture as implemented by farmers, that has meaning for citizens in countries in the North and South, as opposed to research work conducted in a controlled environment (laboratory, research center, etc.). Research of this type is often multidisciplinary and takes into account the knowledge and know-how of the different stakeholders. The different parties are also actively involved in research, alongside the scientists. In this way, the journal stimulates debate on issues linked to society, such as the impact of using water and nitrogen fertilisers, peri-urban farming, fish farming, livestock production in rural areas, food security, etc.