Grassland farmers’ relationship with biodiversity: a case study from the northern Italian Alps

Figures & data

Figure 1. Political borders around the three study regions: Kastelruth in the Province of South Tyrol, Cortina d’Ampezzo in the Province of Belluno and Predazzo in the Province of Trentino.

Table 1. Summary of geographic characteristics of study regions.

	Location coordinates	Elevation of village center	Municipal territory area	Language	Province/Jurisdiction	Mean annual rainfall	Mean monthly temperature	Farm abandonment
Kastelruth	46°33’ N, 11°33 E	1060 m	117.90 km^2	German	Südtirol	778 mm	−3.4°C and 16.6°C	Low
Predazzo	46°18’ N, 11°35’ E	1018 m	109.97 km^2	Italian	Trentino	792 mm	−0.3°C and 18.6°C	Moderate
Cortina d’Ampezzo	46°32’ N, 12°08’ E	1200 m	252.81 km^2	Ladin	Belluno	816 mm	−5.0°C and 15.4°C	High

Table 2. Farmers by age, gender, altitude of their fields, owned and managed grassland area, and type of income (K = kastelruth,P = Predazzo, C = Cortina d’Ampezzo).

Respondents code	Age (years)	Gender	Altitude (m a.s.l.)	Owned grassland area (ha)	Managed grassland area (ha)	Type of income from grassland management
K1	42	f	950	5.5	5,5	Main (+ additional second income)
K2	51	m	1250–2000	15	31	Main (+ additional second income)
K3	82	m	1100–1900	16	16	Main (+ additional second income)
K4	52	m	1000–2200	15	28	Main (+ additional second income)
K5	29	m	800–2000	14.5	18	Main (+ additional second income)
K6	42	m	1200–1600	19	33	Main (+ additional second income)
K7	45	m	1150–1900	8.3	16.3	Main (+ additional second income)
K8	44	m	1200–2100	15	15	Main (+ additional second income)
K9	27	m	800–1000	11.5	16.5	Main (+ additional second income)
K10	56	m	1200–1300	9.7	9.7	Main (+ additional second income)
P1	47	m	1000–1600	8	28	Main
P2	46	m	1000–1500	10	34	Main
P3	58	m	950–2000	5	55	Main
P4	54	m	1000–1800	25	52	Main
P5	34	f	800–1100	25	1.5	No income from grassland mgmt.
P6	27	m	1000–1600	25	36	Main (+ additional second income)
P7	47	m	1000–1500	25	42	Main (+ additional second income)
C1	73	m	1200–1350	25	24	Main (+ additional second income)
C2	35	m	1300–1400	25	92	Main (+ additional second income)
C3	56	m	1,300–1,400	25	50	Main
C4	53	m	1,300–1,450	25	21	Main (+ additional second income)
C5	56	m	1250–1450	25	55	Main
Share	Avg. 43	91% male		Avg. 17.1	Avg. 32.1	68% Main (+ add. sec. income)
		9% female				27% Main
						5% No income

Figure 2. Aggregated conceptual model of how farmers perceive biodiversity in relationship to agriculture and fodder yields, and also in relation to responsibilities associated with conservation-production relationships. Green boxes relate biodiversity to fodder yield, blue boxes define biodiversity, yellow boxes relate biodiversity to farming and landscapes more broadly, orange boxes relate biodiversity to those responsible for it. The darker the color of a box, the more farmers share the concept. Number of farmers in brackets. (Figure design inspired by Busse et al., 2021).

Busse M, Zoll F, Siebert R, Bartels A, Bokelmann A, Scharschmidt P. 2021. How farmers think about insects: perceptions of biodiversity, biodiversity loss and attitudes towards insect-friendly farming practices. Biodivers Conserv. 30(11):3045–3066. doi:10.1007/s10531-021-02235-2.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar