2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106482
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Productive ecosystem services and collective management: Lessons from a realistic landscape model

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

1
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Furthermore, despite that the GC leads to the highest total profit, it is never stable without policy intervention. This is a crucial result as the existing studies have assumed its stability (Atallah et al 2017;Bareille et al 2020;Cong et al 2014;Epanchin-Niell and Wilen 2015). Overall, the cooperation for the management of productive ES is possible, but remains partial.…”
Section: Discussion and Concluding Remarksmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Furthermore, despite that the GC leads to the highest total profit, it is never stable without policy intervention. This is a crucial result as the existing studies have assumed its stability (Atallah et al 2017;Bareille et al 2020;Cong et al 2014;Epanchin-Niell and Wilen 2015). Overall, the cooperation for the management of productive ES is possible, but remains partial.…”
Section: Discussion and Concluding Remarksmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since the provision of many productive ES depends on mobile "ES providers", such as pollinators or pest-predatory insects, farmers' land-use choices may, however, create positive externalities for neighbouring farmers (Bareille et al 2020;Costello et al 2017). In this context, cooperation among farmers to manage productive ES is likely to be an efficient strategy for farmers.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…ILM acknowledges the role of stakeholders in designing valuable landscapes and the transition towards green economies [5]. Although the management of ESS on the landscape-level in either heterogeneous or homogenous farms improves collective benefits, some farmers of heterogeneous farms would lose by collaborating, ending up with lowering the stability of this kind of collective action [36]. Therefore, there is additional need of a highly "uber" integrated assessment modelling approach that can demonstrate the interactive cost-benefit dynamics on the local and global scales [2,37].…”
Section: Challenges Of Modelling Human-environment Interactionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such analytic landscape contexts allowed to address the role of grassland as sources of soil-dwelling pests, yet clearly do not reflect the real complexity of the agricultural mosaic, that stems from stakeholder decisions under agronomical, economical, sociotechnical constraints. The representation of agroecosystems is still a research issue (Poggi et al, 2018b), and some model representations encompass more or less explicitly these constraints (Bareille et al, 2020;Martel et al, 2017;Ricci et al, 2018). Hence, a next research avenue consists in the exploration of suppressive patterns in simplified but realistic agricultural landscapes, generated under agronomic constraints at the farm or landscape scales.…”
Section: Limitations and Perspectivesmentioning
confidence: 99%