Back

A systematic review of European farmer and non-farmer attitudes towards landscapes, ecosystem services, and agricultural management practices: Implications for permanent grassland management.

Tindale, S. J.; Elliott, J.; Elings, M.; Gallardo-Cobos, R.; Hunter, E.; Lieberherr, E.; Miskolci, S.; Newell Price, P.; Quatrini, S.; Sanchez-Zamora, P.; Schleuter, H.; Frewer, L. J.

2020-06-12 ecology
10.1101/2020.06.12.148585 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Permanent grassland (PG) is an important agricultural land use for the delivery of multiple ecosystem services (ES), including carbon sequestration, water quality protection, food production, habitat provision, and cultural activities. However, PG environments are threatened by sub-optimal management, cultivation, and abandonment that are influenced by context, land managers attitudes and societal demand for ES. Therefore, the perceptions and attitudes of key decision-makers (farmers) and other stakeholders (non-farmers, including citizens and consumers of the products of permanent grasslands, and ES) need to be understood to ensure the sustainability of PGs and the ES they provide. A systematic review of the literature identified 135 scholarly articles. Application of thematic analysis, allowed the organization, and synthesis of current research related to (different) stakeholder attitudes, and how these influence PG management and the delivery of ES. The results suggest that different stakeholders hold different views towards permanent grassland, with farmers in particular having to balance economic with other (potentially conflicting) drivers. The types of knowledge held by different groups of stakeholders, access to sources of information, as well as the influence of knowledge on behaviour; and environmental values (for example in relation to aesthetics or conservation of biodiversity) explained why certain motivations for attitudes and behaviours are held. A major gap, however, was identified in relation to PG as opposed to other types of landscape.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 7%
22.6%
2
Journal of Environmental Management
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.5%
3
Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.1%
50% of probability mass above
4
Science of The Total Environment
179 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.3%
5
Peer Community Journal
254 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
3.6%
6
Basic and Applied Ecology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
7
Frontiers in Plant Science
240 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.9%
8
Journal of Applied Ecology
35 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.9%
9
Global Ecology and Conservation
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
10
Forest Ecology and Management
25 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
11
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 58%
1.7%
12
One Health
29 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
13
Conservation Science and Practice
13 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
14
PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET
21 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.5%
15
Environmental Research Letters
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
16
Methods in Ecology and Evolution
160 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
17
PeerJ
261 papers in training set
Top 11%
1.0%
18
Landscape Ecology
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
19
Ecological Indicators
20 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.9%
20
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 59%
0.9%
21
Frontiers in Veterinary Science
30 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.9%
22
Conservation Letters
11 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.8%
23
Agronomy
18 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
24
Preventive Veterinary Medicine
14 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
25
Biological Conservation
43 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%
26
Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution
60 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%