Cited by 117Land Use and Ecosystem ServicesUrban and spatial planningSocioeconomics of Resources and Conservation

How Ecosystem Services Knowledge and Values Influence Farmers' Decision-Making

Open access
Lamarque, Pénélope, Meyfroidt, Patrick, Nettier, Baptiste, Lavorel, Sandra·2014·PLoS ONE

Abstract

The ecosystem services (ES) concept has emerged and spread widely recently, to enhance the importance of preserving ecosystems through global change in order to maintain their benefits for human well-being. Numerous studies consider various dimensions of the interactions between ecosystems and land use via ES, but integrated research addressing the complete feedback loop between biodiversity, ES and land use has remained mostly theoretical. Few studies consider feedbacks from ecosystems to land use systems through ES, exploring how ES are taken into account in land management decisions. To fill this gap, we carried out a role-playing game to explore how ES cognition mediates feedbacks from environmental change on farmers' behaviors in a mountain grassland system. On a close to real landscape game board, farmers were faced with changes in ES under climatic and socio-economic scenarios and prompted to plan for the future and to take land management decisions as they deemed necessary. The outcomes of role-playing game were complemented with additional agronomic and ecological data from interviews and fieldwork. The effects of changes in ES on decision were mainly direct, i.e. not affecting knowledge and values, when they constituted situations with which farmers were accustomed. For example, a reduction of forage quantity following droughts led farmers to shift from mowing to grazing. Sometimes, ES cognitions were affected by ES changes or by external factors, leading to an indirect feedback. This happened when fertilization was stopped after farmers learned that it was inefficient in a drought context. Farmers' behaviors did not always reflect their attitudes towards ES because other factors including topographic constraints, social value of farming or farmer individual and household characteristics also influenced land-management decisions. Those results demonstrated the interest to take into account the complete feedback loop between ES and land management decisions to favor more sustainable ES management.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1371/journal.pone.0107572

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The ES tool offers a framework that disentangles the complex feedback loops of how management affects ecological processes and ES flows, and how, in turn, these ES changes are perceived.

    “The tool o ers a framework that disentangles the complex feedback loops of how management a ects ecological processes and ES flows, and how, in turn, these ES changes are perceived [27].”
  • It was specifically mentioned that answers were expected to be the perspective of 'professionals working on ES', in order to distinguish ES expert perceptions from personal perceptions.

    “It was specifically mentioned that answers were expected to be the perspective of 'professionals working on ES', in order to distinguish ES expert perceptions from personal perceptions, as the same individual can endorse several roles [27].”

    From How Are Landscapes under Agroecological Transition Perceived and Appreciated? A Belgian Case Study (2020) · cites this paper as [27]

    The Discussion (§a, page unavailable) says farmers’ views of ecosystem services differed from scientists’ views, but does not say that one person can endorse several roles. The Methods (§c, page unavailable) describe collecting farmers’ responses, not asking professionals to separate expert from personal perceptions. Searches for multiple roles and professional versus personal perspectives found no passage addressing the cited rationale. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The same individual can endorse several roles.

    “It was specifically mentioned that answers were expected to be the perspective of 'professionals working on ES', in order to distinguish ES expert perceptions from personal perceptions, as the same individual can endorse several roles [27].”

    From How Are Landscapes under Agroecological Transition Perceived and Appreciated? A Belgian Case Study (2020) · cites this paper as [27]

    The Data collection section describes farmers playing their own roles in a game, but does not say that one individual can hold several roles or distinguish professional from personal perceptions. Searches for multiple roles and professional versus personal perspectives found no passage addressing that point. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lamarque, P., Meyfroidt, P., Nettier, B., & Lavorel, S.
Affiliations
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Fund for Scientific Research (BE)
  • Institut National de Recherche en Sciences et Technologies pour l'Environnement et l'Agriculture (FR)
Corresponding author
Lamarque, Pénélope
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2014-09-30
Volume
9
Issue
9
Pages
e107572
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2036393554
Cited by
117
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
3.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Digital Access to Libraries (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Cemadoc (Cemagref / IRSTEA) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Biodiversa+
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Land Use and Ecosystem Services
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Nature and Landscape Conservation › Urban and spatial planning
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Socioeconomics of Resources and Conservation
Keywords
ecosystem services, farmer decision-making, ecosystem service value, land management, montane grassland, role-playing games, drought, grazing, mowing, fertilization, topographic constraints, sustainable land management, biodiversity
MeSH terms
Agriculture, Conservation of Natural Resources, Decision Making, France, Games, Experimental, Humans, Ecosystem

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