The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How Ecosystem Services Knowledge and Values Influence Farmers' Decision-Making
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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 cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“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].”
From How Are Landscapes under Agroecological Transition Perceived and Appreciated? A Belgian Case Study (2020) · cites this paper as [27]
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“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]
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.
Citations
Cites
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital
Costanza, R., d'Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., Limburg, K., Naeem, S., O'Neill, R. V., Paruelo, J., et al. (1997) · Nature · doi:10.1038/387253a0 · Cited by 22,585
Global Consequences of Land Use
Foley, J. A., DeFries, R., Asner, G. P., Barford, C., Bonan, G., Carpenter, S. R., Chapin, F. S., Coe, M. T., Daily, G. C., Gibbs, H. K., et al. (2005) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1111772 · Cited by 13,272
(2005) · Cited by 9,479
(1999) · Western CEDAR (Western Washington University) · Cited by 3,944
Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making
Fisher, B., Turner, R. K., & Morling, P. (2008) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.014 · Cited by 3,390
Proximate Causes and Underlying Driving Forces of Tropical Deforestation
GEIST, H. J., & LAMBIN, E. F. (2002) · BioScience · doi:10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0143:pcaudf]2.0.co;2 · Cited by 3,123
The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being
Haines-Young, R. H., & Potschin, M. (2010) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511750458.007 · Cited by 1,681
Incorporating plant functional diversity effects in ecosystem service assessments
Díaz, S., Lavorel, S., de Bello, F., Quétier, F., Grigulis, K., & Robson, T. M. (2007) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0704716104 · Cited by 1,658
Self-citationSpatial scales, stakeholders and the valuation of ecosystem services
Hein, L., van Koppen, C. S. A., de Groot, R. S., & Ierland, E. C. V. (2005) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.04.005 · Cited by 1,360
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–117 of 117
Geospatially enabled modelling of values and decisions in agro-ecological landscapes
Mahboob, J. (2017) · UTAS Research Repository · doi:10.25959/23240516
Microbial Husbandry: Nurturing Microbes to Capture Soil Ecosystem Services
Ewing, P. M. (2018) · University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy (University of Minnesota)
CÁC YẾU TỐ ẢNH HƯỞNG ĐẾN VIỆC QUYẾT ĐỊNH TRỒNG QUẾ CỦA HỘ NÔNG DÂN TẠI TỈNH THÁI NGUYÊN
Lan, Đ. N., & Hiền, Đ. T. T. (2023) · TNU Journal of Science and Technology · doi:10.34238/tnu-jst.7973
Rotem-Mindali, O., Chebach, T. C., Tishler, A., & Blass, V. D. (2024) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4785038
Biber‐Freudenberger, L., Kamau, J. W., Whitney, C., & Mattsson, B. J. (2025) · Conservation Science and Practice · doi:10.1111/csp2.70146
Resque, A. G. L., Perrier, E., Coudel, É., Navegantes, L., & Page, C. L. (2023) · doi:10.7476/9786526803066.0008
Jaisli, I., & Aubert, A. H. (2026) · Agricultural Systems · doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2026.104937
Mantino, A., Burbi, S., Re, M., Finocchi, M., Ripamonti, A., Fernández, M. P., Schnabel, S., Contador, J. F. L., Jäger, M., Baumann, M., et al. (2026) · Agroforestry Systems · doi:10.1007/s10457-026-01461-3
Sari, R. R., Tanika, L., Speelman, E. N., Hakim, A. L., Ishaq, R. M., Saputra, D. D., Rozendaal, D. M. A., & van Noordwijk, M. (2026) · Journal of Land Use Science · doi:10.1080/1747423x.2026.2656154
Pastoral system adaptation to multiple drivers of change: a case study from the French Alps
Targetti, S., Hinojosa, L., Sarrazin, C., & Napoléone, C. (2026) · Regional Environmental Change · doi:10.1007/s10113-026-02593-z
Wang, B., He, C., Xiong, K., Lu, Y., Yang, H., & Ma, Y. (2026) · Agriculture · doi:10.3390/agriculture16202268
Metadata
- 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
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2014-09-30
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- e107572
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4182349
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- 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
