Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Promoting biodiversity values of small forest patches in agricultural landscapes: Ecological drivers and social demand
Jules Verne University of Picardie, France.
Show others and affiliations
2018 (English)In: Science of the Total Environment, ISSN 0048-9697, E-ISSN 1879-1026, Vol. 619-620, p. 1319-1329Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Small forest patches embedded in agricultural (and peri-urban) landscapes in Western Europe play a key role for biodiversity conservation with a recognized capacity of delivering a wide suite of ecosystem services. Measures aimed to preserve these patches should be both socially desirable and ecologically effective. This study presents a joint ecologic and economic assessment conducted on small forest patches in Flanders (Belgium) and Picardie (N France). In each study region, two contrasted types of agricultural landscapes were selected. Open field (OF) and Bocage (B) landscapes are distinguished by the intensity of their usage and higher connectivity in the B landscapes. The social demand for enhancing biodiversity and forest structure diversity as well as for increasing the forest area at the expenses of agricultural land is estimated through an economic valuation survey. These results are compared with the outcomes of an ecological survey where the influence of structural features of the forest patches on the associated herbaceous diversity is assessed. The ecological and economic surveys show contrasting results; increasing tree species richness is ecologically more important for herbaceous diversity in the patch, but both tree species richness and herbaceous diversity obtain insignificant willingness to pay estimates. Furthermore, although respondents prefer the proposed changes to take place in the region where they live, we find out that social preferences and ecological effectiveness do differ between landscapes that represent different intensities of land use. Dwellers where the landscape is perceived as more “degraded” attach more value to diversity enhancement, suggesting a prioritization of initiatives in these area. In contrast, the ecological analyses show that prioritizing the protection and enhancement of the relatively better-off areas is more ecologically effective. Our study calls for a balance between ecological effectiveness and welfare benefits, suggesting that cost effectiveness studies should consider these approaches jointly.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2018. Vol. 619-620, p. 1319-1329
Keyword [en]
Economic valuation, Discrete choice experiment, Mixed models, Social preferences, Herbaceous diversity
National Category
Ecology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-150524DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.11.190OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-150524DiVA, id: diva2:1168855
Available from: 2017-12-21 Created: 2017-12-21 Last updated: 2018-01-04Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Valdés, Alicia
In the same journal
Science of the Total Environment
Ecology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 111 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf