Limits...
A social-ecological analysis of ecosystem services in two different farming systems.

Andersson E, Nykvist B, Malinga R, Jaramillo F, Lindborg R - Ambio (2015)

Bottom Line: We show that the value (demand) placed on a service is not necessarily connected to the quantity (supply) of the service, most clearly shown for the services recreation, biodiversity, esthetic experience, identity, and cultural heritage.To better capture this complexity we argue for the need to develop portfolios of indicators for different ecosystem services and to further investigate the different aspects of supply and demand.If ecosystem services are to be included in policy, planning, and management, census data need to be formatted and scaled appropriately.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden, erik.andersson@su.se.

ABSTRACT
In this exploratory study we use existing in situ qualitative and quantitative data on biophysical and social indicators to compare two contrasting Swedish farming systems (low intensity and high intensity) with regard to ecosystem service supply and demand of a broad suite of services. We show that the value (demand) placed on a service is not necessarily connected to the quantity (supply) of the service, most clearly shown for the services recreation, biodiversity, esthetic experience, identity, and cultural heritage. To better capture this complexity we argue for the need to develop portfolios of indicators for different ecosystem services and to further investigate the different aspects of supply and demand. The study indicates that available data are often ill-suited to answer questions about local delivery of services. If ecosystem services are to be included in policy, planning, and management, census data need to be formatted and scaled appropriately.

No MeSH data available.


Study area and the two different farming systems. Pictures a, b show high-intensity farms and c, d low-intensity farms. e Shows the average land cover composition within 250 and 1000 m, respectively, from each farmhouse in the different farming systems
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4288997&req=5

Fig1: Study area and the two different farming systems. Pictures a, b show high-intensity farms and c, d low-intensity farms. e Shows the average land cover composition within 250 and 1000 m, respectively, from each farmhouse in the different farming systems

Mentions: The study area is situated in south-central Sweden in Uppsala County (Fig. 1), an area with fairly homogeneous climate. Despite the high northern latitude, the summers are warm, with July being the warmest month (average maximum temperature of 21 °C), and January the coldest (with an average minimum of −8 °C), with freezing spells that can last a number of consecutive days. Rainfall is higher during the summer months of the year (up to 60 mm/day), while less abundant in winter (up to 25 mm/day), accumulating around 530 mm per year. The two farming systems mainly differ in the proportion crop land (on average 6 % within a 5 km circle around farmhouses in the low-intensity system compared to 44 % around farmhouses in the high-intensity system) and of forest (78–41 % within 5 km from farm houses) surrounding the farms (often, if not always, in part owned and managed by the same farmers). The more forested landscape in north-east is characterized by primarily sandy soils, while soils in the south-west are dominated by clay.Fig. 1


A social-ecological analysis of ecosystem services in two different farming systems.

Andersson E, Nykvist B, Malinga R, Jaramillo F, Lindborg R - Ambio (2015)

Study area and the two different farming systems. Pictures a, b show high-intensity farms and c, d low-intensity farms. e Shows the average land cover composition within 250 and 1000 m, respectively, from each farmhouse in the different farming systems
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4288997&req=5

Fig1: Study area and the two different farming systems. Pictures a, b show high-intensity farms and c, d low-intensity farms. e Shows the average land cover composition within 250 and 1000 m, respectively, from each farmhouse in the different farming systems
Mentions: The study area is situated in south-central Sweden in Uppsala County (Fig. 1), an area with fairly homogeneous climate. Despite the high northern latitude, the summers are warm, with July being the warmest month (average maximum temperature of 21 °C), and January the coldest (with an average minimum of −8 °C), with freezing spells that can last a number of consecutive days. Rainfall is higher during the summer months of the year (up to 60 mm/day), while less abundant in winter (up to 25 mm/day), accumulating around 530 mm per year. The two farming systems mainly differ in the proportion crop land (on average 6 % within a 5 km circle around farmhouses in the low-intensity system compared to 44 % around farmhouses in the high-intensity system) and of forest (78–41 % within 5 km from farm houses) surrounding the farms (often, if not always, in part owned and managed by the same farmers). The more forested landscape in north-east is characterized by primarily sandy soils, while soils in the south-west are dominated by clay.Fig. 1

Bottom Line: We show that the value (demand) placed on a service is not necessarily connected to the quantity (supply) of the service, most clearly shown for the services recreation, biodiversity, esthetic experience, identity, and cultural heritage.To better capture this complexity we argue for the need to develop portfolios of indicators for different ecosystem services and to further investigate the different aspects of supply and demand.If ecosystem services are to be included in policy, planning, and management, census data need to be formatted and scaled appropriately.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Stockholm Resilience Centre, Stockholm University, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden, erik.andersson@su.se.

ABSTRACT
In this exploratory study we use existing in situ qualitative and quantitative data on biophysical and social indicators to compare two contrasting Swedish farming systems (low intensity and high intensity) with regard to ecosystem service supply and demand of a broad suite of services. We show that the value (demand) placed on a service is not necessarily connected to the quantity (supply) of the service, most clearly shown for the services recreation, biodiversity, esthetic experience, identity, and cultural heritage. To better capture this complexity we argue for the need to develop portfolios of indicators for different ecosystem services and to further investigate the different aspects of supply and demand. The study indicates that available data are often ill-suited to answer questions about local delivery of services. If ecosystem services are to be included in policy, planning, and management, census data need to be formatted and scaled appropriately.

No MeSH data available.