Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Figure 1.

Socio-cognitive conceptual model of ecosystem services feedbacks on farmer behavior.

Feedback from changes in ES supply to farmers' cognitions and behaviors can be either direct, affecting only the perceived parameters of decision, or indirect, affecting the different cognitive components underlying the behavior [5].

More »

Figure 1 Expand

Table 1.

Data collection and analysis of the different components of the conceptual model of the farmer decision-making process (Figure 1).

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Drivers and related assumptions describing the four scenarios combining climatic and socio-economic alternatives (adapted from [61]).

More »

Table 2 Expand

Table 3.

Change of potential ecosystem services (decrease (↘) and increase (↗) greater than 10%) between practices in each category of grassland, for the drastic and local scenario (column “D”) and the intermittent and international scenario (column “I”) (data from [61]).

More »

Table 3 Expand

Table 4.

Ecosystem services with their values attributed by farmer (number indicates the number of farmers giving this value to a service), sorted by decreasing order of average value.

More »

Table 4 Expand

Table 5.

Summary of the statistical analyses at parcel level (excluding alpine meadows).

More »

Table 5 Expand

Figure 2.

Farmers' ecosystem services values and knowledge.

Conceptual representation based on farmers' discourses on values and knowledge about the relationship between ES and land-management practices. Rectangle boxes indicate practices and ellipses indicate ES. Dashed arrows indicate links between practices and ES and plain arrows indicate links between ES. Grey arrows indicate a negative effect and black arrows a positive effect. Except for the effect of litter quantity on forage quantity, farmers agree on all the relationships. Note that ES in grey are seen as final ES by farmers while the others are considered as intermediate ES [40].

More »

Figure 2 Expand

Table 6.

Representative quotes extracted mainly from farmers' discussions and the debriefing of the “feedback game” (7 farmers, January 2012).

More »

Table 6 Expand

Table 7.

Farmers' behaviors in reality and in each scenario (“feedback game” session) for each type of grasslands: Mown terraces; Grazed terraces, Mown unterraced grassland, Grazed unterraced grasslands.

More »

Table 7 Expand

Table 8.

Factors influencing farmers' decisions to adopt a practice during the “feedback game”, according to farmers accounts and discussions.

More »

Table 8 Expand