Browsing by Author "Pantera, Anastasia"
Now showing 1 - 10 of 10
Results Per Page
Sort Options
Item Open Access Agroforestry as a sustainable land use option to reduce wildfires risk in European Mediterranean areas(Springer, 2020-01-11) Damianidis, Christos; Santiago-Freijanes, Jose Javier; den Herder, Michael; Burgess, Paul; Mosquera-Losada, María Rosa; Graves, Anil; Papadopoulos, Andreas; Pisanelli, Andrea; Camilli, Francesca; Rois-Díaz, Mercedes; Kay, Sonja; Palma, João H. N.; Pantera, AnastasiaWildfires have always been an integral part of the ecology of many terrestrial ecosystems, but their frequency is increasing in many parts of the world. Wildfires were once a natural phenomenon, but after humans learned to control fire, it has been used as a management tool to increase soil fertility, to regenerate natural vegetation for grazing and to control competing vegetation. However, currently uncontrolled wildfires threaten not only natural vegetation, landscape biodiversity, communities and economies, but they also release large amounts of carbon dioxide, thus contributing to global temperature increase. Higher temperatures and drier summers have increased the risk of wildfires in biodiversity rich areas of European Mediterranean countries and have resulted in human casualties. The aim of this article is to investigate whether agroforestry, the practice of integrating woody vegetation and agricultural crops and/or livestock, could be a management tool to reduce wildfires in European Mediterranean countries. Fire events from 2008 to 2017 and data of land cover and land use were spatially correlated. Results indicated that agroforestry areas had fewer wildfire incidents than forests, shrublands or grasslands, providing evidence of the potential of agroforestry to reduce fire risk and protect ecosystems.Item Open Access Agroforestry creates carbon sinks whilst enhancing the environment in agricultural landscapes in Europe(Elsevier, 2019-03-06) Sonja, Kay; Rega, Carlo; Moreno, Gerardo; den Herder, Michael; Palma, João H. N.; Borek, Robert; Crous-Duran, Josep; Freese, Dirk; Giannitsopoulos, Michail; Graves, Anil; Jäger, Mareike; Lamersdorf, Norbert; Memedemin, Daniyar; Mosquera-Losada, Rosa; Pantera, Anastasia; Paracchini, Maria Luisa; Paris, Pierluigi; Roces-Díaz, José V.; Rolo, Victor; Rosati, Adolfo; Sandor, Mignon; Smith, Jo; Szerencsits, Erich; Varga, Anna; Viaud, Valérie; Wawer, Rafal; Burgess, Paul J.; Herzog, FelixAgroforestry, relative to conventional agriculture, contributes significantly to carbon sequestration, increases a range of regulating ecosystem services, and enhances biodiversity. Using a transdisciplinary approach, we combined scientific and technical knowledge to evaluate nine environmental pressures in terms of ecosystem services in European farmland and assessed the carbon storage potential of suitable agroforestry systems, proposed by regional experts. First, regions with potential environmental pressures were identified with respect to soil health (soil erosion by water and wind, low soil organic carbon), water quality (water pollution by nitrates, salinization by irrigation), areas affected by climate change (rising temperature), and by underprovision in biodiversity (pollination and pest control pressures, loss of soil biodiversity). The maps were overlaid to identify areas where several pressures accumulate. In total, 94.4% of farmlands suffer from at least one environmental pressure, pastures being less affected than arable lands. Regional hotspots were located in north-western France, Denmark, Central Spain, north and south-western Italy, Greece, and eastern Romania. The 10% of the area with the highest number of accumulated pressures were defined as Priority Areas, where the implementation of agroforestry could be particularly effective. In a second step, European agroforestry experts were asked to propose agroforestry practices suitable for the Priority Areas they were familiar with, and identified 64 different systems covering a wide range of practices. These ranged from hedgerows on field boundaries to fast growing coppices or scattered single tree systems. Third, for each proposed system, the carbon storage potential was assessed based on data from the literature and the results were scaled-up to the Priority Areas. As expected, given the wide range of agroforestry practices identified, the carbon sequestration potentials ranged between 0.09 and 7.29 t C ha−1 a−1. Implementing agroforestry on the Priority Areas could lead to a sequestration of 2.1 to 63.9 million t C a−1 (7.78 and 234.85Item Open Access Agroforestry is paying off – Economic evaluation of ecosystem services in European landscapes with and without agroforestry systems(Elsevier, 2019-02-02) Kay, Sonja; Graves, Anil; Palma, João H. N.; Moreno, Gerardo; Roces-Díaz, José V.; Aviron, Stephanie; Chouvardas, Dimitrios; Crous-Duran, Josep; Ferreiro-Domínguez, Nuria; García de Jalón, Silvestre; Macicasan, Vlad; Mosquera-Losada, María Rosa; Pantera, Anastasia; Santiago-Freijanes, Jose Javier; Szerencsits, Erich; Torralba, Mario; Burgess, Paul; Herzog, FelixThe study assessed the economic performance of marketable ecosystem services (ES) (biomass production) and non-marketable ecosystem services and dis-services (groundwater, nutrient loss, soil loss, carbon sequestration, pollination deficit) in 11 contrasting European landscapes dominated by agroforestry land use compared to business as usual agricultural practice. The productivity and profitability of the farming activities and the associated ES were quantified using environmental modelling and economic valuation. After accounting for labour and machinery costs the financial value of the outputs of Mediterranean agroforestry systems tended to be greater than the corresponding agricultural system; but in Atlantic and Continental regions the agricultural system tended to be more profitable. However, when economic values for the associated ES were included, the relative profitability of agroforestry increased. Agroforestry landscapes: (i) were associated to reduced externalities of pollution from nutrient and soil losses, and (ii) generated additional benefits from carbon capture and storage and thus generated an overall higher economic gain. Our findings underline how a market system that includes the values of broader ES would result in land use change favouring multifunctional agroforestry. Imposing penalties for dis-services or payments for services would reflect their real world prices and would make agroforestry a more financially profitable system.Item Open Access Challenges and innovations for improving the sustainability of European agroforestry systems of high nature and cultural value: a stakeholder perspective(Springer, 2020-06-04) Rolo, Victor; Hartel, Tibor; Aviron, Stephanie; Berg, Staffan; Crous-Duran, Josep; Franca, Antonello; Mirck, Jaconette; Nunes Palma, Joao Henrique; Pantera, Anastasia; Paulo, Joana Amaral; Pulido, Fernando Javier; Seddaiu, Giovanna; Thenail, Claudine; Varga, Anna; Viaud, Valerie; Burgess, Paul John; Moreno, GerardoTraditional forms of agroforestry are often recognized as exemplar systems that successfully integrate food production, biodiversity conservation and high cultural values. However many traditional agroforestry systems in Europe are in decline or are threatened and the perspectives of local stakeholders on the production, management, socio-economic, and environmental dimensions of such systems are not fully understood. To fill this gap, we present results of participatory research performed with ten stakeholder groups (SG) across Europe to search for solutions to improve the economic and ecological sustainability of High Nature and Cultural Value agroforestry systems (HNCV agroforestry). Stakeholders included both users and beneficiaries of the HNCV agroforestry. First, SGs held open discussions (227 participants) to identify major challenges for the long-term sustainability of HNCV agroforestry. Challenges were classified into production, management, socio-economic and the environment categories. Second, they responded to structured questionnaires (120 respondents) that explored the positive and negative perceptions of 45 possible attributes of HNCV agroforestry. Third, innovative solutions were identified by individual and group discussions to address the four categories of challenge. Challenges were mostly identified for the management and socio-economic categories, but several challenges concerning production and environment were also pinpointed. Besides, solutions matched poorly with the challenges identified, and, while challenges were at some extent common across countries, solutions to address them were more case-specific. The successful implementation of these solutions requires an in-depth understanding of the diversity of socio-cultural and natural contexts of the HNCV agroforestry systems and building bottom-up proposals and collective actions based on this understanding. The sustainability of HNCV agroforestry would be benefited by providing farmers and managers with a financial advantage from the high nature and cultural value of these systems.Item Open Access Creating agroforestry innovation and best practice leaflets(European Agroforestry Federation and the University of Santiago de Compostela, 2018-05-30) Burgess, Paul; Moreno, Gerardo; Pantera, Anastasia; Kanzler, Michael; Hermansen, John; van Lerberghe, Philippe; Balaguer, Fabien; Girardin, Nicolas; Rosati, Adolfo; Graves, Anil; Watté, Jeroen; Mosquera-Losada, Rosa; Waldie, Kevin; Pagella, Tim; Liagre, FabienA key output of the EU FP7 project AGFORWARD was a series of 46 agroforestry innovation and 10 agroforestry best practice leaflets for European farmers and other stakeholders. This paper describes the process of over 80 people working together to create the leaflets and the overall result.Item Open Access Cross-site analysis of perceived ecosystem service benefits in multifunctional landscapes(Elsevier, 2019-05-06) Fagerholm, Nora; Torralba, Mario; Moreno, Gerardo; Girardello, Marco; Herzog, Felix; Aviron, Stephanie; Burgess, Paul; Crous-Duran, Josep; Ferreiro-Domínguez, Nuria; Graves, Anil; Hartel, Tibor; Măcicăsan, Vlad; Kay, Sonja; Pantera, Anastasia; Varga, Anna; Plieninger, TobiasRural development policies in many Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries promote sustainable landscape management with the intention of providing multiple ecosystem services (ES). Yet, it remains unclear which ES benefits are perceived in different landscapes and by different people. We present an assessment of ES benefits perceived and mapped by residents (n = 2,301) across 13 multifunctional (deep rural to peri-urban) landscapes in Europe. We identify the most intensively perceived ES benefits, their spatial patterns, and the respondent and landscape characteristics that determine ES benefit perception. We find outdoor recreation, aesthetic values and social interactions are the key ES benefits at local scales. Settlement areas are ES benefit hotspots but many benefits are also related to forests, waters and mosaic landscapes. We find some ES benefits (e.g. culture and heritage values) are spatially clustered, while many others (e.g. aesthetic values) are dispersed. ES benefit perception is linked to people’s relationship with and accessibility to a landscape. Our study discusses how a local perspective can contribute to the development of contextualized and socially acceptable policies for sustainable ES management. We also address conceptual confusion in ES framework and present argumentation regarding the links from services to benefits, and from benefits to different types of values.Item Open Access Current extent and stratification of agroforestry in the European Union(Elsevier, 2017-03-20) den Herder, Michael; Moreno, Gerardo; Mosquera-Losada, María Rosa; Palma, João H. N.; Sidiropoulou, Anna; Santiago-Freijanes, Jose Javier; Crous-Duran, Josep; Paulo, Joana A.; Tomé, Margarida; Pantera, Anastasia; Papanastasis, Vasilios P.; Mantzanas, Kostas; Pachana, Przemko; Papadopoulos, Andreas; Plieninger, Tobias; Burgess, Paul J.An accurate and objective estimate on the extent of agroforestry in Europe is critical for the development of supporting policies. For this reason, a more harmonised and uniform Pan-European estimate is needed. The aim of this study was to quantify and map the distribution of agroforestry in the European Union. We classified agroforestry into three main types of agroforestry systems: arable agroforestry, livestock agroforestry and high value tree agroforestry. These three classes are partly overlapping as high value tree agroforestry can be part of either arable or livestock agroforestry. Agroforestry areas were mapped using LUCAS Land Use and Land Cover data (Eurostat, 2015). By identifying certain combinations of primary and secondary land cover and/or land management it was possible to identify agroforestry points and stratify them in the three different systems. According to our estimate using the LUCAS database the total area under agroforestry in the EU 27 is about 15.4 million ha which is equivalent to about 3.6% of the territorial area and 8.8% of the utilised agricultural area. Of our three studied systems, livestock agroforestry covers about 15.1 million ha which is by far the largest area. High value tree agroforestry and arable agroforestry cover 1.1 and 0.3 million ha respectively. Spain (5.6 million ha), France (1.6 million ha), Greece (1.6 million ha), Italy (1.4 million ha), Portugal (1.2 million ha), Romania (0.9 million ha) and Bulgaria (0.9 million ha) have the largest absolute area of agroforestry. However the extent of agroforestry, expressed as a proportion of the utilised agricultural area (UAA), is greatest in countries like Cyprus (40% of UAA), Portugal (32% of UAA) and Greece (31% of UAA). A cluster analysis revealed that a high abundance of agroforestry areas can be found in the south-west quadrat of the Iberian Peninsula, the south of France, Sardinia, south and central Italy, central and north-east Greece, south and central Bulgaria, and central Romania. Since the data were collected and analysed in a uniform manner it is now possible to make comparisons between countries and identify regions in Europe where agroforestry is already widely practiced and areas where there are opportunities for practicing agroforestry on a larger area and introducing novel practices. In addition, with this method it is possible to make more precise estimates on the extent of agroforestry in Europe and changes over time. Because agroforestry covers a considerable part of the agricultural land in the EU, it is crucial that it gets a more prominent and clearer place in EU statistical reporting in order to provide decision makers with more reliable information on the extent and nature of agroforestry. Reliable information, in turn, should help to guide policy development and implementation, and the evaluation of the impact of agricultural and other policies on agroforestry.Item Open Access How is agroforestry perceived in Europe? An assessment of positive and negative aspects by stakeholders(Springer, 2017-08-24) García de Jalón, Silvestre; Burgess, Paul J.; Graves, Anil; Moreno, Gerardo; McAdam, Jim; Pottier, Eric; Novak, Sandra; Bondesan, Valerio; Mosquera-Losada, Rosa; Crous-Duran, Josep; Palma, João H. N.; Paulo, Joana A.; Oliveira, Tania S.; Cirou, Eric; Hannachi, Yousri; Pantera, Anastasia; Wartelle, Regis; Kay, Sonja; Malignier, Nina; van Lerberghe, Philippe; Tsonkova, Penka; Mirck, Jaconette; Rois, Mercedes; Kongsted, Anne Grete; Thenail, Claudine; Luske, Boki; Berg, Staffan; Gosme, Marie; Vityi, AndreaWhilst the benefits of agroforestry are widely recognised in tropical latitudes few studies have assessed how agroforestry is perceived in temperate latitudes. This study evaluates how stakeholders and key actors including farmers, landowners, agricultural advisors, researchers and environmentalists perceive the implementation and expansion of agroforestry in Europe. Meetings were held with 30 stakeholder groups covering different agroforestry systems in 2014 in eleven EU countries (Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom). In total 344 valid responses were received to a questionnaire where stakeholders were asked to rank the positive and negative aspects of implementing agroforestry in their region. Improved biodiversity and wildlife habitats, animal health and welfare, and landscape aesthetics were seen as the main positive aspects of agroforestry. By contrast, increased labour, complexity of work, management costs and administrative burden were seen as the most important negative aspects. Overall, improving the environmental value of agriculture was seen as the main benefit of agroforestry, whilst management and socio-economic issues were seen as the greatest barriers. The great variability in the opportunities and barriers of the systems suggests enhanced adoption of agroforestry across Europe will be most likely to occur with specific initiatives for each type of system.Item Open Access How local stakeholders perceive agroforestry systems: an Italian perspective(Springer, 2017-09-30) Camilli, Francesca; Pisanelli, Andrea; Seddaiu, Giovanna; Franca, Antonello; Bondesan, Valerio; Rosati, Adolfo; Marcos Moreno, Gerardo; Pantera, Anastasia; Hermansen, John E.; Burgess, Paul J.This paper reports the results of a study conducted in Italy, within the AGFORWARD (2014–2017) project, aimed at promoting innovative agroforestry practices in Europe. Agroforestry offers a means for maintaining food production whilst addressing some of the negative environmental effects of intensive agriculture. This study aims to elicit the positive and negative points of view and perceptions of local stakeholders in Italy in relation to three types of agroforestry systems. The Participatory Research and Network Development was implemented in three workshops conducted in Sardinia, Umbria, and Veneto regions, and applied adopting a common methodological protocol. Qualitative data were obtained using open discussions with stakeholders on key issues, challenges and innovations. Quantitative data were obtained from stakeholders completing questionnaires during the workshops. A statistical analysis was applied to elicit the differences in stakeholders’ positive and negative perceptions in relation to production, management, environment and socio-economy aspects. Although the participants in the study came from different geographical and socioeconomic contexts with varied educational and cultural backgrounds, the different professional groups (farmers, policy-makers and researchers) and the three workshops generally shared similar perceptions of the benefits and constraints. The effects of agroforestry on production and the environment were generally perceived as positive, whilst those related to management were generally negative. The process of bringing the groups together seemed to be an effective means for identifying the key research gaps that need to be addressed in order to promote the uptake and maintenance of agroforestry.Item Open Access Scanning agroforestry-based solutions for climate change mitigation and adaptation in Europe(Elsevier, 2017-11-25) Hernández-Morcillo, Mónica; Burgess, Paul; Mirck, Jaconette; Pantera, Anastasia; Plieninger, TobiasAgroforestry, the integration of trees and shrubs with livestock and/or crops, can make a substantial contribution to mitigating and enabling adaptation to climate change. However, its full potential will only be achieved if the challenges to agroforestry implementation are identified and the most efficient and sustainable solutions are made widely known. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to explore these challenges and to determine the most suitable set of solutions for each challenge that combines local effectiveness with European scale relevance. We performed a two-step “solution scanning” exercise. First, the main challenges to sustainable agroforestry in Europe were identified through 42 participatory workshops with 665 local stakeholders. The solutions to each challenge were scanned and classified into either direct solutions (28) to address climate change or indirect solutions (32) that improve the sustainability of agroforestry. In a second step, the direct solutions were prioritized through expert consultation in terms of their potential benefits for mitigation and adaptation. The most commonly reported barriers were a lack of knowledge and reliable financial support to which the most widely suggested indirect solutions were agroforestry training programmes and the development of safe economic routes. The direct solutions considered as holding the greatest mitigation and adaptation potential were the adoption of practices capable to increase soil organic carbon pools and the implementation of multifunctional hedgerows and windbreaks respectively. Our solution scanning approach can inform the implementation of the European climate strategy in general and to the Common Agricultural Policy in particular by pointing to concrete climate beneficial actions.