Cited by 173Land Use and Ecosystem ServicesSocioeconomics of Resources and ConservationAgricultural Economics and Policy

Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers’ perceptions

Smith, Helen F., Sullivan, Caroline A.·2014·Ecological Economics

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2013.12.008

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Including distinct types of stakeholders (locals and experts) in perception analyses is important, as different groups can harbor diverging values.

    “Including distinct types of stakeholders (locals and experts) in such perception analyses is important, as different groups can harbor diverging values [48,49].”
  • The trade-off between agricultural production and other ecosystem service delivery does not exist in the view of locals and farmers.

    “Other studies have shown that the tradeo between agricultural production and other ES delivery does not exist in the view of locals and farmers [49].”
  • A combination of different forms of data can provide the most complete analysis to support the co-design of sustainable rural landscapes relevant to their socio-ecological contexts.

    “It is thus believed that a combination of di erent forms of data can provide the most complete analysis to support the co-design of sustainable rural landscapes relevant to their socio-ecological contexts [36,49].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, H. F., & Sullivan, C. A.
Affiliations
Southern Cross University (AU)
Corresponding author
Smith, Helen F.
Venue
Ecological Economics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-02
Volume
98
Pages
72-80
ISSN
0921-8009 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1981074610
Cited by
173
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 11
FWCI
9.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Ecological Economics (publishedVersion)
  • Cross Connect (Southern Cross University) (submittedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Socioeconomics of Resources and Conservation
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › General Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Agricultural Economics and Policy
Keywords
ecosystem services, farmer perceptions, agricultural landscapes, payments for ecosystem services, farmer vulnerability, native habitat, agricultural production, natural resource policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review