Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:20:50.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Novel approaches to evaluate sustainability of pasture-based livestock systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2016

A. Bernués
A. Bernués*
Affiliation:
Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria de Aragón, Instituto Agroalimentario de Aragón – IA2 (CITA-Universidad de Zaragoza), Avda. Montañana 930, 50059 Zaragoza, Spain
*
† E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Pasture-based livestock systems, often located in High Value Nature farmland areas, hold the greatest potential to deliver public goods across European agricultural systems. They play an important role in preserving agricultural landscapes, farmland biodiversity, cultural heritage, and in sustaining rural development. However, many of these functions are ignored in evaluation frameworks because public goods do not have market price and are often ignored in policy design, so farmers do not get the appropriate incentives to provide them. Different conceptual frameworks can be utilized to evaluate the multiple functions or services of these systems: Multifunctional Agriculture, Ecosystem Services, and Total Economic Value. We analyze the common characteristics of these concepts (e.g. they place human benefits and societal demands at the core of their definitions), their specificities (e.g. use of different units of analysis and spatial-temporal scales), and how they can be embedded in the wider concept of sustainability. Finally, we illustrate how the different concepts can be combined to evaluate pasture-based livestock farming systems from a socio-cultural and economic perspective. The public goods (ecosystem services) provided by representative case studies in Mediterranean and Nordic regions are quantified (also in monetary terms) under different environmental/policy scenarios. The results show that there is a clear underestimation of the socio-cultural and economic values of ecosystem services provided by these farming systems. They also show that the social welfare loss linked to further abandonment of livestock farming, and the associated environmental degradation, is very large. From a societal perspective, it is necessary to jointly measure the biophysical, socio-cultural and monetary values of ecosystem services (market and nonmarket) in order to promote the sustainability of pasture-based livestock systems.

Keywords

public goodsmultifunctional agricultureecosystem servicestotal economic value
Type
Full Paper
Information
Advances in Animal Biosciences , Volume 7 , Special Issue 2: Proceedings of the EAAP-European Federation of Animal Science in association with ALPA , October 2016 , pp. 185 - 190
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bernués, A, Rodríguez-Ortega, T, Alfnes, F, Clemetsen, M and Eik, LO 2015. Quantifying the multifunctionality of fjord and mountain agriculture by means of sociocultural and economic valuation of ecosystem services. Land Use Policy 48, 170–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernués, A, Rodríguez-Ortega, T, Ripoll-Bosch, R and Alfnes, F 2014. Socio-cultural and economic valuation of ecosystem services provided by Mediterranean mountain agroecosystems. Plos One 9, e102479.Google Scholar
Bernués, A, Rodríguez-Ortega, T, Ripoll-Bosch, R and Casasús, I 2013. A qualitative research on Spanish farmers and citizens perceptions of ecosystem services provided by mountain livestock farming. 17th Meeting of the FAO-CIHEAM Mountain Pastures Network, Pastoralism and Ecosystem Conservation, 5–7 June 2013, Trivero, Italy, pp. 12–16.Google Scholar
Bernués, A, Ruiz, R, Olaizola, A, Villalba, D and Casasús, I 2011. Sustainability of pasture-based livestock farming systems in the European Mediterranean context: synergies and trade-offs. Livestock Science 139, 44–57.Google Scholar
Cooper, T, Hart, K and Baldock, D 2009. Provision of public goods through agriculture in the European Union. Institute for European Environmental Policy, London.Google Scholar
de Groot, R, Fisher, B, Christie, M, Aronson, J, Braat, L, Gowdy, J, Haines-Young, R, Maltby, E, Neuville, A, Polasky, S, Portela, R and Ring, I 2010. Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation. In The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations (ed. P Kumar), pp. 9–40. Earthscan, London.Google Scholar
Hall, C, McVittie, A and Moran, D 2004. What does the public want from agriculture and the countryside? A review of evidence and methods. Journal of Rural Studies 20, 211–225.Google Scholar
Hauck, J, Görg, C, Varjopuro, R, Ratamäki, O and Jax, K 2013. Benefits and limitations of the ecosystem services concept in environmental policy and decision making: some stakeholder perspectives. Environmental Science & Policy 25, 13–21.Google Scholar
Lomba, A, Guerra, C, Alonso, J, Honrado, JP, Jongman, R and McCracken, D 2014. Mapping and monitoring High Nature Value farmlands: challenges in European landscapes. Journal of Environmental Management 143, 140–150.Google Scholar
OECD 2001. Multifunctionality: towards an analytical framework. OECD, Paris, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Oteros-Rozas, E, Martín-López, B, González, J, Plieninger, T, López, C and Montes, C 2014. Socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem services in a transhumance social-ecological network. Regional Environmental Change 14, 1269–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, DW and Pretty, JN 1993. Economic values and the natural world. Earthscan, London.Google Scholar
Randall, A 2002. Valuing the outputs of multifunctional agriculture. European Review of Agricultural Economics 29, 289–307.Google Scholar
Renting, H, Rossing, WA, Groot, JC, Van der Ploeg, JD, Laurent, C, Perraud, D, Stobbelaar, DJ and Van Ittersum, MK 2009. Exploring multifunctional agriculture. a review of conceptual approaches and prospects for an integrative transitional framework. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (suppl. 2), S112–S123.Google Scholar
Riedel, JL, Bernués, A and Casasús, I 2013. Livestock grazing impacts on herbage and shrub dynamics in a Mediterranean natural park. Rangeland Ecology & Management 66, 224–233.Google Scholar
Ripoll-Bosch, R, Díez-Unquera, B, Ruiz, R, Villalba, D, Molina, E, Joy, M, Olaizola, A and Bernués, A 2012. An integrated sustainability assessment of Mediterranean sheep farms with different degrees of intensification. Agricultural Systems 105, 46–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez-Ortega, T, Oteros-Rozas, E, Ripoll-Bosch, R, Tichit, M, Martín-López, B and Bernues, A 2014. Applying the ecosystem services framework to pasture-based livestock farming systems in Europe. Animal 8, 1–12.Google Scholar
TEEB 2010. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: ecological and economic foundations. Earthscan, London.Google Scholar
Van Huylenbroeck, G, Vandermeulen, V, Mettepenningen, E and Verspecht, A 2007. Multifunctionality of agriculture: a review of definitions, evidence and instruments. Living Reviews in Landscape Research 1, 1–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Velten, S, Leventon, J, Jager, N and Newig, J 2015. What is sustainable agriculture? A systematic review. Sustainability 7, 7833–7865.Google Scholar