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.


Comparisons between low- and high-intensity farms. The bars to the left shows normalized differences with the highest value for each variable set to 1. The figures in the two right-most columns show the actual values for each indicator. The P variables are either measured at the near-farmhouse scale or at the landscape scale. All S variables are measured at the farm level
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4288997&req=5

Fig2: Comparisons between low- and high-intensity farms. The bars to the left shows normalized differences with the highest value for each variable set to 1. The figures in the two right-most columns show the actual values for each indicator. The P variables are either measured at the near-farmhouse scale or at the landscape scale. All S variables are measured at the farm level

Mentions: Both empirical and census data were coded and translated into indicators with values between 0 and 1 (Fig. 2). For the interview data (variables S1–S11, see Electronic Supplementary Material, Table 10.1007/s13280-013-0603-3), emergent patterns on values were further aggregated using selected codes representing core categories of values (sensu Bowen 2008). Each interview was translated to nominal variables stating presence of expressed values in these selected categories. Each indicator was then represented as the number of interviewees expressing the value relative to the total.Fig. 2


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

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

Comparisons between low- and high-intensity farms. The bars to the left shows normalized differences with the highest value for each variable set to 1. The figures in the two right-most columns show the actual values for each indicator. The P variables are either measured at the near-farmhouse scale or at the landscape scale. All S variables are measured at the farm level
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

Fig2: Comparisons between low- and high-intensity farms. The bars to the left shows normalized differences with the highest value for each variable set to 1. The figures in the two right-most columns show the actual values for each indicator. The P variables are either measured at the near-farmhouse scale or at the landscape scale. All S variables are measured at the farm level
Mentions: Both empirical and census data were coded and translated into indicators with values between 0 and 1 (Fig. 2). For the interview data (variables S1–S11, see Electronic Supplementary Material, Table 10.1007/s13280-013-0603-3), emergent patterns on values were further aggregated using selected codes representing core categories of values (sensu Bowen 2008). Each interview was translated to nominal variables stating presence of expressed values in these selected categories. Each indicator was then represented as the number of interviewees expressing the value relative to the total.Fig. 2

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.