Browsing by Author "Plieninger, Tobias"

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen 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, Tobias
    Rural 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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen 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.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Do European agroforestry systems enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services? A meta-analysis
    (Elsevier, 2016-08-16) Torralba, Mario; Fagerholm, Nora; Burgess, Paul J.; Moreno, G.; Plieninger, Tobias
    Agroforestry has been proposed as a sustainable agricultural system over conventional agriculture and forestry, conserving biodiversity and enhancing ecosystem service provision while not compromising productivity. However, the available evidence for the societal benefits of agroforestry is fragmented and does often not integrate diverse ecosystem services into the assessment. To upscale existing case-study insights to the European level, we conducted a meta-analysis on the effects of agroforestry on ecosystem service provision and on biodiversity levels. From 53 publications we extracted a total of 365 comparisons that were selected for the meta-analysis. Results revealed an overall positive effect of agroforestry (effect size = 0.454, p < 0.01) over conventional agriculture and forestry. However, results were heterogeneous, with differences among the types of agroforestry practices and ecosystem services assessed. Erosion control, biodiversity, and soil fertility are enhanced by agroforestry while there is no clear effect on provisioning services. The effect of agroforestry on biomass production is negative. Comparisons between agroforestry types and reference land-uses showed that both silvopastoral and silvoarable systems increase ecosystem service provision and biodiversity, especially when compared with forestry land. Mediterranean tree plantation systems should be especially targeted as soil erosion could be highly reduced while soil fertility increased. We conclude that agroforestry can enhance biodiversity and ecosystem service provision relative to conventional agriculture and forestry in Europe and could be a strategically beneficial land use in rural planning if its inherent complexity is considered in policy measures.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Mixtures of forest and agroforestry alleviate trade-offs between ecosystem services in European rural landscapes
    (Elsevier, 2021-06-17) Rolo, Victor; Roces-Díaz, José V.; Torralba, Mario; Kay, Sonja; Fagerholm, Nora; Aviron, Stephanie; Burgess, Paul; Crous-Duran, Josep; Ferreiro-Domínguez, Nuria; Graves, Anil; Hartel, Tibor; Mantzanas, Konstantinos; Mosquera-Losada, María Rosa; Palma, João H. N.; Sidiropoulou, Anna; Szerencsits, Erich; Viaud, Valérie; Herzog, Felix; Plieninger, Tobias; Moreno, Gerardo
    Rural Europe encompasses a variety of landscapes with differing levels of forest, agriculture, and agroforestry that can deliver multiple ecosystem services (ES). Whilst provisioning and regulating ES associated with individual land covers are comparatively well studied, less is known about the associated cultural ES. Only seldom are provisioning, regulating, and cultural ES investigated together to evaluate how they contribute to multifunctionality. In this study we combined biophysical and sociocultural approaches to assess how different landscapes (dominated by forest, agriculture or agroforestry) and landscape characteristics (i.e. remoteness and landscape diversity) drive spatial associations of ES (i.e. synergies, trade-offs and bundles). We analysed data of: i) seven provisioning and regulating ES (spatially modelled), and; ii) six cultural ES (derived from participatory mapping data) in 12 study sites across four different biogeographical regions of Europe. Our results showed highly differentiated ES profiles for landscapes associated to a specific land cover, with agroforestry generally providing higher cultural ES than forest and agriculture. We found a positive relationship between the proportion of forest in a landscape and provisioning and regulating ES, whilst agriculture showed negative relationships. We found four distinct bundles of ES. Three of them were directly related to a dominant land cover and the fourth to a mixture of forest and agroforestry that was associated with high social value. The latter bundle was related to zones close to urban areas and roads and medium to high landscape diversity. These findings suggest that agroforestry should be prioritised over other land covers in such areas as it delivers a suite of multiple ES, provided it is close to urban areas or roads. Our results also illustrate the importance and application of including people’s perception in the assessment of ES associations and highlight the relevance of developing integrated analyses of ES to inform landscape management decisions.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen 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, Tobias
    Agroforestry, 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.