Perception of biodiversity in arable production systems in the Netherlands

Abstract

UntIl recently, arable productIOn systems m the Netherlands were solely based on theIr productIOn functIOn, whIle ecologIcal and sOCIetal functIOns were not or hardly taken mto account. However, the Netherlands IS a small and densely populated country that reqUIres a well-planned management ofthe landscape If more functIOns are to be fulfrlled. In an attempt to utlhze the avaIlable space m a more effiCIent way, we desrgned Dutch arable productIOn systems wIth a productIOn, an ecologIcal and a sOCIetal functIOn, and tested systems dlffenng m level of bIOdIversIty m long-term field expenments. In thIs artIcle speCIal attentIOn IS paId to systems' sOCIetal functIOn, whICh IS attamed when productIve and blOdlverse systems make the landscape more attractIve than conventIOnal ones. To explam dIfferences m appreCIatIOn of arable productIOn systems as elements ofthe Dutch landscape a study was carned out conslstmg of mtervlews combmed wIth an appraIsal of contrastmg conventIOnal and blOdlverse systems and of field margms on the basIs of colour photographs taken when the crops and the wIld plants flowered. The pIctures mcluded fields wIth rye, barley, cereal-pea and cereal-pea-wlld flower mIXtUres. In addItIOn, pICtures of other arable productIOn systems m the Netherlands were used as a contrastmg reference; these mcluded forage maIZe, tulIP fields and blOdlverse field margms. The photographed systems were evaluated by a group of 30 mtervlewees, usmg the quahtatlve dIalogue method. Each of the respondents was offered the posslblhty to express hIs feelmgs and to explam underlymg thoughts when rankmg and classlfymg the photographed systems. Most respondents appreCIated the presence of wIld flowers, but the farmers amongst them were hesItant as they feared YIeld loss. Barley was preferred to rye. Pea m mIXtUres was not Irked much but was appreCIated more m mIXtUres wIth rye than wIth barley. Also the reference systems provoked mIXed feelmgs. Respondents engaged wIth nature or agrICulture appreCIated bIOdIversIty m fields more than respondents not engaged wIth these sectors.

Aesthetic quality of agricultural landscape elements in different seasonal stages in Switzerland

“…However, species-rich flowering low-intensity meadows were preferred to flowering rapeseed or flowering highintensity meadows or pastures, indicating that not only flower colour but also colour variety influenced preference ratings positively. This is in line with preference scores for colourful but monotonous tulip fields, which were lower than those for more diverse field margins and crops with wildflower mixtures in a Dutch study (Stilma et al, 2009). Moreover, species-rich elements such as low-intensity meadows, species-rich field margins, and wild flower strips offer flowering species from spring to fall, in contrast to, for instance, crops such as rapeseed which flower only once a year for a short period of time.…”

“…As the demand for recreation in agricultural landscapes is increasing (Buijs, Pedroli, & Luginbuhl, 2006), values attached to the agricultural land may be changing over time, giving biodiversity and landscape aesthetics a higher importance than the production function of agriculture. There are increasing demands for the integration of socio-cultural values into agricultural policy and, in particular, to design socially accepted payment schemes (Stilma et al, 2009;Hasund et al, 2011). One objective of the recently reformed Swiss agricultural policy is to orientate agricultural payments for public services more strongly on social demands.…”

High Biodiversity of Green Infrastructure Does Not Contribute to Recreational Ecosystem Services

“…The human perception of biodiversity is influenced by numerous variables such as age, sex or professional experience [35][36][37], attitude towards nature conservation or appreciation of rural landscapes [38][39][40][41], and general knowledge about the immediately surrounding nature [42]. City dwellers declare a desire for direct contact with nature, but at the same time seek areas which are easily accessible [42][43][44].…”

High Biodiversity of Green Infrastructure Does Not Contribute to Recreational Ecosystem Services

“…Human perception of biodiversity is influenced by numerous variables such as age, sex or professional experience [34][35][36], attitude towards nature conservation or appreciation of rural landscapes [37][38][39][40] and general knowledge about the immediately surrounding nature [41]. City dwellers declare a demand for direct contact with nature, but at the same time seek areas which are easily accessible [42,43].…”