Social-ecological and regional adaption of agrobiodiversity management across a global set of research regions

L.E. Jackson, M.M. Pulleman, L. Brussaard, K. Bawa, G.G. Brown, I.M. Cardoso, P.C. de Ruiter, L.E. Garcia-Barrios, A.D. Hollander, P. Lavelle, E. Ouedraogo, U. Pascual, S. Setty, S.M. Smukler, T. Tscharntke, M. van Noordwijk

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

63 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

To examine management options for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes, eight research regions were classified into social-ecological domains, using a dataset of indicators of livelihood resources, i.e., capital assets. Potential interventions for biodiversity-based agriculture were then compared among landscapes and domains. The approach combined literature review with expert judgment by researchers working in each landscape. Each landscape was described for land use, rural livelihoods and attitudes of social actors toward biodiversity and intensification of agriculture. Principal components analysis of 40 indicators of natural, human, social, financial and physical capital for the eight landscapes showed a loss of biodiversity associated with high-input agricultural intensification. High levels of natural capital (e.g. indicators of wildland biodiversity conservation and agrobiodiversity for human needs) were positively associated with indicators of human capital, including knowledge of the flora and fauna and knowledge sharing among farmers. Three social-ecological domains were identified across the eight landscapes (Tropical Agriculture-Forest Matrix, Tropical Degrading Agroecosystem, and Temperate High-Input Commodity Agriculture) using hierarchical clustering of the indicator values. Each domain shared a set of interventions for biodiversity-based agriculture and ecological intensification that could also increase food security in the impoverished landscapes. Implementation of interventions differed greatly among the landscapes, e.g. financial capital for new farming practices in the Intensive Agriculture domain vs. developing market value chains in the other domains. This exploratory study suggests that indicators of knowledge systems should receive greater emphasis in the monitoring of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and that inventories of assets at the landscape level can inform adaptive management of agrobiodiversity-based interventions
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)623-639
JournalGlobal environmental change : human and policy dimensions
Volume22
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012

Fingerprint

biodiversity
agriculture
management
livelihood
capital assets
natural capital
agricultural landscape
agricultural intensification
intensive agriculture
adaptive management
value chain
social actor
human capital
agricultural ecosystem
food security
literature review
ecosystem service
commodity
knowledge
indicator

Keywords

  • atlantic rain-forest
  • agricultural intensification
  • biodiversity conservation
  • ecosystem services
  • environmental services
  • commodity production
  • production systems
  • central plateau
  • burkina-faso
  • landscape

Cite this

Jackson, L.E. ; Pulleman, M.M. ; Brussaard, L. ; Bawa, K. ; Brown, G.G. ; Cardoso, I.M. ; de Ruiter, P.C. ; Garcia-Barrios, L.E. ; Hollander, A.D. ; Lavelle, P. ; Ouedraogo, E. ; Pascual, U. ; Setty, S. ; Smukler, S.M. ; Tscharntke, T. ; van Noordwijk, M. / Social-ecological and regional adaption of agrobiodiversity management across a global set of research regions. In: Global environmental change : human and policy dimensions. 2012 ; Vol. 22, No. 3. pp. 623-639.
@article{7b82d441b8a84468949f3cba9e576ea6,
title = "Social-ecological and regional adaption of agrobiodiversity management across a global set of research regions",
abstract = "To examine management options for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes, eight research regions were classified into social-ecological domains, using a dataset of indicators of livelihood resources, i.e., capital assets. Potential interventions for biodiversity-based agriculture were then compared among landscapes and domains. The approach combined literature review with expert judgment by researchers working in each landscape. Each landscape was described for land use, rural livelihoods and attitudes of social actors toward biodiversity and intensification of agriculture. Principal components analysis of 40 indicators of natural, human, social, financial and physical capital for the eight landscapes showed a loss of biodiversity associated with high-input agricultural intensification. High levels of natural capital (e.g. indicators of wildland biodiversity conservation and agrobiodiversity for human needs) were positively associated with indicators of human capital, including knowledge of the flora and fauna and knowledge sharing among farmers. Three social-ecological domains were identified across the eight landscapes (Tropical Agriculture-Forest Matrix, Tropical Degrading Agroecosystem, and Temperate High-Input Commodity Agriculture) using hierarchical clustering of the indicator values. Each domain shared a set of interventions for biodiversity-based agriculture and ecological intensification that could also increase food security in the impoverished landscapes. Implementation of interventions differed greatly among the landscapes, e.g. financial capital for new farming practices in the Intensive Agriculture domain vs. developing market value chains in the other domains. This exploratory study suggests that indicators of knowledge systems should receive greater emphasis in the monitoring of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and that inventories of assets at the landscape level can inform adaptive management of agrobiodiversity-based interventions",
keywords = "atlantic rain-forest, agricultural intensification, biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services, environmental services, commodity production, production systems, central plateau, burkina-faso, landscape",
author = "L.E. Jackson and M.M. Pulleman and L. Brussaard and K. Bawa and G.G. Brown and I.M. Cardoso and {de Ruiter}, P.C. and L.E. Garcia-Barrios and A.D. Hollander and P. Lavelle and E. Ouedraogo and U. Pascual and S. Setty and S.M. Smukler and T. Tscharntke and {van Noordwijk}, M.",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.05.002",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "623--639",
journal = "Global environmental change : human and policy dimensions",
issn = "0959-3780",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "3",

}

Jackson, LE, Pulleman, MM, Brussaard, L, Bawa, K, Brown, GG, Cardoso, IM, de Ruiter, PC, Garcia-Barrios, LE, Hollander, AD, Lavelle, P, Ouedraogo, E, Pascual, U, Setty, S, Smukler, SM, Tscharntke, T & van Noordwijk, M 2012, 'Social-ecological and regional adaption of agrobiodiversity management across a global set of research regions', Global environmental change : human and policy dimensions, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 623-639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.05.002

Social-ecological and regional adaption of agrobiodiversity management across a global set of research regions. / Jackson, L.E.; Pulleman, M.M.; Brussaard, L.; Bawa, K.; Brown, G.G.; Cardoso, I.M.; de Ruiter, P.C.; Garcia-Barrios, L.E.; Hollander, A.D.; Lavelle, P.; Ouedraogo, E.; Pascual, U.; Setty, S.; Smukler, S.M.; Tscharntke, T.; van Noordwijk, M.

In: Global environmental change : human and policy dimensions, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2012, p. 623-639.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Social-ecological and regional adaption of agrobiodiversity management across a global set of research regions

AU - Jackson, L.E.

AU - Pulleman, M.M.

AU - Brussaard, L.

AU - Bawa, K.

AU - Brown, G.G.

AU - Cardoso, I.M.

AU - de Ruiter, P.C.

AU - Garcia-Barrios, L.E.

AU - Hollander, A.D.

AU - Lavelle, P.

AU - Ouedraogo, E.

AU - Pascual, U.

AU - Setty, S.

AU - Smukler, S.M.

AU - Tscharntke, T.

AU - van Noordwijk, M.

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - To examine management options for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes, eight research regions were classified into social-ecological domains, using a dataset of indicators of livelihood resources, i.e., capital assets. Potential interventions for biodiversity-based agriculture were then compared among landscapes and domains. The approach combined literature review with expert judgment by researchers working in each landscape. Each landscape was described for land use, rural livelihoods and attitudes of social actors toward biodiversity and intensification of agriculture. Principal components analysis of 40 indicators of natural, human, social, financial and physical capital for the eight landscapes showed a loss of biodiversity associated with high-input agricultural intensification. High levels of natural capital (e.g. indicators of wildland biodiversity conservation and agrobiodiversity for human needs) were positively associated with indicators of human capital, including knowledge of the flora and fauna and knowledge sharing among farmers. Three social-ecological domains were identified across the eight landscapes (Tropical Agriculture-Forest Matrix, Tropical Degrading Agroecosystem, and Temperate High-Input Commodity Agriculture) using hierarchical clustering of the indicator values. Each domain shared a set of interventions for biodiversity-based agriculture and ecological intensification that could also increase food security in the impoverished landscapes. Implementation of interventions differed greatly among the landscapes, e.g. financial capital for new farming practices in the Intensive Agriculture domain vs. developing market value chains in the other domains. This exploratory study suggests that indicators of knowledge systems should receive greater emphasis in the monitoring of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and that inventories of assets at the landscape level can inform adaptive management of agrobiodiversity-based interventions

AB - To examine management options for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes, eight research regions were classified into social-ecological domains, using a dataset of indicators of livelihood resources, i.e., capital assets. Potential interventions for biodiversity-based agriculture were then compared among landscapes and domains. The approach combined literature review with expert judgment by researchers working in each landscape. Each landscape was described for land use, rural livelihoods and attitudes of social actors toward biodiversity and intensification of agriculture. Principal components analysis of 40 indicators of natural, human, social, financial and physical capital for the eight landscapes showed a loss of biodiversity associated with high-input agricultural intensification. High levels of natural capital (e.g. indicators of wildland biodiversity conservation and agrobiodiversity for human needs) were positively associated with indicators of human capital, including knowledge of the flora and fauna and knowledge sharing among farmers. Three social-ecological domains were identified across the eight landscapes (Tropical Agriculture-Forest Matrix, Tropical Degrading Agroecosystem, and Temperate High-Input Commodity Agriculture) using hierarchical clustering of the indicator values. Each domain shared a set of interventions for biodiversity-based agriculture and ecological intensification that could also increase food security in the impoverished landscapes. Implementation of interventions differed greatly among the landscapes, e.g. financial capital for new farming practices in the Intensive Agriculture domain vs. developing market value chains in the other domains. This exploratory study suggests that indicators of knowledge systems should receive greater emphasis in the monitoring of biodiversity and ecosystem services, and that inventories of assets at the landscape level can inform adaptive management of agrobiodiversity-based interventions

KW - atlantic rain-forest

KW - agricultural intensification

KW - biodiversity conservation

KW - ecosystem services

KW - environmental services

KW - commodity production

KW - production systems

KW - central plateau

KW - burkina-faso

KW - landscape

U2 - 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.05.002

DO - 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.05.002

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 623

EP - 639

JO - Global environmental change : human and policy dimensions

JF - Global environmental change : human and policy dimensions

SN - 0959-3780

IS - 3

ER -