Farmer typology, future scenarios and the implications for ecosystem service provision: a case study from south-eastern Spain

Nainggolan, Doan; Termansen, Mette; Reed, Mark; Cebollero, Esther D.; Hubacek, Klaus

doi:10.1007/s10113-011-0261-6

Cited by 66 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…They ranged from publications reporting the values and benefits associated with particular locations (e.g., open spaces) or ecosystems (e.g., wetlands) (Moore and Hunt 2012) to those dealing with the effects of specific threats (e.g., , Burgess et al 2010, Kløve et al 2011 or policies and management approaches on place-based cultural ecosystem services (e.g., Nainggolan et al 2011). Many of these publications discussed conflicting situations (e.g., Vihervaara et al 2010a) and tradeoffs between alternative development strategies (e.g., López-Hoffman et al 2010).…”

Section: Cluster Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural Ecosystem Services: A Literature Review and Prospects for Future Research

Milcu¹,

Hanspach²,

Abson³

et al. 2013

E&S

752

431

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACT. Cultural ecosystem services constitute a growing field of research that is characterized by an increasing number of publications from various academic disciplines. We conducted a semiquantitative review of publications explicitly dealing with cultural ecosystem services. Our aims were: (1) to provide an overview of the current state of research, (2) to classify the diversity of research approaches by identifying clusters of publications that address cultural ecosystem services in similar ways, and (3) to highlight some important challenges for the future of cultural ecosystem services research. We reviewed 107 publications and extracted 20 attributes describing their type and content, including methods, scales, drivers of change, and trade-offs between services. Using a cluster analysis on a subset of attributes we identified five groups of publications: Group 1, conceptual focus, deals with theoretical issues; Group 2, descriptive reviews, consists mostly of desktop studies; Group 3, localized outcomes, deals with case studies coming from different disciplines; Group 4, social and participatory, deals mainly with assessing preferences and perceptions; and Group 5, economic assessments, provides economic valuations. Emerging themes in cultural ecosystem services research relate to improving methods for cultural ecosystem services valuation, studying cultural ecosystem services in the context of ecosystem service bundles, and more clearly articulating policy implications. Based on our findings, we conclude that: (1) cultural ecosystem services are well placed as a tool to bridge gaps between different academic disciplines and research communities, (2) capitalizing on the societal relevance of cultural ecosystem services could help address real-world problems, and (3) cultural ecosystem services have the potential to foster new conceptual links between alternative logics relating to a variety of social and ecological issues.

show abstract

Section: Cluster Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural Ecosystem Services: A Literature Review and Prospects for Future Research

Milcu¹,

Hanspach²,

Abson³

et al. 2013

E&S

752

431

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The multivariate techniques employed in the empirical analysis are of the type used in Nainggolan et al [21] and other related studies [22,23]. Firstly, a principal components analysis (PCA) is conducted, a technique which is necessary for data reduction (i.e.…”

Section: Data Analysis Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also, to simplify the interpretability of the PCA results the components were rotated using the Kaiser's normalisation applicable when the number of variables does not exceed 30 [26], which is the case with the analysed data. This approach has also been applied in recent and related studies [21]. The resulting PCA components are then used as inputs to the CA to typify the different clusters of smallholder farmers in the data set.…”

Section: Data Analysis Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diversity amongst farm households and achievements from multi-stakeholder innovation platform approach: lessons from Balaka Malawi

Makate¹,

Mango²

2017

Agric & Food Secur

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Understanding diversity of smallholder farm households is of critical importance for the success of development interventions. Farming households often will devise livelihood strategies that provide the best guarantee for survival and based on their socioeconomic vulnerability. This study examines how achievements from the Integrated Agricultural Research for Development (IAR4D) approach through participation in innovation platform activities accrue to smallholder farming households of diverse socioeconomic status. The study is based on a representative sample of smallholder farmers from Balaka innovation platform found in Balaka district of Malawi. Balaka innovation platform was formed in 2009 with the aim of addressing key farmer problems of low crop productivity, lack of input and output markets, limited access to agricultural credit, low incomes and poverty in general. Through multi-stakeholder dialogue, the platform proposed activities meant to improve livelihoods of participants. Some of the activities include conservation agriculture adoption, crop diversification, improved communication through the platform, linking farmers to microfinance institutions and markets, collective market participation, joining farmer groups organised by the platform and various other activities. The main aim was to improve crop productivity, household incomes and food security. Results:A multivariate study that combines principal component analysis for essential data reduction and cluster analysis to classify typical farm households based on their socioeconomic characteristics and reported achievements from innovation platform activities was used. It is evident from the results that achievements from innovation platform activities are not uniform across farmer groups of different socioeconomic status. Conclusions:The upshots call for segregated approaches in promoting adoption of various livelihood improving activities, technologies and approaches through the innovation platform approach in smallholder farming areas such as the ones in Balaka, Malawi. Tactics selected by development partners to fight against smallholder farmer problems of low productivity low incomes and food insecurity should conform to farmer socioeconomic vulnerability for greater success.

show abstract

“…Farming households also tend to differ in their resource endowments, production orientation and objectives, past experiences, management capacity, livelihood strategies, and in their attitudes towards risks (Tittonell et al, 2010). However, the determination and appropriate segmentation of agricultural production systems into applicable innovation domains remains obscure due to the lack of standardized assessment parameters and procedures (Bidogeza et al, 2009;Nainggolan et al, 2013). This represents a knowledge gap.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Farmer segmentation for enhancing technology adoption and smallholder dairy development

Hanyani-Mlambo¹,

Mudhara²,

Nyikahadzoi³

et al. 2017

Afr. J. Agric. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite various interventions, smallholder dairy farming in large parts of the tropics remain characterised by low productivity, restricted market participation, and viability challenges. The problem lies in the unavailability, low adoption rates and non-adoption of available improved smallholder dairying technologies. Using Rusitu and Gokwe smallholder dairy projects in Zimbabwe as a case study, this paper explored broad global issues of farmer segmentation, characteristics of the different farmer segments or innovation domains, the domains' influence on technology adoption patterns, and the impact of technology adoption on smallholder dairy development. Through a survey of 227 households and the use of a multivariate analysis approach, Principal Component Analysis identified eight principal components, while follow-up analysis using Cluster Analysis identified five distinct innovation domains. These innovation domains included smallholder dairy producers (61.6% of the surveyed households), smallholder dairy heirs (15.9%), new and emergent producers (4.6%), smallholder dairy pioneers (2.0%), and commercial and market-oriented producers (15.9%). The paper established that innovation domains with higher levels of participation in smallholder dairy innovation platforms had higher rates of dairy technology adoption. The net effects have higher estimated annual dairy incomes, improved total household incomes, and the development of smallholder dairy enterprises. This study provides valuable contributions in advancing the theories and practice of innovation, agricultural research and advisory services.

show abstract

Farmer typology, future scenarios and the implications for ecosystem service provision: a case study from south-eastern Spain

Cited by 66 publications

References 37 publications

Cultural Ecosystem Services: A Literature Review and Prospects for Future Research

Cultural Ecosystem Services: A Literature Review and Prospects for Future Research

Diversity amongst farm households and achievements from multi-stakeholder innovation platform approach: lessons from Balaka Malawi

Farmer segmentation for enhancing technology adoption and smallholder dairy development

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About