Assessing ecosystem services and biodiversity tradeoffs across agricultural landscapes in a mountain region

References

• Adem Esmail B, Geneletti D. 2017. Design and impact assessment of watershed investments: an approach based on ecosystem services and boundary work. Environ Impact Assess Rev [Internet]. 62:1–13. Available from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0195925516300427.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adem Esmail B, Geneletti D. 2018. Multi-criteria decision analysis for nature conservation: a review of 20 years of applications. Methods Ecol Evol. 9:42–53.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adem Esmail B, Geneletti D, Albert C. 2017. Boundary work for implementing adaptive management: a water sector application. Sci Total Environ [Internet]. 593:274–285. Available from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0048969717306332.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barton DN, Kelemen E, Dick J, Martin-Lopez B, Gómez-Baggethun E, Jacobs S, Hendriks CMA, Termansen M, García-Llorente MPrimmer E, et al. 2018. (Dis) integrated valuation – Assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support. Ecosyst Serv. 29:529–541.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baylis K, Peplow S, Rausser G, Simon L. 2008. Agri-environmental policies in the EU and United States: a comparison. Ecol Econ. 65:753–764.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beinat E. 1997. Value functions for environmental management [Internet]. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Available from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-94-015-8885-0.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett EM, Cramer W, Begossi A, Cundill G, Díaz S, Egoh BN, Geijzendorffer IR, Krug CB, Lavorel S, Lazos E, et al. 2015. Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three challenges for designing research for sustainability. Curr Opin Environ Sustain [Internet]. 14:76–85. Available from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1877343515000366.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Braat L, Ten Brink P, editors. 2008. The cost of policy inaction: the case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target. Wageningen: Study for the European Commission, DG Environment. Alterra report 1718.
   Google Scholar
• Burkhard B, Kroll F, Müller F. 2010. Landscapes‘ capacities to provide ecosystem services – a concept for land-cover based assessments. Landsc Online [Internet]. 15:1–22. Available from http://www.landscapeonline.de/103097lo200915/.
   Google Scholar
• Cahill C. 2001. The multifunctionality of agriculture. EuroChoices [Internet]. 1:36–41. Available from. doi:10.1111/j.1746-692X.2001.tb00073.x.
   Google Scholar
• Cash DW, Clark WC, Alcock F, Dickson NM, Eckley N, Guston DH, Jager J, Mitchell RB. 2003. Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proc Natl Acad Sci [Internet]. 100:8086–8091. Available from http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1231332100.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clark WC, Tomich TP, van Noordwijk M, Guston D, Catacutan D, Dickson NM, McNie E. 2016. Boundary work for sustainable development: natural resource management at the consultative group on international agricultural research (CGIAR). Proc Natl Acad Sci [Internet]. 113:4615–4622. Available from http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0900231108.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cortinovis C, Geneletti D. 2018. Mapping and assessing ecosystem services to support urban planning: a case study on brownfield regeneration in Trento, Italy. One Ecosyst [Internet]. 3:e25477. Available from https://oneecosystem.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=25477.
   Google Scholar
• Crossman ND, Bryan BA. 2009. Identifying cost-effective hotspots for restoring natural capital and enhancing landscape multifunctionality. Ecol Econ [Internet]. 68:654–668. Available from. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.05.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daw TM, Coulthard S, Cheung WWL, Brown K, Abunge C, Galafassi D, Peterson GD, McClanahan TR, Omukoto JO, Munyi L. 2015. Evaluating taboo trade-offs in ecosystems services and human well-being. Proc Natl Acad Sci [Internet]. 201414900. Available from http://www.pnas.org/lookup/doi/10.1073/pnas.1414900112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L. 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecol Complex [Internet]. cited 2013 Jul 31. 7:260–272. Available from doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2009.10.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ekroos J, Olsson O, Rundlöf M, Wätzold F, Smith HG. 2014. Optimizing agri-environment schemes for biodiversity, ecosystem services or both? Biol Conserv [Internet]. 172:65–71. Available from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0006320714000718.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• European Court of Auditors. 2011. Is agri-environment support well designed and managed? Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Special Report No 7.
   Google Scholar
• Ferrari M, Geneletti D. 2014. Mapping and assessing multiple ecosystem services in an alpine region: a Study in Trentino, Italy. Ann di Bot [Internet]. 4:65–71. Available from http://statusquaestionis.uniroma1.it/index.php/Annalidibotanica/article/view/11729.
   Google Scholar
• Ferrari M, Geneletti D, Cayuela L, Orsi F, Benayas JMR. 2016. Analysis of Bundles and Drivers of Change of Multiple Ecosystem Services in an Alpine Region. J Environ Assess Policy Manag [Internet]. 18: 1650026. Available from: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S1464333216500265
   Google Scholar
• Fichino BS, Pivello VR, Santos RF. 2017. Trade-offs among ecosystem services under different pinion harvesting intensities in Brazilian Araucaria Forests. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag [Internet]. 13:139–149. Available from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21513732.2016.1275811.
   Google Scholar
• Foley JA. 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science (80-) [Internet]. 309:570–574. Available from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/doi/10.1126/science.1111772.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fox J, Weisberg S. 2011. An R companion to applied regression. second. place unknown: Sage. editor.
   Google Scholar
• Geneletti D. 2004. A GIS-based decision support system to identify nature conservation priorities in an alpine valley. Land Use Policy. 21:149–160.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geneletti D. 2005a. Multicriteria analysis to compare the impact of alternative road corridors: a case study in northern Italy. Impact Assess Proj Apprais [Internet]. 23:135–146. Available from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3152/147154605781765661.
   Google Scholar
• Geneletti D. 2005b. Formalising expert opinion through multi-attribute value functions: an application in landscape ecology. J Environ Manage [Internet]. 76:255–262. Available from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0301479705001015.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geneletti D. 2011. Reasons and options for integrating ecosystem services in strategic environmental assessment of spatial planning. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag [Internet]. 7:: 143–149. Available from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21513732.2011.617711.
   Google Scholar
• Geneletti D. 2012. Environmental assessment of spatial plan policies through land use scenarios. A study in a fast-developing town in rural Mozambique. Environ Impact Assess Rev [Internet]. cited 2013 Nov 7. 32:1–10. Available from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S019592551100028X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geneletti D. 2013. Assessing the impact of alternative land-use zoning policies on future ecosystem services. Environ Impact Assess Rev [Internet]. cited 2013 May 24. 40:25–35. Available from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0195925512001035.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geneletti D, Adem Esmail B, Cortinovis C. 2018. Identifying representative case studies for ecosystem services mapping and assessment across Europe. One Ecosyst [Internet]. 3:e25382. Available from https://oneecosystem.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=25382.
   Google Scholar
• Haines-Young R, Potschin M, editors. 2013. CICES V4.3-report prepared following Consultation 440 on CICES Version 4, August–December 2012. EEA Framework contract no. 441 EEA/IEA/09/003.
   Google Scholar
• Holland RA, Eigenbrod F, Armsworth PR, Anderson BJ, Thomas CD, Gaston KJ. 2011. The influence of temporal variation on relationships between ecosystem services. Biodivers Conserv [Internet]. 20:3285–3294. Available from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10531-011-0113-1.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Howe C, Suich H, Vira B, Mace GM. 2014. Creating win-wins from trade-offs? Ecosystem services for human well-being: a meta-analysis of ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies in the real world. Glob Environ Chang [Internet]. 28:263–275. Available from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0959378014001320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kates BRW, Parris TM, Leiserowitz AA. 2005. What is sustainable development? Goals, indicators, and practice. Environment [Internet]. 47:8–21. Available from http://www.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?requester=gs&collection=ENV&recid=6248252.
   Google Scholar
• Kates RW. 2011. What kind of a science is sustainability science? Proc Natl Acad Sci. 108:19449–19450.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klapwijk C, van Wijk M, Rosenstock T, van Asten P, Thornton P, Giller K. 2014. Analysis of trade-offs in agricultural systems: current status and way forward. Curr Opin Environ Sustain [Internet]. 6:110–115. Available from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877343513001607.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lastra-Bravo XB, Hubbard C, Garrod G, Tolón-Becerra A. 2015. What drives farmers’ participation in EU agri-environmental schemes?: Results from a qualitative meta-analysis. Environ Sci Policy [Internet]. 54:1–9. Available from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1462901115300058.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee H, Lautenbach S. 2016. A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem services. Ecol Indic [Internet]. 66:340–351. Available from. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.02.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leventon J, Schaal T, Velten S, Dänhardt J, Fischer J, Abson DJ, Newig J. 2017. Collaboration or fragmentation? Biodiversity management through the common agricultural policy. Land Use Policy [Internet]. 64:1–12. Available from. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.02.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li Y, Zhang L, Yan J, Wang P, Hu N, Cheng W, Fu B. 2017. Mapping the hotspots and coldspots of ecosystem services in conservation priority setting. J Geogr Sci. 27:681–696.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Locatelli B, Lavorel S, Sloan S, Tappeiner U, Geneletti D. 2017. Characteristic trajectories of ecosystem services in mountains. Front Ecol Environ [Internet]. 15:150–159. Available from. doi:10.1002/fee.1470.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martín-López B, Iniesta-Arandia I, García-Llorente M, Palomo I, Casado-Arzuaga I, Del ADG, Gómez-Baggethun E, Oteros-Rozas E, Palacios-Agundez I, Willaarts B, et al. 2012. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. Bawa K, editor. PLoS One [Internet]. 7:e38970. Available from. http://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038970.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mastrangelo ME, Weyland F, Villarino SH, Barral MP, Nahuelhual L, Laterra P. 2014. Concepts and methods for landscape multifunctionality and a unifying framework based on ecosystem services. Landsc Ecol [Internet]. 29:345–358. Available from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10980-013-9959-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCracken ME, Woodcock BA, Lobley M, Pywell RF, Saratsi E, Swetnam RD, Mortimer SR, Harris SJ, Winter M, Hinsley S, et al. 2015. Social and ecological drivers of success in agri-environment schemes: the roles of farmers and environmental context. Finn J, editor. J Appl Ecol [Internet]. 52:696–705. Available from. doi:10.1111/1365-2664.12412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mckenzie E, Posner S, Tillmann P, Bernhardt JR, Howard K, Rosenthal A. 2014. Understanding the use of ecosystem service knowledge in decision making: lessons from international experiences of spatial planning. Environ Plan C Gov Policy. 32:320–340.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mitchell MGE, Suarez-Castro AF, Martinez-Harms M, Maron M, McAlpine C, Gaston KJ, Johansen K, Rhodes JR. 2015. Reframing landscape fragmentation’s effects on ecosystem services. Trends Ecol Evol. 30:190–198.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moon W. 2015. Conceptualising multifunctional agriculture from a global perspective: implications for governing agricultural trade in the post-doha round era. Land Use Policy [Internet]. 49:252–263. Available from. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.07.026.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. 2003. Multifunctionality: the policy implications [Internet]. Paris (France): OECD Publishing. Available from http://www.oecd.org/tad/agricultural-policies/40782915.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2010. Linkages between agricultural policies and environmental effects [Internet]. Paris (France): OECD Publishing. Available from http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/agriculture-and-food/linkages-between-agricultural-policies-and-environmental-effects_9789264095700-en.
   Google Scholar
• Orsi F, Geneletti D. 2013. Using geotagged photographs and GIS analysis to estimate visitor flows in natural areas. J Nat Conserv [Internet]. 21:359–368. Available from. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2013.03.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Phillips SJ, Anderson RP, Schapire RE. 2006. Maximum entropy modeling of species geographic distributions. Ecol Modell [Internet]. cited 2013 May 22. 190:231–259. Available from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S030438000500267X.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Posner SM, McKenzie E, Ricketts TH. 2016. Policy impacts of ecosystem services knowledge. Proc Natl Acad Sci [Internet]. 113:201502452. Available from http://www.pnas.org/content/113/7/1760.short.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM. 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proc Natl Acad Sci [Internet]. 107:: 5242–5247. Available from http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0907284107.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruckelshaus M, McKenzie E, Tallis H, Guerry A, Daily GC, Kareiva P, Polasky S, Ricketts T, Bhagabati N, Wood SA, et al. 2015. Notes from the field: lessons learned from using ecosystem service approaches to inform real-world decisions. Ecol Econ [Internet]. 115:11–21. Available from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0921800913002498.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saltelli A, Chan K, Scott EM. 2000. Sensitivity Analysis, Wiley series in probability and statistics. 1st ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Schneiders A, Van Daele T, Van Landuyt W, Van Reeth W. 2012. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: complementary approaches for ecosystem management? Ecol Indic [Internet]. 21:123–133. Available from. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2011.06.021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seppelt R, Dormann CF, Eppink FV, Lautenbach S, Schmidt S. 2011. A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J Appl Ecol [Internet]. cited 2013 May 22. 48:630–636. Available from doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01952.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tenerelli P, Püffel C, Luque S. 2017. Spatial assessment of aesthetic services in a complex mountain region: combining visual landscape properties with crowdsourced geographic information. Landsc Ecol. 32:1097–1115.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomscha SA, Gergel SE. 2016. Ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies misunderstood without landscape history. Ecol Soc [Internet]. 21:art43. Available from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol21/iss1/art43/.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Huylenbroeck G, Vandermeulen V, Mettepenningen E, Verspecht A. 2007. Multifunctionality of agriculture: a review of definitions, evidence and instruments. Living Rev Landsc Res [Internet]. 1:1–43. Available from http://lrlr.landscapeonline.de/Articles/lrlr-2007-3.
   Google Scholar
• von Haaren C, Albert C. 2011. Integrating ecosystem services and environmental planning: limitations and synergies. Int J Biodivers Sci Ecosyst Serv Manag [Internet]. 7:150–167. Available from http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/21513732.2011.616534.
   Google Scholar
• von Haaren C, Galler C, Ott S. 2008. Landscape planning: the basis of sustainable landscape development [Internet]. place unknown: Bundesamt für Naturschutz/Federal Agency for Nature Conservation. Available from http://www.intechopen.com/books/landscape-planning.
   Google Scholar
• Willemen L, Veldkamp A, Verburg PH, Hein L, Leemans R. 2012. A multi-scale modelling approach for analysing landscape service dynamics. J Environ Manage [Internet]. 100:86–95. Available from. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.01.022.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang L, Fu B, Lü Y, Zeng Y. 2015. Balancing multiple ecosystem services in conservation priority setting. Landsc Ecol [Internet]. 30:535–546. Available from http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10980-014-0106-z.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar