{"text_format":"1","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":5,"sheets":["Top 100","Abstracts","Experts selection","Abstracts Experts Selection","Overview themes"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":0,"macros":1,"external_links":0,"defined_names":0,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"Top 100","index":0,"n_rows":101,"n_cols":20,"rows_kept":101,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["Pablo Tittonnell","Martijn van der Heide","Top","Nr","Final Rank","Abstract link","Title","Author(s)","Journal","DOI","Themes","Year","#citations","#cit/year","JIF Journal","Score citations","Score cit/year","Score IF","Ranking cit+IF/2","Notes"]
[null,null,"Top 3",1,1,1,"Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri-environment schemes in five European countries","Kleijn, D., Baquero, R. A., Clough, Y., Díaz, M., De Esteban, J., Fernández, F., Gabriel, D., Herzog, F., Holzschuh, A., Jöhl, R., Knop, E., Kruess, A., Marshall, E. J. P., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Tscharntke, T., Verhulst, J., West, T. M., Yela, J. L.","Ecology Letters"," https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00869.x",null,"2006",719,{"$f":"719/15","v":47.93333333333333},"8.17",2,3,3,{"$f":"(Q2+R2)/2","v":3}]
[null,null,"Top 3",2,2,2,"Environmental factors driving the effectiveness of European agri-environmental measures in mitigating pollinator loss - a meta-analysis","Scheper, J., Holzschuh, A., Kuussaari, M., Potts, S. G., Rundlöf, M., Smith, H. G., Kleijn, D.","Ecology Letters"," https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12128",null,"2013",272,{"$f":"272/8","v":34},"8.17",5,4,4,4]
[null,null,"Top 3",3,2,3,"Agri-environment schemes do not effectively protect biodiversity in Dutch agricultural landscapes","Kleijn, D., Berendse, F., Smit, R., Gilissen, N.","Nature"," https://doi.org/10.1038/35099540",null,"2001",499,{"$f":"499/20","v":24.95},"14.96",3,7,1,4]
[null,null,"Top 10",4,3,4,"A scoping review on incentives for adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and their outcomes","Piñeiro, V., Arias, J., Dürr, J., Elverdin, P., Ibáñez, A. M., Kinengyere, A., Opazo, C. M., Owoo, N., Page, J. R., Prager, S. D., Torero, M.","Nature Sustainability"," https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00617-y",null,"2020",19,{"$f":"19/1","v":19},"9.65",38,8,2,5]
[null,null,"Top 10",5,4,5,"Aligning agri-environmental subsidies and environmental needs: A comparative analysis between the US and EU","Biffi, S., Traldi, R., Crezee, B., Beckmann, M., Egli, L., Epp Schmidt, D., Motzer, N., Okumah, M., Seppelt, R., Louise Slabbert, E., Tiedeman, K., Wang, H., Ziv, G.","Environmental Research Letters"," https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abfa4e",null,"2021",26,{"$f":"26/1","v":26},"6.15",32,5,8,6.5]
[null,null,"Top 10",6,5,6,"Agricultural sustainability: Concepts, principles and evidence","Pretty, J.","Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences"," https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2163",null,2008,779,{"$f":"779/13","v":59.92307692307692},"5.42",1,2,13,7.5]
[null,null,"Top 10",7,6,7,"The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management","Batáry, P., Dicks, L. V., Kleijn, D., Sutherland, W. J.","Conservation Biology"," https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12536",null,"2015",397,{"$f":"397/6","v":66.166666666666671},"4.88",4,1,18,9.5]
[null,null,"Top 10",8,6,8,"Mixed effects of organic farming and landscape complexity on farmland biodiversity and biological control potential across Europe","Winqvist, C., Bengtsson, J., Aavik, T., Berendse, F., Clement, L. W., Eggers, S., Fischer, C., Flohre, A., Geiger, F., Liira, J., Pärt, T., Thies, C., Tscharntke, T., Weisser, W. W., Bommarco, R.","Journal of Applied Ecology"," https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01950.x",null,"2011",155,{"$f":"155/10","v":15.5},"5.71",12,10,9,9.5]
[null,null,"Top 10",9,7,9,"The future of agri-environment schemes: Biodiversity gains and ecosystem service delivery?","Whittingham, M. J.","Journal of Applied Ecology"," https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2011.01987.x",null,"2011",130,{"$f":"130/10","v":13},"5.71",14,12,9,10.5]
[null,null,"Top 10",10,7,10,"Drivers of farmers' adoption and continuation of climate-smart agricultural practices. A study from northeastern Italy","Pagliacci, F., Defrancesco, E., Mozzato, D., Bortolini, L., Pezzuolo, A., Pirotti, F., Pisani, E., Gatto, P.","Science of the Total Environment"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136345",null,"2020",12,{"$f":"12/1","v":12},"7.96",45,16,5,10.5]
[null,null,"Top 30",11,8,11,"Will agri-environment schemes deliver substantial biodiversity gain, and if not why not?","Whittingham, M. J.","Journal of Applied Ecology"," https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2006.01263.x",null,"2007",180,{"$f":"180/14","v":12.857142857142858},"5.71",8,13,9,11]
[null,null,"Top 30",12,9,12,"Assessing agricultural eco-efficiency in Italian Regions","Coluccia, B., Valente, D., Fusco, G., De Leo, F., Porrini, D.","Ecological Indicators"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106483",null,"2020",25,{"$f":"25/1","v":25},"5.00",33,6,17,11.5]
[null,null,"Top 30",13,10,13,"Exploring the knowledge landscape of ecosystem services assessments in Mediterranean agroecosystems: Insights for future research","Nieto-Romero, M., Oteros-Rozas, E., González, J. A., Martín-López, B.","Environmental Science and Policy"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.09.003",null,"2014",90,{"$f":"90/7","v":12.857142857142858},"5.52",16,13,11,12]
[null,null,"Top 30",14,11,14,"The role of agri-environment schemes and farm management practices in reversing the decline of farmland birds in England","Vickery, J. A., Bradbury, R. B., Henderson, I. G., Eaton, M. A., Grice, P. V.","Biological Conservation"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2003.06.004",null,"2004",235,{"$f":"235/17","v":13.823529411764707},"5.23",6,11,15,13]
[null,null,"Top 30",15,12,15,"FORUM: Landscape-scale conservation: Collaborative agri-environment schemes could benefit both biodiversity and ecosystem services, but will farmers be willing to participate?","McKenzie, A. J., Emery, S. B., Franks, J. R., Whittingham, M. J.","Journal of Applied Ecology"," https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12122",null,"2013",79,{"$f":"79/8","v":9.875},"5.71",18,18,9,13.5]
[null,null,"Top 30",16,13,16,"Local and landscape effects of organic farming on butterfly species richness and abundance","Rundlöf, M., Bengtsson, J., Smith, H. G.","Journal of Applied Ecology"," https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01448.x",null,"2008",126,{"$f":"126/13","v":9.6923076923076916},"5.71",15,20,9,14.5]
[null,null,"Top 30",17,13,17,"Mainstreaming ecosystem services through reformed European agricultural policies","Plieninger, T., Schleyer, C., Schaich, H., Ohnesorge, B., Gerdes, H., Hernández-Morcillo, M., Bieling, C.","Conservation Letters"," https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00240.x",null,"2012",82,{"$f":"82/9","v":9.1111111111111107},"6.64",17,22,7,14.5]
[null,null,"Top 30",18,13,18,"Farmers value on-farm ecosystem services as important, but what are the impediments to participation in PES schemes?","Page, G., Bellotti, B.","Science of the Total Environment"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.02.029",null,"2015",48,{"$f":"48/6","v":8},"7.96",24,24,5,14.5]
[null,null,"Top 30",19,14,19,"Experimental evidence that the effectiveness of conservation biological control depends on landscape complexity","Jonsson, M., Straub, C. S., Didham, R. K., Buckley, H. L., Case, B. S., Hale, R. J., Gratton, C., Wratten, S. D.","Journal of Applied Ecology"," https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12489",null,"2015",58,{"$f":"58/6","v":9.6666666666666661},"5.71",20,21,9,15]
[null,null,"Top 30",20,15,20,"Landscape-moderated biodiversity effects of ground herb cover in olive groves: Implications for regional biodiversity conservation","Rey, P. J., Manzaneda, A. J., Valera, F., Alcántara, J. M., Tarifa, R., Isla, J., Molina-Pardo, J. L., Calvo, G., Salido, T., Gutiérrez, J. E., Ruiz, C.","Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2019.03.007",null,"2019",20,{"$f":"20/2","v":10},"5.40",37,17,14,15.5]
[null,null,"Top 30",21,16,21,"Creating culturally sustainable agri-environmental schemes","Burton, R. J. F., Paragahawewa, U. H.","Journal of Rural Studies"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2010.11.001",null,"2011",174,{"$f":"174/10","v":17.399999999999999},"4.43",9,9,23,16]
[null,null,"Top 30",22,17,22,"Social and ecological drivers of success in agri-environment schemes: The roles of farmers and environmental context","McCracken, M. E., Woodcock, B. A., Lobley, M., Pywell, R. F., Saratsi, E., Swetnam, R. D., Mortimer, S. R., Harris, S. J., Winter, M., Hinsley, S., Bullock, J. M.","Journal of Applied Ecology"," https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12412",null,"2015",46,{"$f":"46/6","v":7.666666666666667},"5.71",25,25,9,17]
[null,null,"Top 30",23,18,23,"Simplistic understandings of farmer motivations could undermine the environmental potential of the common agricultural policy","Brown, C., Kovács, E., Herzon, I., Villamayor-Tomas, S., Albizua, A., Galanaki, A., Grammatikopoulou, I., McCracken, D., Olsson, J. A., Zinngrebe, Y.","Land Use Policy"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105136",null,"2021",7,{"$f":"7/1","v":7},"5.57",50,26,10,18]
[null,1,"Top 30",24,19,24,"Ecological effectiveness of agri-environment schemes in different agricultural landscapes in The Netherlands","Kleijn, D., Berendse, F., Smit, R., Gilissen, N., Smit, J., Brak, B., Groeneveld, R.","Conservation Biology"," https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00550.x",null,"2004",165,{"$f":"165/17","v":9.7058823529411757},"4.88",10,19,18,18.5]
[null,null,"Top 30",25,20,25,"Collective agri-environment schemes: How can regional environmental cooperatives enhance farmers' intentions for agri-environment schemes?","van Dijk, W. F. A., Lokhorst, A. M., Berendse, F., de Snoo, G. R.","Land Use Policy"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.10.005",null,"2015",34,{"$f":"34/6","v":5.666666666666667},"5.57",30,28,10,19]
[null,null,"Top 30",26,20,26,"Current use of impact models for agri-environment schemes and potential for improvements of policy design and assessment","Primdahl, J., Vesterager, J. P., Finn, J. A., Vlahos, G., Kristensen, L., Vejre, H.","Journal of Environmental Management"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.12.012",null,"2010",53,{"$f":"53/11","v":4.8181818181818183},"6.89",22,32,6,19]
[null,null,"Top 30",27,21,27,"Divergent farmer and scientist perceptions of agricultural biodiversity, ecosystem services and decision-making","Maas, B., Fabian, Y., Kross, S. M., Richter, A.","Biological Conservation"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2021.109065",null,"2021",7,{"$f":"7/1","v":7},"5.23",50,26,15,20.5]
[null,null,"Top 30",28,21,28,"Impact of landscape improvement by agri-environment scheme options on densities of characteristic farmland bird species and brown hare (Lepus europaeus)","Meichtry-Stier, K. S., Jenny, M., Zellweger-Fischer, J., Birrer, S.","Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.02.038",null,"2014",42,{"$f":"42/7","v":6},"5.40",26,27,14,20.5]
[null,null,"Top 30",29,21,29,"Plant species richness decreased in semi-natural grasslands in the Biosphere Reserve Wienerwald, Austria, over the past two decades, despite agri-environmental measures","Hülber, K., Moser, D., Sauberer, N., Maas, B., Staudinger, M., Grass, V., Wrbka, T., Willner, W.","Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2017.04.002",null,"2017",24,{"$f":"24/4","v":6},"5.40",34,27,14,20.5]
[null,null,"Top 30",30,22,30,"What can management option uptake tell us about ecosystem services delivery through agri-environment schemes?","Arnott, D., Chadwick, D., Harris, I., Koj, A., Jones, D. L.","Land Use Policy"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.039",null,"2019",9,{"$f":"9/2","v":4.5},"5.57",48,33,10,21.5]
[null,null,"Top 50",31,23,31,"Reshaping agri-environmental subsidies: From marginal farming to large-scale rewilding","Merckx, T., Pereira, H. M.","Basic and Applied Ecology"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2014.12.003",null,"2015",73,{"$f":"73/6","v":12.166666666666666},"3.10",19,15,29,22]
[null,null,"Top 50",32,23,32,"Increasing the proportion and quality of land under agri-environment schemes promotes birds and butterflies at the landscape scale","Zingg, S., Ritschard, E., Arlettaz, R., Humbert, J. Y.","Biological Conservation"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.12.022",null,"2019",11,{"$f":"11/2","v":5.5},"5.23",46,29,15,22]
[null,null,"Top 50",33,23,33,"Assessing the feasibility of carbon payments and Payments for Ecosystem Services to reduce livestock grazing pressure on saltmarshes","Muenzel, D., Martino, S.","Journal of Environmental Management"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2018.07.060",null,"2018",12,{"$f":"12/3","v":4},"6.89",45,38,6,{"$f":"(Q34+R34)/2","v":22}]
[null,null,"Top 50",34,24,34,"Effects of a coordinated farmland bird conservation project on farmers' intentions to implement nature conservation practices – Evidence from the Swedish Volunteer & Farmer Alliance","Josefsson, J., Lokhorst, A. M., Pärt, T., Berg, Å, Eggers, S.","Journal of Environmental Management"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.11.026",null,"2017",15,{"$f":"15/4","v":3.75},"6.89",42,39,6,22.5]
[null,null,"Top 50",35,25,35,"Investigating farmers’ preferences for alternative PES schemes for carbon sequestration in UK agroecosystems","Aslam, U., Termansen, M., Fleskens, L.","Ecosystem Services"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.08.004",null,"2017",17,{"$f":"17/4","v":4.25},"5.49",40,35,12,23.5]
[null,null,"Top 50",36,26,36,"Bird diversity relates to agri-environment schemes at local and landscape level in intensive farmland","Hiron, M., Berg, A., Eggers, S., Josefsson, J., Pärt, T.","Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.05.013",null,"2013",35,{"$f":"35/8","v":4.375},"5.40",29,34,14,24]
[null,null,"Top 50",37,27,37,"Financial imperative or conservation concern? EU farmers' motivations for participation in voluntary agri-environmental schemes","Wilson, G. A., Hart, K.","Environment and Planning A"," https://doi.org/10.1068/a3311",null,"2000",191,{"$f":"191/21","v":9.0952380952380949},"3.61",7,23,26,24.5]
[null,null,"Top 50",38,27,38,"Management of agricultural soils for greenhouse gas mitigation: Learning from a case study in NE Spain","Sánchez, B., Iglesias, A., McVittie, A., Álvaro-Fuentes, J., Ingram, J., Mills, J., Lesschen, J. P., Kuikman, P. J.","Journal of Environmental Management"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.01.003",null,"2016",16,{"$f":"16/5","v":3.2},"6.89",41,43,6,24.5]
[null,null,"Top 50",39,28,39,"Farmers and nature conservation: What is known about attitudes, context factors and actions affecting conservation?","Ahnström, J., Höckert, J., Bergeå, H. L., Francis, C. A., Skelton, P., Hallgren, L.","Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems"," https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742170508002391",null,"2009",152,{"$f":"152/12","v":12.666666666666666},"2.60",13,14,36,25]
[null,null,"Top 50",40,29,40,"Strategies for the sustainable management of phosphorus","Sharpley, A. N., Withers, P. J. A., Abdalla, C. W., Dodd, A. R.","Phosphorus: Agriculture and the Environment"," https://doi.org/10.2134/agronmonogr46.c32",null,"2015",13,{"$f":"13/6","v":2.1666666666666665},"n/a",44,51,null,25.5]
[null,null,"Top 50",41,30,41,"Mixed effectiveness of French agri-environment schemes for nationwide farmland bird conservation","Princé, K., Moussus, J. P., Jiguet, F.","Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2011.11.021",null,"2012",36,{"$f":"36/9","v":4},"5.40",28,38,14,26]
[null,null,"Top 50",42,31,42,"An integrated approach for ex-ante evaluation of public policies for sustainable agriculture at landscape level","Parra-López, C., Groot, J. C. J., Carmona-Torres, C., Rossing, W. A. H.","Land Use Policy"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.12.006",null,"2009",36,{"$f":"36/12","v":3},"5.57",28,44,10,27]
[null,null,"Top 50 ",43,31,43,"A fuzzy cognitive mapping approach for the assessment of public-goods governance in agricultural landscapes","Targetti, S., Schaller, L. L., Kantelhardt, J.","Land Use Policy"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.04.033",null,"2021",3,{"$f":"3/1","v":3},"5.57",54,44,10,27]
[null,null,"Top 50",44,32,44,"Little and late: How reduced hedgerow cutting can benefit Lepidoptera","Staley, J. T., Botham, M. S., Chapman, R. E., Amy, S. R., Heard, M. S., Hulmes, L., Savage, J., Pywell, R. F.","Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.03.018",null,"2016",18,{"$f":"18/5","v":3.6},"5.40",39,41,14,27.5]
[null,null,"Top 50",45,33,45,"A survey exploring private farm advisor perspectives of agri-environment schemes: The case of England's Environmental Stewardship programme","Hejnowicz, A. P., Rudd, M. A., White, P. C. L.","Land Use Policy"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.04.005",null,"2016",14,{"$f":"14/5","v":2.8},"5.57",43,46,10,28]
[null,null,"Top 50",46,34,46,"Farmer participation in agri-environmental schemes: Towards conservation-oriented thinking?","Wilson, G. A., Hart, K.","Sociologia Ruralis"," https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9523.00181",null,"2001",160,{"$f":"160/20","v":8},"2.80",11,24,33,28.5]
[null,null,"Top 50",47,35,47,"Biological conservation in dynamic agricultural landscapes: Effectiveness of public policies and trade-offs with agricultural production","Barraquand, F., Martinet, V.","Ecological Economics"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.12.019",null,"2011",34,{"$f":"34/10","v":3.4},"5.18",30,42,16,29]
[null,null,"Top 50",48,35,48,"Implementation of landscape planning and nature conservation in the agricultural landscape - A case study from saxony","Lütz, M., Bastian, O.","Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment"," https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00300-0",null,"2002",57,{"$f":"57/19","v":3},"5.40",21,44,14,29]
[null,null,"Top 50",49,35,49,"Multi-scale effects of agri-environment schemes on carabid beetles in intensive farmland","Caro, G., Marrec, R., Gauffre, B., Roncoroni, M., Augiron, S., Bretagnolle, V.","Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.05.009",null,"2016",15,{"$f":"15/5","v":3},"5.40",42,44,14,29]
[null,null,"Top 50",50,36,50,"'Greening' green infrastructure. Good italian practices for enhancing green infrastructure through the common agricultural policy","Magaudda, S., D'Ascanio, R., Muccitelli, S., Palazzo, A. L.","Sustainability (Switzerland)"," https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062301",null,"2020",5,{"$f":"5/1","v":5},"3.48",52,31,28,29.5]
[null,null,"Top 100",51,36,51,"Mammals, agri-environment schemes and set-aside - What are the putative benefits?","MacDonald, D. W., Tattersall, F. H., Service, K. M., Firbank, L. G., Feber, R. E.","Mammal Review"," https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2907.2007.00100.x",null,"2007",57,{"$f":"57/14","v":4.0714285714285712},"4.47",21,37,22,29.5]
[null,null,"Top 100",52,36,52,"Assessing sustainability in agricultural landscapes: A review of approaches1,2","Eichler Inwood, S. E., López-Ridaura, S., Kline, K. L., Gérard, B., Monsalue, A. G., Govaerts, B., Dale, V. H.","Environmental Reviews"," https://doi.org/10.1139/er-2017-0058",null,"2018",12,{"$f":"12/3","v":4},"4.49",45,38,21,29.5]
[null,null,"Top 100",53,36,53,"Soil degradation, farming practices, institutions and policy responses: An analytical framework","Prager, K., Schuler, J., Helming, K., Zander, P., Ratinger, T., Hagedorn, K.","Land Degradation and Development"," https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.979",null,"2011",37,{"$f":"37/10","v":3.7},"4.71",27,40,19,29.5]
[null,null,"Top 100",54,37,54,"A landscape perspective on sustainability of agricultural systems","Dale, V. H., Kline, K. L., Kaffka, S. R., Langeveld, J. W. A.","Landscape Ecology"," https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9814-4",null,"2013",36,{"$f":"36/8","v":4.5},"3.57",28,33,27,30]
[null,null,"Top 100",55,37,55,"Plant diversity partitioning in Mediterranean croplands: Effects of farming intensity, field edge, and landscape context","Concepción, E. D., Fernandez-González, F., Díaz, M.","Ecological Applications"," https://doi.org/10.1890/11-1471.1",null,"2012",37,{"$f":"37/9","v":4.1111111111111107},"4.34",27,36,24,30]
[null,null,"Top 100",56,38,56,"Exploring cooperative place-based approaches to restorative agriculture","Swagemakers, P., Domínguez García, M. D., Milone, P., Ventura, F., Wiskerke, J. S. C.","Journal of Rural Studies"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.12.003",null,"2019",8,{"$f":"8/2","v":4},"4.43",49,38,23,30.5]
[null,null,"Top 100",57,38,57,"The role of network bridging organisations in compensation payments for agri-environmental services under the EU Common Agricultural Policy","Dedeurwaerdere, T., Polard, A., Melindi-Ghidi, P.","Ecological Economics"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.07.025",null,"2015",17,{"$f":"17/6","v":2.8333333333333335},"5.18",40,45,16,30.5]
[null,null,"Top 100",58,39,58,"Ecological effectiveness of French grassland agri-environment schemes for farmland bird communities","Princé, K., Jiguet, F.","Journal of Environmental Management"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.02.039",null,"2013",12,{"$f":"12/8","v":1.5},"6.89",45,58,6,32]
[null,null,"Top 100",59,40,59,"Evaluating the effectiveness of conservation measures for European grassland-breeding waders","Franks, S. E., Roodbergen, M., Teunissen, W., Carrington Cotton, A., Pearce-Higgins, J. W.","Ecology and Evolution"," https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.4532",null,"2018",16,{"$f":"16/3","v":5.333333333333333},"2.65",41,30,35,32.5]
[null,null,"Top 100",60,41,60,"Multiple benefits of carbon-friendly agricultural practices: Empirical assessment of conservation tillage","Kurkalova, L., Kling, C. L., Zhao, J.","Environmental Management"," https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-003-9109-2",null,"2004",23,{"$f":"23/17","v":1.3529411764705883},"6.89",35,60,6,33]
[null,null,"Top 100",61,42,61,"Is it worth protecting groundwater from diffuse pollution with agri-environmental schemes? A hydro-economic modeling approach","Hérivaux, C., Orban, P., Brouyère, S.","Journal of Environmental Management"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.04.058",null,"2013",10,{"$f":"10/8","v":1.25},"6.89",47,61,6,33.5]
[null,1,"Top 100",62,43,62,"Agricultural public policy: Green or sustainable?","Mouysset, L.","Ecological Economics"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.03.004",null,"2014",15,{"$f":"15/7","v":2.1428571428571428},"5.18",42,52,16,34]
[null,null,"Top 100",63,44,63,"Restoration of plant diversity on ditch banks: Seed and site limitation in response to agri-environment schemes","Leng, X., Musters, C. J. M., de Snoo, G. R.","Biological Conservation"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.01.019",null,"2009",21,{"$f":"21/12","v":1.75},"5.23",36,54,15,34.5]
[null,null,"Top 100",64,45,64,"Present agri-environment measures in Europe are not sufficient for the conservation of a highly sensitive bird species, the Corncrake Crex crex","Bellebaum, J., Koffijberg, K.","Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2018.01.018",null,"2018",5,{"$f":"5/3","v":1.6666666666666667},"5.40",52,56,14,35]
[null,null,"Top 100",65,46,65,"Influence of land sharing and land sparing strategies on patterns of vegetation and terrestrial vertebrate richness and occurrence in Australian endangered eucalypt woodlands","Michael, D. R., Wood, J. T., O'Loughlin, T., Lindenmayer, D. B.","Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.05.001",null,"2016",8,{"$f":"8/5","v":1.6},"5.40",49,57,14,{"$f":"(Q66+R66)/2","v":35.5}]
[null,null,"Top 100",66,47,66,"Farmer awareness and implementation of sustainable agriculture practices in different types of farms in Poland","Gebska, M., Grontkowska, A., Swiderek, W., Golebiewska, B.","Sustainability (Switzerland)"," https://doi.org/10.3390/su12198022",null,"2020",3,{"$f":"3/1","v":3},"3.48",54,44,28,36]
[null,null,"Top 100",67,47,67,"Towards sustainable land use: Public demand for plant diversity in agricultural landscapes of central Germany","Fischer, A.","Valuation and Conservation of Biodiversity: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Convention on Biological Diversity"," https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-27138-4_10",null,"2005",2,{"$f":"2/16","v":0.125},"n/a",55,72,null,36]
[null,null,"Top 100",68,48,68,"Effect of agri-environment measure for the aquatic warbler on bird biodiversity in the extensively managed landscape of Biebrza Marshes (Poland)","Budka, M., Jobda, M., Szałański, P., Piórkowski, H.","Biological Conservation"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108279",null,"2019",3,{"$f":"3/2","v":1.5},"5.23",54,58,15,36.5]
[null,null,"Top 100",69,49,69,"Historical development, state and perspectives of environmental management in Bulgarian agriculture","Bachev, H.","Environmental Management: Past, Present and Future",null,null,"2017",0,0,"n/a",57,74,null,37]
[null,null,"Top 100",70,50,70,"Turning Farmers into Conservationists? Progress and Prospects","Riley, M.","Geography Compass"," https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2011.00423.x",null,"2011",17,{"$f":"17/10","v":1.7},"4.65",40,55,20,37.5]
[null,null,"Top 100",71,51,71,"Agri-environmental schemes and the European agricultural landscapes: The role of indicators as valuing tools for evaluation","Oñate, J. J., Andersen, E., Peco, B., Primdahl, J.","Landscape Ecology"," https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008155229725",null,"2000",50,{"$f":"50/21","v":2.3809523809523809},"3.57",23,50,27,38.5]
[null,null,"Top 100",72,51,72,"The effect of agri-environment schemes on amphibian diversity and abundance","Maes, J., Musters, C. J. M., De Snoo, G. R.","Biological Conservation"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2007.12.018",null,"2008",16,{"$f":"16/13","v":1.2307692307692308},"5.23",41,62,15,38.5]
[null,null,"Top 100",73,52,73,"Management of high nature value farmland in the republic of ireland: 25 years evolving toward locally adapted results-orientated solutions and payments","Moran, J., Byrne, D., Carlier, J., Dunford, B., Finn, J. A., Huallacháin, D. Ó, Sullivan, C. A.","Ecology and Society"," https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12180-260120",null,"2021",2,{"$f":"2/1","v":2},"4.16",55,53,25,39]
[null,null,"Top 100",74,52,74,"Stakeholder perceptions of the effectiveness and efficiency of agri-environment schemes in enhancing pollinators on farmland","Austin, Z., Penic, M., Raffaelli, D. G., White, P. C. L.","Land Use Policy"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.04.003",null,"2015",4,{"$f":"4/6","v":0.66666666666666663},"5.57",53,68,10,39]
[null,null,"Top 100",75,53,75,"Assessing ecologically sustainable agricultural land-use in the Central Pyrénées at the field and landscape level","Di Pietro, F.","Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment"," https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8809(00)00269-3",null,"2001",20,{"$f":"20/20","v":1},"5.40",37,65,14,39.5]
[null,null,"Top 100",76,54,76,"Impacts of management at a local and landscape scale on pollinators in semi-natural grasslands","Larkin, M., Stanley, D. A.","Journal of Applied Ecology"," https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13990",null,"2021",0,0,"5.71",57,74,9,41.5]
[null,null,"Top 100",77,54,77,"Sustainable landscape, soil and crop management practices enhance biodiversity and yield in conventional cereal systems","Redlich, S., Martin, E. A., Steffan-Dewenter, I.","Journal of Applied Ecology"," https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13821",null,"2021",0,0,"5.71",57,74,9,41.5]
[null,null,"Top 100",78,55,78,"Effects of agri-environmental schemes on farmland birds: Do food availability measurements improve patterns obtained from simple habitat models?","Ponce, C., Bravo, C., Alonso, J. C.","Ecology and Evolution"," https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.1125",null,"2014",18,{"$f":"18/7","v":2.5714285714285716},"2.65",39,49,35,42]
[null,null,"Top 100",79,55,79,"Agri-environmental schemes for biodiversity and environmental protection: How were are not yet “hitting the right keys”","Tyllianakis, E., Martin-Ortega, J.","Land Use Policy"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105620",null,"2021",0,0,"5.57",57,74,10,42]
[null,null,"Top 100",80,56,80,"Towards Sustainable Agriculture? The EU framework and local adaptation in Sweden and Poland","Öhlund, E., Zurek, K., Hammer, M.","Environmental Policy and Governance"," https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1687",null,"2015",16,{"$f":"16/6","v":2.6666666666666665},"2.49",41,48,37,42.5]
[null,null,"Top 100",81,57,81,"The importance of spatial and temporal scale for agri-environment scheme delivery","Siriwardena, G. M.","Ibis"," https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-919X.2010.01034.x",null,"2010",30,{"$f":"30/11","v":2.7272727272727271},"2.06",31,47,40,43.5]
[null,null,"Top 100",82,58,82,"Assessing pollinators' use of floral resource subsidies in agri-environment schemes: An illustration using Phacelia tanacetifolia and honeybees","Sprague, R., Boyer, S., Stevenson, G. M., Wratten, S. D.","PeerJ"," https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2677",null,"2016",8,{"$f":"8/5","v":1.6},"2.86",49,57,32,44.5]
[null,null,"Top 100",83,58,83,"Governing agri-environmental schemes: Lessons to be learned from the new institutional-economics approach","Smits, M. J., Driessen, P., Glasbergen, P.","Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy"," https://doi.org/10.1068/c06106s",null,"2008",18,{"$f":"18/13","v":1.3846153846153846},"3.01",39,59,30,44.5]
[null,null,"Top 100",84,59,84,"Effects of agri-environment management for cirl buntings on other biodiversity","MacDonald, M. A., Cobbold, G., Mathews, F., Denny, M. J. H., Walker, L. K., Grice, P. V., Anderson, G. Q. A.","Biodiversity and Conservation"," https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0258-6",null,"2012",11,{"$f":"11/9","v":1.2222222222222223},"2.98",46,63,31,47]
[null,null,"Top 100",85,60,85,"Mixing public and private agri-environment schemes: Effects on farmers participation in quebec, canada","Zaga-Mendez, A., Kolinjivadi, V., Bissonnette, J. F., Dupras, J.","International Journal of the Commons"," https://doi.org/10.5334/IJC.1002",null,"2020",2,{"$f":"2/1","v":2},"1.79",55,53,42,47.5]
[null,null,"Top 100",86,61,86,"Evaluation of a dairy agri-environmental programme for restoring woody green infrastructure","McWilliam, W., Fukuda, Y., Moller, H., Smith, D.","International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability"," https://doi.org/10.1080/14735903.2017.1314749",null,"2017",4,{"$f":"4/4","v":1},"2.66",53,65,34,49.5]
[null,null,"Top 100",87,62,87,"Alternative agricultural policy scenarios, sector modelling and indicators: A sustainability assessment","Lehtonen, H., Aakkula, J., Rikkonen, P.","Journal of Sustainable Agriculture"," https://doi.org/10.1300/J064v26n04_06",null,"2005",18,{"$f":"18/16","v":1.125},"2.10",39,64,39,51.5]
[null,null,"Top 100",88,62,88,"Radar remote sensing as a novel tool to assess the performance of an agri-environment scheme in coastal grasslands","Kaasiku, T., Praks, J., Jakobson, K., Rannap, R.","Basic and Applied Ecology"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2021.07.002",null,"2021",0,0,"3.10",57,74,29,51.5]
[null,null,"Top 100",89,63,89,"Are the conservation requirements of pseudo-steppe birds adequately covered by spanish agri-environmental schemes? An ex-ante assessment","Llusia, D., Oñate, J. J.","Ardeola",null,null,"2005",20,{"$f":"20/16","v":1.25},"1.05",37,61,44,52.5]
[null,null,"Top 100",90,64,90,"System dynamics model to design effective policy strategies aiming at fostering the adoption of conservation agriculture practices in sicily","Varia, F., Guccione, G. D., Macaluso, D., Marandola, D.","Chemical Engineering Transactions"," https://doi.org/10.3303/CET1758128",null,"2017",6,{"$f":"6/4","v":1.5},"0.16",51,58,48,53]
[null,null,"Top 100",91,65,91,"What influences farmers 'acceptance of agrienvironment schemes? An ex-post application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour'","Schroeder, L. A., Chaplin, S., Isselstein, J.","Landbauforschung Volkenrode"," https://doi.org/10.3220/LBF1440149868000",null,"2015",9,{"$f":"9/6","v":1.5},"0.12",48,58,49,53.5]
[null,null,"Top 100",92,65,92,"Policy Integration for Sustainable Agricultural Landscapes: Taking Stock of UK Policy and Practice","Dwyer, J.","Landscape Research"," https://doi.org/10.1080/01426397.2013.784245",null,"2014",5,{"$f":"5/7","v":0.7142857142857143},"1.97",52,66,41,53.5]
[null,null,"Top 100",93,66,93,"Cost-effective Biodiversity Conservation:Procurement Auctions and Payment-by-Results","Groth, M.","EuroChoices"," https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-692X.2011.00190.x",null,"2011",7,{"$f":"7/10","v":0.7},"0.95",50,67,45,56]
[null,null,"Top 100",94,66,94,"Evaluation of agricultural ecosystem services in fallowing land based on farmers' participation and model simulation","Liu, Y. L., Chang, K. t, Stoorvogel, J., Verburg, P., Sun, C. H.","Paddy and Water Environment"," https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-011-0282-2",null,"2012",5,{"$f":"5/9","v":0.55555555555555558},"1.42",52,69,43,56]
[null,null,"Top 100",95,66,95,"Greenhouse gas mitigation strategies and opportunities for agriculture","Kwon, H., Liu, X., Xu, H., Wang, M.","Agronomy Journal"," https://doi.org/10.1002/agj2.20844",null,"2021",0,0,"2.22",57,74,38,56]
[null,null,"Top 100",96,67,96,"Valoración indirecta de un programa agroambiental enfocado a la conservación de la avifauna esteparia en el norte de España","Astrain, C., Zaragüeta, E.","Ardeola",null,null,"2006",6,{"$f":"6/15","v":0.4},"1.05",51,70,44,57]
[null,null,"Top 100",97,68,97,"Balancing food production and biodiversity conservation in arable landscapes: Lessons from the Farm4Bio experiment","Storkey, J., Holland, J. M., Henderson, I. G., Lutman, P. J. W., Orson, J., Baverstock, J., Pell, J. K.","Outlooks on Pest Management"," https://doi.org/10.1564/v25_aug_02",null,"2014",1,{"$f":"1/7","v":0.14285714285714285},"0.92",56,71,46,{"$f":"(Q98+R98)/2","v":58.5}]
[null,null,"Top 100",98,69,98,"Environmentalizmus a pol'nohospodárska prax","Klocoková, J., Lindbloom, J.","Sociologia",null,null,"2006",1,{"$f":"1/15","v":6.6666666666666666E-2},"0.59",56,73,47,60]
[null,null,"Top 100",99,69,99,"Operation pollinator: Positive action for pollinators and improved biodiversity on farm","Sutton, P., Coates, G., Bailey, B., Nowakowski, M., Edwards, M., Blake, R., Woodcock, B., Carvell, C., Pywell, R.","Outlooks on Pest Management"," https://doi.org/10.1564/v31_jun_07",null,"2020",0,0,"0.92",57,74,46,60]
[null,1,"Top 100",100,70,100,"Bedrijfsvoering zit in de weg: Landbouw slechts beperkt inzetbaar voor natuur- en landschapsbehoud","Sanders, M., Nieuwenhuizen, W., Dirkx, J., Schrijver, R., Smidt, R.","Landschap",null,null,"2013",0,0,"0.10",57,74,50,62]

{"sheet":"Abstracts","index":1,"n_rows":201,"n_cols":6,"rows_kept":201,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["Number","Article","Overview","Full article:","Theme(s)","Context"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D2","v":1},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G2","v":"Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri-environment schemes in five European countries"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Agri-environment schemes are an increasingly important tool for the maintenance and restoration of farmland biodiversity in Europe but their ecological effects are poorly known. Scheme design is partly based on non-ecological considerations and poses important restrictions on evaluation studies. We describe a robust approach to evaluate agri-environment schemes and use it to evaluate the biodiversity effects of agri-environment schemes in five European countries. We compared species density of vascular plants, birds, bees, grasshoppers and crickets, and spiders on 202 paired fields, one with an agri-environment scheme, the other conventionally managed. In all countries, agri-environment schemes had marginal to moderately positive effects on biodiversity. However, uncommon species benefited in only two of five countries and species listed in Red Data Books rarely benefited from agri-environment schemes. Scheme objectives may need to differentiate between biodiversity of common species that can be enhanced with relatively simple modifications in farming practices and diversity or abundance of endangered species which require more elaborate conservation measures.",null,null,"Biodiversity","Europe"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D3","v":2},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G3","v":"Environmental factors driving the effectiveness of European agri-environmental measures in mitigating pollinator loss - a meta-analysis"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"In Europe, agri-environmental schemes (AES) have been introduced in response to concerns about farmland biodiversity declines. Yet, as AES have delivered variable results, a better understanding of what determines their success or failure is urgently needed. Focusing on pollinating insects, we quantitatively reviewed how environmental factors affect the effectiveness of AES. Our results suggest that the ecological contrast in floral resources created by schemes drives the response of pollinators to AES but that this response is moderated by landscape context and farmland type, with more positive responses in croplands (vs. grasslands) located in simple (vs. cleared or complex) landscapes. These findings inform us how to promote pollinators and associated pollination services in species-poor landscapes. They do not, however, present viable strategies to mitigate loss of threatened or endangered species. This indicates that the objectives and design of AES should distinguish more clearly between biodiversity conservation and delivery of ecosystem services.",null,null,"Biodiversity - pollinators","Europe"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D4","v":3},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G4","v":"Agri-environment schemes do not effectively protect biodiversity in Dutch agricultural landscapes"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Roughly 20% of the European Union's farmland is under some form of agri-environment scheme to counteract the negative impacts of modern agriculture on the environment. The associated costs represent about 4% (1.7 billion euros) of the European Union's total expenditure on the Common Agricultural Policy and are expected to rise to 10% in the near future. Although agri-environment schemes have been implemented in various countries for well over a decade, to date no reliable, sufficiently replicated studies have been performed to test whether such measures have the presumed positive effects on biodiversity. Here we present the results of a study evaluating the contribution of agri-environment schemes to the protection of biodiversity in intensively used Dutch agricultural landscapes. We surveyed plants, birds, hover flies and bees on 78 paired fields that either had agri-environment schemes in the form of management agreements or were managed conventionally. Management agreements were not effective in protecting the species richness of the investigated species groups: no positive effects on plant and bird species diversity were found. The four most common wader species were observed even less frequently on fields with management agreements. By contrast, hover flies and bees showed modest increases in species richness on fields with management agreements. Our results indicate that there is a pressing need for a scientifically sound evaluation of agri-environment schemes.",null,null,"Biodiversity","Nederland"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D5","v":4},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G5","v":"A scoping review on incentives for adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and their outcomes"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"The increasing pressure on agricultural production systems to achieve global food security and prevent environmental degradation necessitates a transition towards more sustainable practices. The purpose of this scoping review is to understand how the incentives offered to farmers motivate the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and, ultimately, how and whether they result in measurable outcomes. To this end, this scoping review examines the evidence of nearly 18,000 papers on whether incentive-based programmes lead to the adoption of sustainable practices and their effect on environmental, economic and productivity outcomes. We find that independent of the incentive type, programmes linked to short-term economic benefit have a higher adoption rate than those aimed solely at providing an ecological service. In the long run, one of the strongest motivations for farmers to adopt sustainable practices is perceived benefits for either their farms, the environment or both. Beyond this, the importance of technical assistance and extension services in promoting sustainable practices emerges strongly from this scoping review. Finally, we find that policy instruments are more effective if their design considers the characteristics of the target population, and the associated trade-offs between economic, environmental and social outcomes.",null,null,"Adoptie duurzame landbouwpraktijken"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D6","v":5},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G6","v":"Aligning agri-environmental subsidies and environmental needs: A comparative analysis between the US and EU"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"The global recognition of modern agricultural practices' impact on the environment has fuelled policy responses to ameliorate environmental degradation in agricultural landscapes. In the US and the EU, agri-environmental subsidies (AES) promote widespread adoption of sustainable practices by compensating farmers who voluntarily implement them on working farmland. Previous studies, however, have suggested limitations of their spatial targeting, with funds not allocated towards areas of the greatest environmental need. We analysed AES in the US and EU - specifically through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and selected measures of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - to identify if AES are going where they are most needed to achieve environmental goals, using a set of environmental need indicators, socio-economic variables moderating allocation patterns, and contextual variables describing agricultural systems. Using linear mixed models and linear models we explored the associations among AES allocation and these predictors at different scales. We found that higher AES spending was associated with areas of low soil organic carbon and high greenhouse gas emissions both in the US and EU, and nitrogen surplus in the EU. More so than successes, however, clear mismatches of funding and environmental need emerged - AES allocation did not successfully target areas of highest water stress, biodiversity loss, soil erosion, and nutrient runoff. Socio-economic and agricultural context variables may explain some of these mismatches; we show that AES were allocated to areas with higher proportions of female producers in the EU but not in the US, where funds were directed towards areas with less tenant farmers. Moreover, we suggest that the potential for AES to remediate environmental issues may be curtailed by limited participation in intensive agricultural landscapes. These findings can help inform refinements to EQIP and EAFRD allocation mechanisms and identify opportunities for improving future targeting of AES spending.",null,null,"environmental outcomes","Verenigde staten; Europe"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D7","v":6},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G7","v":"Agricultural sustainability: Concepts, principles and evidence"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Concerns about sustainability in agricultural systems centre on the need to develop technologies and practices that do not have adverse effects on environmental goods and services, are accessible to and effective for farmers, and lead to improvements in food productivity. Despite great progress in agricultural productivity in the past half-century, with crop and livestock productivity strongly driven by increased use of fertilizers, irrigation water, agricultural machinery, pesticides and land, it would be over-optimistic to assume that these relationships will remain linear in the future. New approaches are needed that will integrate biological and ecological processes into food production, minimize the use of those non-renewable inputs that cause harm to the environment or to the health of farmers and consumers, make productive use of the knowledge and skills of farmers, so substituting human capital for costly external inputs, and make productive use of people's collective capacities to work together to solve common agricultural and natural resource problems, such as for pest, watershed, irrigation, forest and credit management. These principles help to build important capital assets for agricultural systems: natural; social; human; physical; and financial capital. Improving natural capital is a central aim, and dividends can come from making the best use of the genotypes of crops and animals and the ecological conditions under which they are grown or raised. Agricultural sustainability suggests a focus on both genotype improvements through the full range of modern biological approaches and improved understanding of the benefits of ecological and agronomic management, manipulation and redesign. The ecological management of agroecosystems that addresses energy flows, nutrient cycling, population-regulating mechanisms and system resilience can lead to the redesign of agriculture at a landscape scale. Sustainable agriculture outcomes can be positive for food productivity, reduced pesticide use and carbon balances. Significant challenges, however, remain to develop national and international policies to support the wider emergence of more sustainable forms of agricultural production across both industrialized and developing countries.",null,null,"sustainable agriculture"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D8","v":7},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G8","v":"The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Over half of the European landscape is under agricultural management and has been for millennia. Many species and ecosystems of conservation concern in Europe depend on agricultural management and are showing ongoing declines. Agri-environment schemes (AES) are designed partly to address this. They are a major source of nature conservation funding within the European Union (EU) and the highest conservation expenditure in Europe. We reviewed the structure of current AES across Europe. Since a 2003 review questioned the overall effectiveness of AES for biodiversity, there has been a plethora of case studies and meta-analyses examining their effectiveness. Most syntheses demonstrate general increases in farmland biodiversity in response to AES, with the size of the effect depending on the structure and management of the surrounding landscape. This is important in the light of successive EU enlargement and ongoing reforms of AES. We examined the change in effect size over time by merging the data sets of 3 recent meta-analyses and found that schemes implemented after revision of the EU's agri-environmental programs in 2007 were not more effective than schemes implemented before revision. Furthermore, schemes aimed at areas out of production (such as field margins and hedgerows) are more effective at enhancing species richness than those aimed at productive areas (such as arable crops or grasslands). Outstanding research questions include whether AES enhance ecosystem services, whether they are more effective in agriculturally marginal areas than in intensively farmed areas, whether they are more or less cost-effective for farmland biodiversity than protected areas, and how much their effectiveness is influenced by farmer training and advice? The general lesson from the European experience is that AES can be effective for conserving wildlife on farmland, but they are expensive and need to be carefully designed and targeted.",null,null,"Biodiversity"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D9","v":8},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G9","v":"Mixed effects of organic farming and landscape complexity on farmland biodiversity and biological control potential across Europe"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"1. Organic farming in Europe has been shown to enhance biodiversity locally, but potential interactions with the surrounding landscape and the potential effects on ecosystem services are less well known. 2. In cereal fields on 153 farms in five European regions, we examined how the species richness and abundance of wild plants, ground beetles and breeding birds, and the biological control potential of the area, were affected by organic and conventional farming, and how these effects were modified by landscape complexity (percentage of arable crops within 1000m of the study plots). Information on biodiversity was gathered from vegetation plots, pitfall traps and by bird territory mapping. The biological control potential was measured as the percentage of glued, live aphids removed from plastic labels exposed in cereal fields for 24h. 3. Predation on aphids was highest in organic fields in complex landscapes, and declined with increasing landscape homogeneity. The biological control potential in conventional fields was not affected by landscape complexity, and in homogenous landscapes it was higher in conventional fields than in organic fields, as indicated by an interaction between farming practice and landscape complexity. 4. A simplification of the landscape, from 20% to 100% arable land, reduced plant species richness by about 16% and cover by 14% in organic fields, and 33% and 5·5% in conventional fields. For birds, landscape simplification reduced species richness and abundance by 34% and 32% in organic fields and by 45·5% and 39% in conventional fields. Ground beetles were more abundant in simple landscapes, but were unaffected by farming practice. 5. Synthesis and applications. This Europe-wide study shows that organic farming enhanced the biodiversity of plants and birds in all landscapes, but only improved the potential for biological control in heterogeneous landscapes. These mixed results stress the importance of taking both local management and regional landscape complexity into consideration when developing future agri-environment schemes, and suggest that local-regional interactions may affect other ecosystem services and functions. This study also shows that it is not enough to design and monitor agri-environment schemes on the basis of biodiversity, but that ecosystem services should be considered too.",null,null,"Biodiversity"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D10","v":9},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G10","v":"The future of agri-environment schemes: Biodiversity gains and ecosystem service delivery?"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"1. European agri-environment schemes (AESs) have so far delivered only moderate biodiversity gains. However, recent work has demonstrated that under a range of circumstances AESs can return substantial benefit both to biodiversity and ecosystem service delivery. This Special Profile brings together 13 papers that point the way to greater effectiveness. 2. One study in this Special Profile suggests that AES options modified by experience of working on the ground (i.e. guided by adaptive management) and applied to small fragmented pieces of land can have population level effects on a farmland bird species. Such adaptive management has been shown to correlate with increased levels of biodiversity for a range of taxa in a variety of situations, and thus demonstrates the potential of AESs to achieve significant biodiversity benefits. 3. Examples from this Special Profile provide evidence that AESs can improve ecosystem service provision, such as pollination services, biological control and carbon storage. However, AESs located in heterogeneous landscapes and in areas supporting high levels of biodiversity are likely to yield greater benefits than those in more homogeneous landscapes. 4. Estimating both the economic and non-economic value of ecosystem services is complex. A range of caveats need to be borne in mind if and when management strategies and policies are formulated based upon economics. These are well described in another paper in this Special Profile. 5. Synthesis and applications. Agri-environment schemes are more likely to deliver substantial benefit if: (i) they are implemented with clear guidance to land managers, and (ii) they are located in landscapes with high levels of biodiversity. Greater biodiversity on farmland is likely to increase the provision of a range of ecosystem services, which, in turn, should buffer agricultural land against likely future environmental changes.",null,null,"Biodiversity; ecosystem services"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D11","v":10},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G11","v":"Drivers of farmers' adoption and continuation of climate-smart agricultural practices. A study from northeastern Italy"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"The EU rural development policy has addressed challenges related to climate change in agriculture by introducing public voluntary schemes, which financially support the adoption of climate-smart agricultural practices. Several factors, most of which are non-financial ones, drive adoption and continuation of these schemes by farmers. Despite the importance of these factors, only a few studies explore their role in the European context. This paper contributes to filling this gap from a twofold perspective. First, it investigates the role of the farming factors, technology accessibility, environmental features, policy design and social expertise at the territorial level on early adoption. Second, it sheds light on farmers' attitudes and motivations and on social pressure on their decision to continue or discontinue the practices, by surveying a sample of early adopters. Three schemes for the Veneto region rural development programme are considered: no-tillage, fertiliser reduction, and water and fertiliser reduction. The results highlight that non-financial factors should be considered in order to design more effective schemes to prompt farmers to adopt and continue such practices over the long run. The paper also stresses the need to complement financial support with proactive information-based instruments.",null,null,"adoptie duurzame landbouwpraktijken","Italy"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D12","v":11},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G12","v":"Will agri-environment schemes deliver substantial biodiversity gain, and if not why not?"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"1. One of the main aims of agri-environment schemes (AES) is to increase biodiversity on farmland. Common conservation practice is to identify areas containing valuable resources (e.g. habitats, ecosystems and species) and then to protect them: 'protected area' schemes. AES differ from typical protected area schemes because they are often applied to small patches of land, such as field boundaries, and are sometimes located in areas where the target species does not occur. 2. AES require an enormous amount of funding and they have been applied across a large geographical area, i.e. the European Union. However, recent evidence suggests mixed results regarding the effects of AES on biodiversity. 3. It is hard to predict the consequences of AES on biodiversity because a number of factors are seldom accounted for explicitly. For example: (i) the occurrence of target species will vary between patches; (ii) there will be variation in habitat preference by species in different geographical areas; (iii) both optimal foraging theory and metapopulation theory predict that the distance from breeding individuals is likely to determine patch use; (iv) if resources are widely spread then the home ranges of some species may need to increase to encompass the multiple resources needed for breeding. The potential for these factors to affect the outcome of AES on biodiversity is discussed. 4. Synthesis and applications. AES are likely to increase biodiversity if a lower number of larger resource patches are provided, in contrast to current practice that promotes many small fragmented areas of environmental resource. One way of achieving this may be to run these schemes more like traditional protected area schemes, with farms or groups of farms managed using extensive farming methods. Such an approach negates some of the problems of current AES and may help to address a wider range of concerns held by different countryside stakeholders.",null,null,"Biodiversity","Europe"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D13","v":12},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G13","v":"Assessing agricultural eco-efficiency in Italian Regions"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Agriculture plays a key role in providing a wide range of ecosystem services, such as food, feed, fiber and biofuel, thus taking part in the economic development of countries. On the other hand, this sector also gives rise to negative externalities. The eco-efficiency has been considered as a meaningful index for assessing how efficient economic activities are in terms of resource-use and environmental pressures: measuring eco-efficiency provides policy makers with important information for developing policies focused on sustainable management and efficient use of natural resources in the agricultural sector. In this context, sustainable development is now one of the most important objectives of the European Union Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) that has a key role in facing the challenges of the new paradigm of sustainability of agriculture. In this direction, the aim of this paper is to evaluate the eco-efficiency of the Italian agricultural sector, as an index useful for emphasizing the differences among some national geographical areas. This paper tries to fill the lack of scientific studies on agricultural eco-efficiency in Italy, despite the strategic role played by Italy in Europe. For this purpose, the Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA) methodology was used, focusing on the integration between agricultural productivity and resource conservation, in order to develop a support tool for policy makers and managers. The analysis had shown a better orientation in saving resources for the Southern Regions and a greater orientation in productivity for the Northern Regions. Overall, Italy seems to have a good capacity for sustainable management of agricultural resources although there is still space for improvement. In this regard, the measurement of eco-efficiency provides a useful index for policy makers to achieve better performances in terms of agricultural sustainability. This means that CAP subsidies should be granted in exchange for specific environmental externalities provided by farmers as a result of more ecologically friendly management with a land use planning avoiding the depleting of Ecosystem Services rich areas, allowing for the achievement of a balance between economic growth and ecosystem protection. Although the paper has expanded the literature on agricultural eco-efficiency, this work has some limitations that could serve as a reference for future studies that can include other ecological variables such as the provision of some ecosystem services that can be enhanced or impacted by agricultural development. Finally, the challenge to realize sustainable agriculture can represent a long-term guarantee of food security as well as societal well-being. ",null,null,"sustainable agriculture","Italy"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D14","v":13},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G14","v":"Exploring the knowledge landscape of ecosystem services assessments in Mediterranean agroecosystems: Insights for future research"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Ecosystem service assessment has recently become one of the most important scientific frameworks to address the challenges inherent in environmental management, particularly those in agroecosystem management. Agroecosystems provide important ecosystem services to society including provisioning, regulating, and cultural services. However, the Mediterranean Basin agroecosystems have suffered the effects of two drivers of change, rural abandonment and intensification of agrarian practices, which threaten multifunctional landscapes and erode the capacity to deliver ecosystem services. In this study, we explored the knowledge landscape of ecosystem services research throughout the Mediterranean Basin's agroecosystems through a review of 165 publications. We (1) analyzed the current research state and trends; (2) examined the existing research gaps and biases; and (3) evaluated the associations between factors related to the methodologies employed, the ecosystem services analyzed, and the agroecosystem characteristics. Our results indicated that monetary approaches and provisioning ecosystem services are attracting most of the scientific attention, possibly jeopardizing the regulating and cultural services provided by these ecosystems. Moreover, results suggested that there is a lack of integrated approaches that consider the three dimensions of sustainability, i.e. biophysical, sociocultural and monetary. Most studies did not use primary data or involve stakeholders in the assessments and scarce evidence was available regarding ecosystem services provided under different management alternatives. Finally, specific relationships were detected between the methodologies applied, the ecosystem services assessed and the characteristics of the agroecosystem. We argue these gaps might have potential implications in current scientific and political debates, such as the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services and the Common Agricultural Policy reform. We therefore provide recommendations for research and policy-making, agendas.",null,null,"ecosystem services","Mediterraanse landen"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D15","v":14},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G15","v":"The role of agri-environment schemes and farm management practices in reversing the decline of farmland birds in England"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"European farmland bird declines can largely be attributed to agricultural intensification. An English Government target aims to reverse the decline in the 'Farmland Bird Index' (population trends of 20 species) by 2020. Current agri-environment schemes (AESs) and practices such as organic and integrated farming are central to meeting this target and, in principle, provide most resource requirements of the 20 species. The continued population declines of specialist farmland species within the index reflects inadequacies in habitat quantity and/or quality. Models suggest that the area of 'sympathetically- managed land' required to reverse population declines is likely to be considerable and, as bird requirements are often specific, better scientific knowledge or tighter management may be required to deliver them. We conclude that a new widespread 'entry-level' AES, with low cost, low maintenance options, should address the quantity issue. However, specialist prescriptions, particularly for rare sedentary species, should form higher tier agreements, targeted at existing populations. Effective AES development must maintain close links between policy and science, further consider the balance between 'broad-and-shallow' and 'narrow-and-deep' options, enhance advisory networks, carefully field-test novel solutions, and have flexibility to modify and target future prescriptions.",null,null,"Biodiversity - birds","United Kingdom"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D16","v":15},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G16","v":"FORUM: Landscape-scale conservation: Collaborative agri-environment schemes could benefit both biodiversity and ecosystem services, but will farmers be willing to participate?"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"The primary aim of many agri-environment schemes (AES) is to enhance biodiversity; however, the results of AES designed for this purpose have, to date, been largely underwhelming. One reason for this may be because AES tend to be administered at the farm scale. We argue that collaborative AES (cAES) - single environmental management agreements for multiple farm units - can benefit biodiversity. We then discuss how a shift to this type of scheme may impact upon ecosystem services (ES). Evidence gathered from studies carried out across European farmland demonstrated that more than a third (18 of 52; 35%) of the bird, mammal, reptile, amphibian and bumblebee species important in English farmland operate at scales larger than the typical English farm (146 ha) in the breeding season. While this study relates ranging behaviour specifically to England and the English AES system, the estimates of ranging behaviour presented in this study could also be used (with caution) to compare with farm sizes elsewhere in Europe, making the results of wider geographical relevance. Data were obtained from face-to-face interviews with 32 farmers with differing AES backgrounds [current participants at either low or high level (entry-level Stewardship or higher-level Stewardship/countryside Stewardship scheme), or current non-participants]. Eighty-one per cent of interviewees were found to be willing, in principle, to participate in a collaborative AES (cAES) programme. However, they viewed less extensive options (e.g. management of existing hedgerows) more favourably than extensive or cooperatively demanding land management options (e.g. large-scale habitat creation). Data from an online consultation of a further 122 farmers supported the principal finding, with 75% of respondents willing, in theory, to participate in collaborative schemes. Synthesis and applications. Well-designed landscape-scale schemes are likely to be more beneficial than farm-scale schemes for a small but significant number of key farmland species and ES, such as bats, mammals and some important pollinators, while unlikely to harm species operating at smaller scales. These schemes can be expected to attract widespread participation from landowners. Thus, policymakers may be heartened that collaborative AES are a potential multifaceted solution to environmental management on farmland. Well-designed landscape-scale schemes are likely to be more beneficial than farm-scale schemes for a small but significant number of key farmland species and ES, such as bats, mammals and some important pollinators, while unlikely to harm species operating at smaller scales. These schemes can be expected to attract widespread participation from landowners. Thus, policymakers may be heartened that collaborative AES are a potential multifaceted solution to environmental management on farmland. ",null,null,"biodiversity; ecosystem services","Europe"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D17","v":16},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G17","v":"Local and landscape effects of organic farming on butterfly species richness and abundance"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"1. Agri-environmental schemes (AES) are commonly adopted in Europe to reduce the loss of farmland biodiversity. These schemes have, however, been criticized as not fulfilling this goal, partly because their effectiveness is thought to differ depending on external factors such as landscape heterogeneity, the focal organism and scale of application. 2. We used one AES, organic farming, as a landscape-scale experiment to test whether its effect on butterflies depends on the spatial scale at which it is applied. Our study system consisted of organically and conventionally managed fields within eight pairs of matched landscapes, differing in the proportion of land under organic management at the landscape scale. Butterflies and their nectar and host-plant resources were surveyed along the fields and adjacent field borders. 3. Butterfly species richness and abundance were significantly increased by organic farming at the local scale. However, local butterfly species richness was also positively affected by a large proportion of organic farming in the surrounding landscape, independent of the local farming practice. Local and landscape farming practices interacted such that the farming practice within fields had a larger effect on butterfly abundance if surrounded by conventionally rather than organically managed fields. These results could only partly be explained by variation in local availability of nectar and host-plant resources. 4. The total observed species richness (γ-diversity) was higher in organically managed landscapes, mainly because of higher within-field diversity (α-diversity), whereas the between-field diversity (β-diversity) tended to be similar in both landscape types. 5. Synthesis and applications. Butterflies were positively affected by organic farming at a local scale, but the amount of organic farming in the surrounding landscape had either an additive (species richness) or interactive (abundance) effect. Therefore, the spatial distribution of AES must be taken into account to maximize their potential to increase farmland biodiversity. We have shown that organic farming affected butterfly species richness on nearby conventionally managed land. This suggests a landscape effect of organic farming that may indicate a wider benefit of AES for biodiversity conservation.",null,null,"biodiversity - butterflies","Europe"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D18","v":17},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G18","v":"Mainstreaming ecosystem services through reformed European agricultural policies"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Agroecosystems are vital for supplying ecosystem services to human society, but most modern farming practices impact detrimentally on the environment. Public agricultural support policies have been critically important in influencing the transformation of the farm sectors; however, few of them have been dedicated to enhancing ecosystem services beyond agricultural commodities. The largest agricultural support system worldwide, the European common agricultural policy (CAP), has now come to a critical point, as major decisions concerning its design and implementation after 2013 are about to be taken. The debate on this reform process presents a unique opportunity to trigger a transition from commodity-based subsidy policies to policies centered on efficient provision of ecosystem services from agricultural land. To prompt such discussion, we formulate key recommendations informed by a review of ecosystem services literature and address verifiable links to human well-being, nonmarket valuation for balanced services provision, treatment of ecosystem services bundles, site-specific and regionalized approaches, matching spatial scales for different ecosystem services, funding permanence for payment schemes, strong monitoring and adaptive approaches to tackling uncertainties, and coherent cross-sectoral policy design. If these issues were to be considered in formulating and implementing future CAP, it might become an exemplar for redirecting agricultural policies elsewhere in the world toward sustainability. ",null,null,"ecosystem services","Europe"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D19","v":18},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G19","v":"Farmers value on-farm ecosystem services as important, but what are the impediments to participation in PES schemes?"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Optimal participation in market-based instruments such as PES (payment for ecosystem services) schemes is a necessary precondition for achieving large scale cost-effective conservation goals from agricultural landscapes. However farmers' willingness to participate in voluntary conservation programmes is influenced by psychological, financial and social factors and these need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In this research farmers' values towards on-farm ecosystem services, motivations and perceived impediments to participation in conservation programmes are identified in two local land services regions in Australia using surveys. Results indicated that irrespective of demographics such as age, gender, years farmed, area owned and annual gross farm income, farmers valued ecosystem services important for future sustainability. Non-financial motivations had significant associations with farmer's perceptions regarding attitudes and values towards the environment and participation in conservation-related programmes. Farmer factors such as lack of awareness and unavailability of adequate information were correlated with non-participation in conservation-based programmes. In the current political context, government uncertainty regarding schemes especially around carbon sequestration and reduction was the most frequently cited impediment that could deter participation. Future research that explores willingness of farmers towards participation in various types of PES programmes developed around carbon reduction, water quality provision and biodiversity conservation, and, duration of the contract and payment levels that are attractive to the farmers will provide insights for developing farmer-friendly PES schemes in the region.",null,null,"ecosystem services; boeren","Australia"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D20","v":19},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G20","v":"Experimental evidence that the effectiveness of conservation biological control depends on landscape complexity"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"The expansion of intensive agricultural practices is a major threat to biodiversity and to the delivery of ecosystem services on which humans depend. Local-scale conservation management strategies, such as agri-environment schemes to preserve biodiversity, have been widely adopted to reduce the negative impacts of agricultural intensification. However, it is likely that the effectiveness of these local-scale management actions depend on the structure and composition of the surrounding landscape. We experimentally tested the utility of floral resource strips to improve local-scale biological control of crop pests, when placed within a gradient of moderately simple through to highly complex landscapes. We found that experimental provision of floral resources enhanced parasitism rates of two globally important crop pests in moderately simple landscapes but not in highly complex ones, and this translated into reduced pest abundances and increased crop yield. Synthesis and applications. Our results lend experimental support for the 'intermediate landscape complexity hypothesis', which predicts that local conservation management will be most effective in moderately simple agricultural landscapes, and less effective in either very simple landscapes where there is no capacity for response, or in highly complex landscapes where response potential is already saturated. This knowledge will allow more targeted and cost-effective implementation of conservation biological control programs based on an improved understanding of landscape-dependent processes, which will reduce the negative impacts of agricultural intensification. Our results lend experimental support for the 'intermediate landscape complexity hypothesis', which predicts that local conservation management will be most effective in moderately simple agricultural landscapes, and less effective in either very simple landscapes where there is no capacity for response, or in highly complex landscapes where response potential is already saturated. This knowledge will allow more targeted and cost-effective implementation of conservation biological control programs based on an improved understanding of landscape-dependent processes, which will reduce the negative impacts of agricultural intensification.",null,null,"Biodiversity"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D21","v":20},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G21","v":"Landscape-moderated biodiversity effects of ground herb cover in olive groves: Implications for regional biodiversity conservation"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Studies assessing the effect of extensive versus intensive agricultural practices and addressing how biodiversity patterns and the effectiveness of agri-environmental practices (AES) to recover biodiversity are moderated by the landscape complexity (LMB framework), underlie large-scale biodiversity conservation programs and policies in anthropogenic landscapes. Such studies are numerous with annual crops and grasslands yet infrequent in more complex and structurally stable arboreal croplands, where high capacity to retain biodiversity is expected. Here, we explore to what extent landscape complexity and extensification of agricultural practices enhance biodiversity in olive groves of Andalusia (southern Spain). We monitored birds, ants and herbs in paired olive farms (extensive versus intensive ground herb cover management) from 20 localities spread over Andalusia and along a landscape complexity gradient. For each biological group, we obtained gamma diversity (diversity at the olive farm level), beta diversity (between the productive and unproductive areas located within the olive farm) and infield alpha diversity (in the productive area within the olive farm). We tested for multi-diversity, and for each group separately, three major hypotheses of the LMB: the intermediate-landscape complexity, the dominance of beta diversity, and the landscape species pool hypotheses. These hypotheses were corroborated with multi-diversity, which was affected by intensification of weed management and landscape simplification, suffering a combined impact of 26% of gamma biodiversity loss. The effectiveness of extensification to recover biodiversity depended on the landscape context and peaked at intermediate-complexity landscapes. Beta multi-diversity and infield alpha-diversity increased with landscape complexity. Birds, ants and weeds responded differently but were negatively affected either by landscape simplification or by management intensification. Birds mirrored better than other groups the multi-diversity pattern and were the best candidates for a rapid indicator of the impact of agriculture and land conversion on biodiversity. We provide recommendations for biodiversity conservation in olive groves-dominated landscapes and show that, if adequately managed, olive groves’ landscapes have potential for the conservation of biodiversity in the Mediterranean region. Our results illustrate the need to reformulate the future EU-Common Agricultural Policy and particularly, to adapt AES to each landscape. ",null,null,"Biodiversity","Spain"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D22","v":21},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G22","v":"Creating culturally sustainable agri-environmental schemes"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Evidence is emerging from across Europe that contemporary agri-environmental schemes are having only limited, if any, influence on farmers' long-term attitudes towards the environment. In this theoretical paper we argue that these approaches are not 'culturally sustainable', i.e. the actions are not becoming embedded within farming cultures as part of conventional 'good farming' practice. We propose (following Bourdieu) that, in order to culturally embed the environmental values, beliefs and knowledges that underlie such schemes, policy-makers need to devise approaches that allow the creation of cultural and social capital within farming communities - rather than simply compensating for economic capital lost. We outline the theoretical basis of our position and discuss how the contemporary agri-environmental approach of paying for specified environmental management services restricts the ability of such schemes to generate cultural and, thereby, social capital. Finally, we outline two possible ways of accounting for cultural capital in scheme creation: either through the development of measures of cultural capital that enable its incorporation into contemporary economic models or through a major revision to the way we construct and apply agri-environmental schemes.",null,null,"cultural sustainability","Europe"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D23","v":22},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G23","v":"Social and ecological drivers of success in agri-environment schemes: The roles of farmers and environmental context"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Agri-environment schemes remain a controversial approach to reversing biodiversity losses, partly because the drivers of variation in outcomes are poorly understood. In particular, there is a lack of studies that consider both social and ecological factors. We analysed variation across 48 farms in the quality and biodiversity outcomes of agri-environmental habitats designed to provide pollen and nectar for bumblebees and butterflies or winter seed for birds. We used interviews and ecological surveys to gather data on farmer experience and understanding of agri-environment schemes, and local and landscape environmental factors. Multimodel inference indicated social factors had a strong impact on outcomes and that farmer experiential learning was a key process. The quality of the created habitat was affected positively by the farmer's previous experience in environmental management. The farmer's confidence in their ability to carry out the required management was negatively related to the provision of floral resources. Farmers with more wildlife-friendly motivations tended to produce more floral resources, but fewer seed resources. Bird, bumblebee and butterfly biodiversity responses were strongly affected by the quantity of seed or floral resources. Shelter enhanced biodiversity, directly increased floral resources and decreased seed yield. Seasonal weather patterns had large effects on both measures. Surprisingly, larger species pools and amounts of semi-natural habitat in the surrounding landscape had negative effects on biodiversity, which may indicate use by fauna of alternative foraging resources. Synthesis and application. This is the first study to show a direct role of farmer social variables on the success of agri-environment schemes in supporting farmland biodiversity. It suggests that farmers are not simply implementing agri-environment options, but are learning and improving outcomes by doing so. Better engagement with farmers and working with farmers who have a history of environmental management may therefore enhance success. The importance of a number of environmental factors may explain why agri-environment outcomes are variable, and suggests some - such as the weather - cannot be controlled. Others, such as shelter, could be incorporated into agri-environment prescriptions. The role of landscape factors remains complex and currently eludes simple conclusions about large-scale targeting of schemes.",null,null,"Biodiversity","Europe"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D24","v":23},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G24","v":"Simplistic understandings of farmer motivations could undermine the environmental potential of the common agricultural policy"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"The European Union Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has failed to achieve its aim of preserving European farmland biodiversity, despite massive investment in subsidies to incentivise environmentally-beneficial farming practices. This failure calls into question the design of the subsidy schemes, which are intended to either function as a safety net and make farming profitable or compensate farmers for costs and loss of income while undertaking environmental management. In this study, we assess whether the design of environmental payments in the CAP reflects current knowledge about farmers’ decision-making as found in the research literature. We do so on the basis of a comprehensive literature review on farmers’ uptake of agri-environmental management practices over the past 10 years and interviews specifically focused on Ecological Focus Areas with policy-makers, advisors and farmers in seven European countries. We find that economic and structural factors are the most commonly-identified determinants of farmers’ adoption of environmental management practices in the literature and in interviews. However, the literature suggests that these are complemented by – and partially dependent on – a broad range of social, attitudinal and other contextual factors that are not recognised in interview responses or, potentially, in policy design. The relatively simplistic conceptualisation of farmer behaviour that underlies some aspects of policy design may hamper the effectiveness of environmental payments in the CAP by over-emphasising economic considerations, potentially corroding farmer attitudes to policy and environmental objectives. We conclude that an urgent redesign of agricultural subsidies is needed to better align them with the economic, social and environmental factors affecting farmer decision-making in a complex production climate, and therefore to maximise potential environmental benefits.",null,null,"Boeren","Europe"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D25","v":24},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G25","v":"Ecological effectiveness of agri-environment schemes in different agricultural landscapes in The Netherlands"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Agri-environment schemes are an instrument used by western European countries to counteract the negative effects of contemporary agriculture on biodiversity, but not much is known about their effectiveness. We investigated the ecological effects of Dutch agri-environment schemes aimed at promoting botanical diversity or meadow birds, and we tested whether the effectiveness of the schemes depends on landscape type or structure. In three different types of landscape, we surveyed plants, birds, bees, and hover flies on 78 paired fields that either had agri-environment schemes or were managed conventionally, and we collected data on a range of different environmental variables. Neither plant species richness nor abundance of meadow birds was higher on fields with agri-environment schemes. Landscape type had a significant effect on both species groups, but the effects of the schemes were independent of landscape type. Neither the diversity of plants nor the abundance of birds was related to any of the environmental variables. Agri-environment schemes designed to promote plant species richness or bird abundance did have positive side-effects because they enhanced the species richness of bees and hover flies, irrespective of the type of landscape. Furthermore, landscape type, groundwater level (hover flies), and area of wooded edges (bees) significantly affected both species groups. The failure of the schemes to promote the target species may be related to the high intensity of land use in The Netherlands. Simple conservation measures taken by farmers may not be sufficient to counteract the impact of factors that are often controlled at the landscape level (e.g., hydrology). Similar studies in other countries are needed to place the results of our study into a European context.",null,null,"Biodiversity","Nederland"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D26","v":25},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G26","v":"Collective agri-environment schemes: How can regional environmental cooperatives enhance farmers' intentions for agri-environment schemes?"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"The effectiveness of agri-environment schemes (AES) in enhancing biodiversity on farmland and creating a long-lasting change in farmers' motivation towards a more environmental-friendly practice is still strongly debated. Applying a regional approach has been advocated widely to make AES more ecologically and socially sustainable. In the Netherlands, some AES are performed collectively by large regional groups of farmers called Environmental Cooperatives (EC). We hypothesise that these cooperatives enhance farmers' intention to participate by facilitating the application of AES, but also by generating group pressure. In the study at hand, we used an extended version of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) to investigate which factors are associated with farmers' intention to participate in two kinds of collective AES (ditch bank management and the protection of meadow birds). Our results demonstrate that attitude and perceived personal ability to participate in these AES are associated with the intention of farmers to participate in ditch bank management. However, for the protection of meadow birds, social pressure, self-identity and facilitation by the EC also relate to the intention of farmers. We conclude that the facilitation undertaken by ECs positively relates to farmers' intention to participate in collective AES.",null,null,"Boeren; sustainable agriculture"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D27","v":26},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G27","v":"Current use of impact models for agri-environment schemes and potential for improvements of policy design and assessment"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Agri-Environment Schemes (AES) to maintain or promote environmentally-friendly farming practices were implemented on about 25% of all agricultural land in the EU by 2002. This article analyses and discusses the actual and potential use of impact models in supporting the design, implementation and evaluation of AES. Impact models identify and establish the causal relationships between policy objectives and policy outcomes. We review and discuss the role of impact models at different stages in the AES policy process, and present results from a survey of impact models underlying 60 agri-environmental schemes in seven EU member states. We distinguished among three categories of impact models (quantitative, qualitative or common sense), depending on the degree of evidence in the formal scheme description, additional documents, or key person interviews. The categories of impact models used mainly depended on whether scheme objectives were related to natural resources, biodiversity or landscape. A higher proportion of schemes dealing with natural resources (primarily water) were based on quantitative impact models, compared to those concerned with biodiversity or landscape. Schemes explicitly targeted either on particular parts of individual farms or specific areas tended to be based more on quantitative impact models compared to whole-farm schemes and broad, horizontal schemes. We conclude that increased and better use of impact models has significant potential to improve efficiency and effectiveness of AES. ",null,null,"assessment subsidies","Europe"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D28","v":27},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G28","v":"Divergent farmer and scientist perceptions of agricultural biodiversity, ecosystem services and decision-making"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Biodiversity-friendly management is pivotal for sustainable agriculture, but rarely put into practice by farmers despite mounting evidence of the social, environmental, and economic benefits of such practices. We investigated the reasons for this implementation challenge by conducting a transdisciplinary survey to identify differences between perceptions of 208 farmers and 98 environmental scientists from Germany and Austria toward biodiversity, ecosystem services and the decision-making processes shaping agricultural landscapes. Perceptions of biodiversity, agri-environment schemes and conservation measures differed significantly between scientists and farmers. While scientists valued scientific information as more important for agricultural decision-making, farmers valued government and agricultural-sector information sources. We found more “biodiversity-positive” perceptions in female-, organic-, and more highly-educated-farmers, highlighting opportunities for more targeted promotion of conservation schemes. Survey respondents were generally younger than the population averages for both farmers and scientists, and our results therefore provide important insights for the future of biodiversity-friendly farming and related conservation science. Our findings demonstrate the urgent need for enhanced communication platforms and cooperation between scientists and key agricultural stakeholders to establish open dialogues between agricultural research, practice, and policy.",null,null,"boeren; Biodiversity; ecosystem services","Germany; Austria"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D29","v":28},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G29","v":"Impact of landscape improvement by agri-environment scheme options on densities of characteristic farmland bird species and brown hare (Lepus europaeus)"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Causes for farmland bird declines are well studied, but on landscape level agri-environment schemes (AES) often show limited gains for biodiversity. We analysed population trends of nine farmland bird species and the brown hare in a Swiss arable landscape. Further, we focused on the impact of the quantity and quality of different ecological compensation area (ECA) options on densities of the study species, as well as on the extent of ECAs required on arable farmland to stop population declines of typical farmland species. Densities of bird species and hare counts were positively correlated with the quantity of ECAs and semi-natural habitat. However, effects of ECA options on birds and hares are species specific. The quantities of wildflower areas and semi-natural habitat strongly enhanced bird and hare numbers. The quality of the ECA options was also important, as densities were positively related to the amount of meadows of high ecological quality, but not to the amount of meadows of low ecological quality. To attain target densities, the required proportion of high-quality AES options and semi-natural habitat has to be at least 14%. This study provides evidence that intensively managed arable farmland can be improved for bird diversity and hare density by the Swiss AES. The amount of AES options of high ecological quality is of major relevance for nature conservation. We estimate that the amount of high-quality options and semi-natural habitats in the Swiss arable lowland must be four times higher than today's area to halt and reverse population declines of farmland species. ",null,null,"Biodiversity - birds","Switzerland"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D30","v":29},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G30","v":"Plant species richness decreased in semi-natural grasslands in the Biosphere Reserve Wienerwald, Austria, over the past two decades, despite agri-environmental measures"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Both, agricultural intensification and abandonment caused a strong decline in plant species richness in semi-natural grasslands in Central Europe within the last decades. At a global scale, the Convention on Biological Diversity targeted at halting the decline of biodiversity by the end of 2010. Agri-environmental schemes (AES) have been developed at the national level to reach this biodiversity target in agricultural areas. We evaluated the effectiveness of Austrian agro-environmental schemes on species-rich grasslands within the UNESCO Biosphere Reserve Wienerwald. We found a general decrease of vascular plant species richness at 95 sites, from an average of 43 species in 1990/92 to 31 species in 2011. The average decrease of species classified as threatened according to the national Red List from 12 to 7 and the parallel increase of widespread, nitrophilous species indicates a reduced conservation value of observed meadows. Species losses did not differ between mesic meadows of the Arrhenatherion type (EU habitat type 6510) and more nutrient-poor, semi-dry Brometalia grasslands (EU habitat type 6210), indicating the sensitivity to changes in agricultural management regimes even for more intensively used grassland types. AES decelerated this overall trend but could not stop biodiversity losses over the past two decades. Although the maintenance of grassland management through AES prevented biodiversity loss in areas which otherwise would have been abandoned, adaptations of the Austrian AES are desirable to effectively conserve biodiversity at agricultural sites.",null,null,"Biodiversity - planten","Austria"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D31","v":30},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G31","v":"What can management option uptake tell us about ecosystem services delivery through agri-environment schemes?"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Agri-environment schemes (AES), currently embedded in EU and UK policies, actively promote ‘greening’ ‘sustainability’ and ‘ecosystem services’ approaches to land management. The funding structures of these policies, however, run counter to this sustainable approach, and create barriers to AES success, primarily through a continued focus on productivity support. In this study, we aim to determine the effectiveness of action-based AES, as a delivery mechanism for ecosystem services, using secondary data analysis techniques to unravel the complexities of AES funding distribution and scheme structure and geographic information systems (GIS) to explore the spatial extent and uptake of AES management options, using Wales, UK as a study area. Our results show 84% of recipients of AES payments receiving <£10k annually, comprising only 35% of the total available funding. 15, out of a total of ∼165, management options, accounted for >75% of all advanced level management contracts awarded in both 2015 and 2017. This bias in option uptake, in many cases, positively prevents further deterioration of existing habitat condition through a ‘business as usual’ approach. However, we argue that the voluntary, over prescriptive nature of the schemes limits management option uptake, negatively impacts on the schemes ability to deliver ecosystem services, and lessens the government's ability to promote long-term behavioural change. If AES are to deliver the ‘“Public Goods”’ that future policy demands, then targeted and adequate levels of funding and a willingness to participate must be combined with greater farmer autonomy and clear outcomes to deliver management options at a landscape scale.",null,null,"Ecosystem services","United Kingdom"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D32","v":31},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G32","v":"Reshaping agri-environmental subsidies: From marginal farming to large-scale rewilding"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Despite continued discussion about market distortions and environmental impacts, agricultural subsidies continue to be a key component of European Union policy. About 10% of the agro-forestry subsidies are targeted at supporting agri-environment schemes, and at supporting farming in Less Favoured Areas (LFA) such as mountain regions. One of the main justifications for these agri-environmental subsidies towards marginally productive land is that they promote the conservation of biodiversity by maintaining low-intensity farming practices. Here, we critically examine this assumption and argue instead for a two-tier approach to Europe's agri-environmental policy based on inherent land fertility and spatial scale: (i) at a local, single-farm scale, fertile agricultural land should preferentially be intensively but sustainably farmed with a focus on high yields, (ii) while simultaneously and at larger, regional scales, less-productive land, and especially protected areas, may be ecologically restored into 'wild' and resiliently functioning ecosystems. As such, agri-environmental subsidies towards fertile land should support the implementation of measures that benefit biodiversity while allowing, and even helping, the achievement of high agricultural yields. In contrast, agri-environmental and LFA subsidies towards marginal land and protected areas should also promote rewilding and the management of natural succession. In order for this approach to be successful, a higher proportion of the Common Agricultural Policy subsidies would need to be allocated to environmental goals.",null,null,"Biodiversity - vruchtbare grond","Europe"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D33","v":32},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G33","v":"Increasing the proportion and quality of land under agri-environment schemes promotes birds and butterflies at the landscape scale"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"The intensification of agricultural practices that Western nations have experienced after World War II has led to an alarming decline in farmland biodiversity. With the aim of stopping and even reversing this decline, agri-environment schemes (AES) have been implemented in many European countries since the 1990s. In Switzerland, farmers are required to manage at least 7% of their land in the form of biodiversity promotion areas (BPA), which are extensively managed, wildlife-friendly farmland habitats such as hay meadows and traditional orchards. We investigated how the occurrence and characteristics of these BPA influence birds and butterflies in the Swiss lowlands. Butterfly species richness and abundance increased by 22% and 60%, respectively, when the proportion of BPA in the landscape increased from 5% to 15%. Likewise, bird species richness increased, but to a lesser extent, with the proportion of BPA in the landscape. For birds, the proportion of BPA characterized by a high ecological quality played a role in promoting both priority-farmland and red-listed species. For both taxonomic groups, the amount and quality of BPA habitats contributed more to species richness than their spatial configuration, connectivity included. This study shows that AES measures implemented at the field scale have positive effects on mobile species that are noticeable at the landscape scale, and that the fraction of AES in the cultivated landscape matters more than their spatial configuration, which has strong implications for designing multi-functional agro-ecosystems.",null,null,"Biodiversity - birds; Biodiversity - butterflies","Switzerland"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D34","v":33},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G34","v":"Assessing the feasibility of carbon payments and Payments for Ecosystem Services to reduce livestock grazing pressure on saltmarshes"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Saltmarshes provide important services including flood control, climate regulation, and provisioning services when grazed by livestock for agriculture and conservation purposes. Grazing diminishes aboveground carbon, creating a trade-off between these two services. Furthermore, saltmarshes are threatened by overgrazing. To provide saltmarsh protection and ensure the continuing delivery of ecosystem services, there is a need to incentivise land managers to stock environmentally sensible densities. We therefore investigated the possibility of agri-environmental schemes and Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) to compensate for lost livestock revenue under reduced grazing regimes and provide carbon sequestration and other benefits. This is the first study to consider the benefits arising from a potential carbon market to saltmarshes, although similar schemes exist for peatland and woodland. We calculated the net economic benefit (costs of livestock production are removed from revenue) to farmers obtained from a hectare of grazed saltmarsh under low (0.3 Livestock Units per hectare per year), moderate (0.6), high (1.0) and very high (2.0) stocking densities accounting for livestock revenue, carbon benefits, and agri-environmental subsidies. We repeated the procedure considering additional benefits transferred from the literature in terms of provisioning, regulating and cultural ecosystem services provided by protected saltmarshes. The net benefits were assessed for a range of market carbon prices and social costs of carbon, e.g. the opportunity cost of carbon for society. Applying the model to Scottish saltmarshes we find that the current range of market prices could prompt transitions from high to moderate regimes in areas where livestock value is low, however break-even prices for transitions showed high spatial variability due to spatial variability in livestock values. In some areas of the West Highlands, the break-even carbon price is negative, indicating that the current agri-environmental schemes are able to more than compensate for the lost revenue accruing to farmers by a reduced grazing density. However, in other areas, such as the Outer Hebrides, the break-even carbon price is positive. Private PES schemes or increased public subsidies should then be provided to generate net benefits. It is reasonable to infer that a pure carbon market may have limited scope in incentivising consumers to buy carbon services, especially in areas with limited local number of buyers and corporates of small size. Under this circumstance, a premium carbon market offering bundled ecosystem services may help reduce grazing pressure across a larger number of Scottish saltmarshes, thereby providing globally important climate regulation services and at the same time protecting sensitive habitats.",null,null,"Ecosystem services","United Kingdom"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D35","v":34},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G35","v":"Effects of a coordinated farmland bird conservation project on farmers' intentions to implement nature conservation practices – Evidence from the Swedish Volunteer & Farmer Alliance"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"To increase the efficacy of agri-environmental schemes (AES), as well as farmers' environmental engagement, practitioners are increasingly turning to collective forms of agri-environmental management. As yet, empirical evidence from such approaches is relatively scarce. Here, we examined a farmland bird conservation project coordinated by BirdLife Sweden, the Swedish Volunteer & Farmer Alliance (SVFA). The key features of the SVFA were farmland bird inventories from volunteering birdwatchers and on-farm visits to individual farmers from conservation advisors for guidance on AES as well as unsubsidised practices. Using an ex-post application of the theory of planned behaviour across project participants and a randomly sampled control group of farmers we assessed how SVFA affected behavioural intentions relating to AES and unsubsidised conservation, and how the behaviour was affected by attitudes, perceived social norms and perceived behavioural control. We also included a measure of self-identity as a conservationist to assess its importance for behavioural intentions, and if SVFA stimulated this self-identity. SVFA farmers reported greater commitment to implementing AES and unsubsidised conservation, as compared to the control group. However, greater commitment was associated with more positive attitudes for unsubsidised conservation only and not for AES, underlining the inability of existing AES to prompt intrinsic motivation. There were also differences between farmers within SVFA, where farmers applying to the project were motivated by social influences, while farmers recruited by project managers were motivated by their personal beliefs regarding nature conservation. Finally, farmers' self-perceived ability to perform practices (i.e. perceived behavioural control) was important for their commitment to implementing AES as well as unsubsidised practices. Therefore, increasing farmers' awareness regarding the availability and, not least, practicability of available conservation options may be the key to successful biodiversity conservation in agricultural systems.",null,null,"Biodiversity - birds; farmers","Sweden"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D36","v":35},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G36","v":"Investigating farmers’ preferences for alternative PES schemes for carbon sequestration in UK agroecosystems"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) approaches can potentially be used to protect and enhance the provision of ecosystem services. However, there is a need to assess the costs and effectiveness of such voluntary schemes. In particular there is a need for PES schemes to enhance climate regulating services in agricultural systems. In this paper we combine a choice experiment with a marginal abatement cost approach to determine the heterogeneity in cost-effectiveness of sequestration policy schemes in the UK farming sector. The results in general suggest that farmers show an aversion to drastic changes in land management activities but they can be encouraged to adopt relatively less restrictive activities through appropriate compensations. The results indicate that agricultural schemes can deliver carbon abatement at costs comparable to the official UK carbon price. This suggests that carbon sequestration in soils through land use changes and alternative land use management should be considered in UK policy developments to achieve carbon mitigation targets. ",null,null,"Ecosystem services; farmers","United Kingdom"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D37","v":36},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G37","v":"Bird diversity relates to agri-environment schemes at local and landscape level in intensive farmland"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"In Europe, more than 20 billion Euros have been paid to farmers for agri-environment schemes (AESs) during the last half decade to counteract negative effects of farming on the environment. In Sweden alone 0.4 billion Euros are paid to farmers for AESs every year, but large-scale analyses of the relationship between AESs and biodiversity are scarce in northern Europe. We surveyed farmland birds at over 600 sites in non-crop habitats in 37 arable dominated landscapes (each 25km2) in southern Sweden and investigated if bird species richness and abundance were related to the amount of agricultural land receiving subsidies for five common AESs. Abundance and species richness of three subsets of farmland birds were positively associated with AES for management of permanent pastures, and bird abundance was associated to habitat elements managed for the maintenance of nature and cultural values (e.g. old buildings, infield non-crop islands, stone walls and ditches). Farmland bird abundance was also positively associated with the amount of grasslands (leys and especially pastures) and set-aside without subsidies, whereas neither richness nor abundance was positively associated with the amount of organic fields at the local scale (i.e. within a 250m radius). However, bird diversity was related to increased area of organic fields at the landscape scale (i.e. 25km2); with a positive relationship in the most simplified landscapes but a negative relationship in more complex landscapes (i.e. with less arable land and more woodlands). Our results show that AESs are targeting habitats and habitat elements of high farmland bird diversity with the possible exception of organic farming in less simplified landscapes. Future studies investigating effects of AES management need to collect longitudinal before-after data on the change of biodiversity and need to investigate the possible landscape-dependent outcomes of specific management tied to AESs.",null,null,"biodiversity - birds","Sweden"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D38","v":37},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G38","v":"Financial imperative or conservation concern? EU farmers' motivations for participation in voluntary agri-environmental schemes"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Based on a large transnational research project that involved questionnaires with 1000 farm households in nine EU countries and Switzerland, this paper investigates factors influencing farmers' participation in agri-environmental schemes (AESs). Analysis of motivations for AES participation highlights that complex patterns of AESs are in operation. Pronounced geographical differences in farmers' reactions towards schemes can be identified, with responses by farmers from northern member states often differing from those in Mediterranean countries, and with arable farmers often responding differently from grassland farmers. Yet, the study also highlights that much common ground exists and that conceptual frameworks for the understanding of farmers' participation in AESs developed in the United Kingdom can be successfully applied outside the British context. Common participation patterns include the importance of financial imperatives and 'goodness of fit', and the influence of similar sets of factors such as farm size, tenure, or farm type. The growing importance of conservation-oriented motivations for AES participation across Europe suggests the emergence of a 'new hypothesis' which highlights that the financial imperative for participation does not necessarily exclude an often equally important environmental concern. The paper concludes by indicating where current agri-environmental policy (AEP) may be failing adequately to address structural and socioeconomic characteristics of targeted farming populations, and by arguing that understanding participation decisionmaking is only the first step in an attempt to assess the 'effectiveness' of AEP. Further comparative research is needed to investigate in detail more complex indicators of scheme success, in particular what effects scheme participation has on farmers' incomes, farmers' environmental attitudes, and on the environmental quality of the countryside targeted by AESs.",null,null,"farmers","Europe"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D39","v":38},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G39","v":"Management of agricultural soils for greenhouse gas mitigation: Learning from a case study in NE Spain"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"A portfolio of agricultural practices is now available that can contribute to reaching European mitigation targets. Among them, the management of agricultural soils has a large potential for reducing GHG emissions or sequestering carbon. Many of the practices are based on well tested agronomic and technical know-how, with proven benefits for farmers and the environment. A suite of practices has to be used since none of the practices can provide a unique solution. However, there are limitations in the process of policy development: (a) agricultural activities are based on biological processes and thus, these practices are location specific and climate, soils and crops determine their agronomic potential; (b) since agriculture sustains rural communities, the costs and potential for implementation have also to be regionally evaluated and (c) the aggregated regional potential of the combination of practices has to be defined in order to inform abatement targets. We believe that, when implementing mitigation practices, three questions are important: Are they cost-effective for farmers? Do they reduce GHG emissions? What policies favour their implementation? This study addressed these questions in three sequential steps. First, mapping the use of representative soil management practices in the European regions to provide a spatial context to upscale the local results. Second, using a Marginal Abatement Cost Curve (MACC) in a Mediterranean case study (NE Spain) for ranking soil management practices in terms of their cost-effectiveness. Finally, using a wedge approach of the practices as a complementary tool to link science to mitigation policy. A set of soil management practices was found to be financially attractive for Mediterranean farmers, which in turn could achieve significant abatements (e.g., 1.34 MtCO2e in the case study region). The quantitative analysis was completed by a discussion of potential farming and policy choices to shape realistic mitigation policy at European regional level.",null,null,"Greenhouse gas; soil management","Spain"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D40","v":39},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G40","v":"Farmers and nature conservation: What is known about attitudes, context factors and actions affecting conservation?"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Farmers' attitudes towards viability of specific conservation practices or actions strongly impact their decisions on adoption and change. This review of 'attitude' information reveals a wide range of perceptions about what conservation means and what the impacts of adoption will mean in economic and environmental terms. Farmers operate in a tight financial situation, and in parts of the world they are highly dependent on government subsidies, and cannot afford to risk losing that support. Use of conservation practices is most effective when these are understood in the context of the individual farm, and decisions are rooted in land and resource stewardship and long-term concerns about health of the farm and the soil. The attitudes of farmers entering agri-environmental schemes decide the quality of the result. A model is developed to show how attitudes of the farmer, the farming context and agri-environmental schemes interact and thus influence how the farming community affects nature and biodiversity. As new agri-environmental schemes are planned, agricultural development specialists need to recognize the complexity of farmer attitudes, the importance of location and individual farmer circumstances, and the multiple factors that influence decisions. We provide these insights and the model to conservation biologists conducting research in farming areas, decision makers who develop future agri-environmental schemes, educators training tomorrow's extension officers and nature conservationists, and researchers dealing with nature conservation issues through a combination of scientific disciplines.",null,null,"farmers"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D41","v":40},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G41","v":"Strategies for the sustainable management of phosphorus"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"One aspect of sustainable farming that is becoming increasingly important is the use and management of phosphorus (P). This nutrient has played an important role in raising agricultural productivity worldwide, but adverse environmental impacts associated with its past and current use on farm land are now becoming apparent in the developed countries as production methods have intensified and farming systems have become more specialized. The chapter discusses how agricultural P use may become more sustainable within the confines of production and environmental pressures, the potential measures and mechanisms by which this might be achieved, and how science can be rapidly and effectively incorporated into agricultural management policy. Policy-makers and regulators can use a range of economic instruments to address nutrient related water quality concerns from agriculture. These mechanisms can be generally broken into: financial incentives (taxes and subsidies) and market-based approaches, such as trading.",null,null,"Phosphorus; soil management"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D42","v":41},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G42","v":"Mixed effectiveness of French agri-environment schemes for nationwide farmland bird conservation"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"The aim of this paper was to evaluate the effectiveness of French AES to enhance farmland bird diversity on a national scale. Abundances of 19 farmland species were modelled in response to AES and then, the relationship between responses of bird to AES and the national population trends of the respective species were explored. Results suggest that AES are implemented at suitable locations to promote biodiversity in agricultural landscapes. Besides, long-term declining species are identified as those that benefit the most from biodiversity-dedicated AES. AES management may not be sufficiently well adapted to the ecological requirements of targeted farmland bird species, given the lack of statistically significant responses. Thus, it is concluded that AES have the potential to protect the abundance strongholds of farmland birds, but apparently fail to enhance ongoing population trends.",null,null,"Biodiversity - birds","France"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D43","v":42},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G43","v":"An integrated approach for ex-ante evaluation of public policies for sustainable agriculture at landscape level"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"An integrated methodological framework for ex-ante evaluation and planning of public policies for sustainable agriculture at agro-landscape level is proposed. The components of the framework are to: (1) determine the private, i.e. farmers', and public benefits associated to agro-landscapes, consisting of an agricultural land-use system, according to its performance for several market and non-market functions. Market forces determine the market benefits and preferences of society the non-market benefits; (2) explore and select potential sustainable agro-landscapes based on the private and public benefits associated with possible land-use alternatives; (3) define efficient public policy mechanisms for improving social net benefit of agro-landscapes. The framework is illustrated with a case study in a small dairy farming dominated agro-landscape in The Netherlands, with gross margin, landscape quality, nature value and environmental health as the analysed ecosystem functions. Alternative landscapes consisting of hedgerow configurations and grassland management practices were explored, yielding a set of alternatives representing the solution space in terms of change in private and public benefits. Policy mechanisms were defined to move from the current to a desired landscape based on changes in social net benefits. Moreover, the necessity of a modification in the current agri-environmental support was analysed for each landscape. The analysis considered all farmers in the agro-landscape jointly. The results for the case study showed potential prototypes of landscapes and their performance compared to the current landscape. Extension was the most efficient policy mechanism to promote the change to the socially optimum landscape alternative.",null,null,"sustainable agriculture","Netherlands"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D44","v":43},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G44","v":"A fuzzy cognitive mapping approach for the assessment of public-goods governance in agricultural landscapes"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"In Europe, growing concerns about the environmental impacts of agriculture have stimulated the development of more efficient governance options to be included in, or to complement, current agri-environmental policies. However, a significant hurdle for the implementation of enhanced policy tools is the difficult adaptation of promising approaches, such as collective contracts and private-based payments for environmental services, to the locally specific, socio-economic and institutional contexts of different European regions. In this study, we apply a participatory approach based on the Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping technique, in assessing different policy mechanisms, including improved monetary incentives and the potential for an enhanced design of agricultural landscape governance. Our analysis specifically assesses the interactions between rural society, public goods and policies under different, locally relevant economic and social scenarios. The study is carried out in the Marchfeld, an intensive agriculture case-study area in Eastern Austria, which features a number of environmental problems. The work is based on a two-year-long process including focus groups, mind mapping and scenario co-development, as well as individual interviews with local stakeholders. The results show that integrating private or public, collective or performance-orientated monetary incentives with other non-monetary mechanisms like farmers’ partnerships or enhanced awareness building are evaluated as central to an effective agri-environmental governance system. Moreover, the results highlight that different futures have major effects on the effectiveness of mechanisms: in a purely market-driven context, tools based on collaborations among farmers are likely to be ineffective and monetary incentives are less efficient. On the other hand, positive social pressures and the influence of non-monetary governance initiatives expected in a sustainability-driven scenario are able to catalyse an efficient adoption of environmental-friendly practices, also at lower monetary rates. Based on the results, we discuss the problem of public goods in agricultural landscapes, and the relevance of such ancillary factors as social infrastructure, awareness and marketing, in supporting the effectiveness and feasibility of public-goods ‘governance’.",null,null,"ecosystem services","Austria"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D45","v":44},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G45","v":"Little and late: How reduced hedgerow cutting can benefit Lepidoptera"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Hedgerows are a key semi-natural habitat for biodiversity in intensive agricultural landscapes across northern Europe and support a large invertebrate fauna. Management can have large effects on the value of hedgerows as a wildlife habitat, thus sensitive management is incentivised through agri-environment schemes (AES). We tested how current and potential future AES hedge management regimes affected the diversity and abundance of Lepidoptera species that utilise the hedge as a breeding resource, using a long term, multi-site, manipulative field experiment. Hedgerow management in some current AES options (reduced trimming frequency and cutting in winter) increased Lepidoptera abundance and the diversity of components of the Lepidoptera community linked with specific lifecycle traits. However, the most frequently applied hedgerow AES option currently applied in the UK (cutting once every 2 years in autumn) did not benefit Lepidoptera compared to standard hedgerow management outside AES (annual trimming in autumn). Decreasing the intensity of hedgerow trimming improves the diversity of the whole Lepidoptera assemblage, and should be considered as part of biodiversity conservation in farmed landscapes.",null,null,"Biodiversity - insects","United Kingdom"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D46","v":45},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G46","v":"A survey exploring private farm advisor perspectives of agri-environment schemes: The case of England's Environmental Stewardship programme"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Most stakeholder-based research concerning agri-environmental schemes (AES) derives from work engaging with farmers and land managers. Consequently, the voices and opinions of other actors involved in AES tends to be unrepresented in the wider literature. One group of actors that seem particularly overlooked in this respect are private (independent) farm advisors (i.e., the consultants contracted by farmers and land managers to advise-on AES and agronomic matters). To begin to rectify this knowledge gap we developed an exploratory online survey to explore private farm advisor perspectives in the UK; specifically, the situation in England and advisors' experience of Natural England's Environmental Stewardship programme. A total of 251 Natural England registered farm advisors (29.9%) completed our survey. The majority of these had knowledge and expertise in relation to two (31.5%) or three (42.2%) Environmental Stewardship schemes, with proficiency in ELS (93.4%) and HLS (82.8%) being the most common. On average, advisors had 9.6 ± 5.6 yrs of experience and operated (75.3%) in a single region of England. Although our results concentrated upon a relatively simple set of initial topics of inquiry, the survey revealed a number of interesting findings. Firstly; for example, that in the opinion of the advisors working with farmers applying for Environmental Stewardship schemes, the 'knowledge-exchange encounter' occurring between themselves, their clients and Natural England is fundamental to the environmental effectiveness of these schemes as well as their farm business compatibility. Secondly, respondents suggested that beneath this 'encounter' lie tensions arising from the competing agendas and objectives of the different actors involved which can affect the content of agreements; for instance, farmer selection of management options versus Natural England's target environmental objectives. Farm advisors suggested that they had to negotiate this balance whilst also serving the needs of their clients. Thirdly, respondents raised issues concerning the complicated nature of scheme arrangements, both from their own and farmers' perspectives, as well as the adequacy of payments to cover input costs and matters regarding contractual compliance, all of which theyproposed affected farmer participation. Looking ahead, we believe that future AES should account for all of these issues in their design to aid long-term farmer participation, effective agreement implementation and beneficial environmental management.",null,null,"farmers","United Kingdom"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D47","v":46},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G47","v":"Farmer participation in agri-environmental schemes: Towards conservation-oriented thinking?"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"This paper argues that the possible shift towards conservation-oriented attitudes of farmers through agri-environmental scheme participation should be seen as a key indicator for assessing the 'effectiveness' of agri-environmental policy. Through the analysis of two agri-environmental schemes in the UK, the ESA and Countryside Stewardship schemes, the study suggests that schemes attract different types of farmers and have different results with regard to shifting farmers' attitudes towards conservation. The paper concludes that there is little evidence yet that the ESA scheme is contributing to changes in farmers' attitudes towards conservation, largely because the scheme is aimed at maintenance rather than change. The Countryside Stewardship scheme, meanwhile, generally enrols more conservation-oriented farmers and also shows greater potential for shifting farmers' attitudes, mainly because it is aimed at enhancement of wildlife habitats which often require farmers to change farm management practices. Results indicate that future policies should put more emphasis on scheme monitoring and farmer environmental education in order to help move farmers along the conservation spectrum. In the ESA scheme, management agreement tiers that require more substantial changes to farm management practices towards conservation-oriented farming should be made compulsory in order to ensure that farmers are not only 'reacting' to schemes, but that also help farmers re-think their environmental management practices. The Countryside Stewardship scheme should be further expanded because of its appeal to conservation-oriented farmers and the resulting potential for sustainable environmental conservation of the countryside.",null,null,"Farmers","United Kingdom"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D48","v":47},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G48","v":"Biological conservation in dynamic agricultural landscapes: Effectiveness of public policies and trade-offs with agricultural production"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Land use change and land management intensification are major drivers of biodiversity loss, especially in agricultural landscapes, that cover a large and increasing share of the world's surface. Incentive-based agri-environmental policies are designed to influence farmers' land-use decisions in order to mitigate environmental degradation. This paper evaluates the effectiveness of agri-environmental schemes for biological conservation in a dynamic agricultural landscape under economic uncertainty. We develop a dynamic ecological economic model of agricultural land-use and spatially explicit population dynamics. We then relate policies (subsidies to grassland, taxation of agricultural intensity) to the ecological outcome (probability of persistence of a species of interest). We also analyze the associated trade-offs between agricultural production (in value) and biological conservation (in probability of persistence) at the landscape scale. ",null,null,"Biodiversity"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D49","v":48},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G49","v":"Implementation of landscape planning and nature conservation in the agricultural landscape - A case study from saxony"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"The interface between environment, agriculture and society needs more attention to improve nature conservation in rural landscapes. The present paper attempts to identify the conditions on which ecological landscape plans can be implemented in agricultural practice, considering the prevailing conditions of agricultural policy. The case study was carried out in a local authority area in Saxony (Germany). Calculation of variable margins indicated that most of the measures proposed by the landscape plan (such as planting hedgerows, reduction of land use intensity, establishment of field margins rich in arable weeds) can be realised without loss of farmers' income. That is 6% of the agricultural area can be withdrawn from cultivation without any negative financial effect for the farmers. In addition, a certain proportion of arable fields and grassland can be managed less intensively. Nevertheless, the attitude of farmers towards nature conservation was an obstacle in the realisation of ecological measures, even with generous economic incentives. The method applied was adequate to show that agriculture in this area is dependent on payments from agri-environmental programmes. It is proposed to strengthen the link between such subsidies and more effective agri-environmental measures.",null,null,"sustainable agriculture","Germany"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D50","v":49},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G50","v":"Multi-scale effects of agri-environment schemes on carabid beetles in intensive farmland"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Agri-environment schemes (AESs) were implemented to reduce the loss of biodiversity in agro-ecosystems. This study aimed to assess whether AESs at either local or landscape scale increase the carabid abundance-activity and species richness. Carabids were sampled in 496 fields in a 430 km2 study area of central-western France. Based on the extensiveness of the agricultural practices involved, the different AES types were aggregated into three categories (AESEXT+, AESEXT++ and AESEXT+++) forming a gradient of extensiveness in farming practices. We sampled 20 fields in each of the three AESs categories. Each AES fields was paired with conventional fields. A series of statistical models were built to test the balance between the effects of AESs on either the carabid abundance-activity or species richness. AESs affected carabid abundance-activity and species richness both locally and at landscape scale (local characteristics having a greater effect than landscape composition). Carabid diversity benefited from AESs only when the most extensive practices were implemented, i.e. organic farming in cereal crops and delayed cutting in alfalfa. In addition, the local effects of organic farming and delayed cutting coverage interacted positively with these AESs at landscape scale. These results demonstrate that non-targeted organisms can benefit from AES management. They further emphasize the need to consider both local and landscape conditions when studying the effects of AESs on biodiversity. As only the most extensive practices had significant effects at both local and landscape scales, management must be planned strategically in space to ensure that AESs are distributed within the landscape to amplify their positive effects.",null,null,"Biodiversity - insects","France"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D51","v":50},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G51","v":"'Greening' green infrastructure. Good italian practices for enhancing green infrastructure through the common agricultural policy"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was established by the European Community in the 1950s to provide financial support to farmers in member states, increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress, and ensure a fair standard of living for farmers. Over time; awareness about the externalities of intensive farming would prompt environmentally friendly practices. These include, in the current programming period 2014-2020, the so-called \"greening\", which consists of: (i) crop diversification; (ii) the maintenance of permanent grassland surfaces; and (iii) the availability of 5% of arable land for ecological focus areas devoted to agricultural practices beneficial for the climate and the environment. These provisions, spurred by a decades-long debate that also stresses the importance of creating/restoring ecological connectivity on different scales to counter land fragmentation, are in tune with spatial planning initiatives throughout Europe. Here the point is how to combine these directions with either \"ecological networks\" (EN), designed as physical corridors to be preserved and enhanced for plants and animals' mobility needs; or \"green infrastructure\" (GI), defined on the European level as a \"strategically planned network of natural and semi-natural areas with other environmental features designed and managed to deliver a wide range of ecosystem services\" (European Commission; 2013). While in several European countries environmental measures targeting farmers and ecological networks directed at specific areas have been merged in a place-based approach, Italy is lagging behind. In general, no guidelines have been provided on the national level to support regional paths, while regions and municipalities lack the resources to implement GI. Conversely, while greening policies in the framework of the CAP are properly funded, they lack directions to be effciently allocated. Against the backdrop of such concerns, this paper frames and reflects upon ongoing practices in three pilot areas in different Italian regions, selected based on desk analysis, in-depth interviews, and direct knowledge. Here, despite or thanks to the legislative framework, experimental approaches have been adopted to harness performance issues in targeted areas through broad participation by public and private stakeholders and multilevel governance schemes, opening possible pathways in view of the forthcoming programming period. ",null,null,"Greening","Italy"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D52","v":51},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G52","v":"Mammals, agri-environment schemes and set-aside - What are the putative benefits?"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"1. The impacts of agricultural intensification on farmland wildlife have been the subject of increasing concern, particularly over the last two decades. Population declines have occurred for a number of mammalian species, sometimes drastically so, and changes in farming practice are believed to be significant contributory factors. 2. The major policy instruments for delivering environmental benefits on farmland are agri-environment schemes. These encourage farmers to adopt more environmentally sensitive farming practices to promote farmland biodiversity. Additionally, compulsory set-aside, which reduces agricultural surplus, could also have positive impacts on wildlife. In this paper we consider some of the putative benefits of agri-environment schemes and set-aside for mammals. 3. We review how establishment and management options within agri-environment schemes and set-aside might affect habitat resources for mammals. For example, conservation headlands increase plant and invertebrate resources within the crop edge for mammals such as wood mice. Grassy field margins can support communities of smaller mammals, and hedgerows may act as important commuting and hunting routes. Their potential will depend on factors such as seed mixtures used, timing and severity of cutting, and length of time they have been in place. 4. At a farm level, habitat heterogeneity may be increased through organic agriculture, which is supported by some agri-environment schemes. Studies suggest significant benefits to mammals, including wood mice and bats. However, it is increasingly recognized that effective conservation of farmland mammals must seek solutions at the landscape scale, addressing such issues as habitat connectivity between farms. One approach may be the better targeting of scheme agreements. 5. We suggest that agri-environment schemes and set-aside can contribute to the conservation of mammals on farmland. Recent policy changes are likely to have further positive impacts on farmland wildlife but appropriate mammal monitoring programmes must be developed rigorously to assess their effects. ",null,null,"Biodiversity - mammals"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D53","v":52},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G53","v":"Assessing sustainability in agricultural landscapes: A review of approaches1,2"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Research and development agencies, as well as policy makers and agri-food enterprises, need reliable data to support informed decisions that can improve the sustainability of agricultural landscapes. We present a review of agricultural sustainability assessment frameworks (ASAF) that identifies the features most relevant to monitoring progress towards sustainability goals for agricultural landscapes. This qualitative review considers a variety of approaches for defining goals and for selecting stakeholders, spatial and temporal boundaries, indicators, and analytical approaches. We focused on assessment frameworks that (i) include environmental, social, and economic implications of agriculture; (ii) are applicable to multiple, non-specified farm system types; (iii) are described in an English language, peer-reviewed publication; (iv) have been developed for use at a farm system to regional spatial scale; (v) engage stakeholders; (vi) provide case studies; and (vii) could be used in a variety of contexts across the globe. Based on the review, we provide recommendations for further development and use of assessment frameworks to better address the needs of agricultural research, extension, and development organizations. We recommend an agro-ecosystem approach to help stakeholders identify appropriate indicators for their situation. Assessment methods need to be flexible enough for adaptation to a spectrum of agricultural landscapes and changing environmental conditions, and remain relevant as farmers and other stakeholders acquire new information, resources, and different management techniques. We find that to address information gaps across different scales from farm to region will require creativity and some reliance on local knowledge systems to support adaptive management. Assessment results should communicate relationships among ecosystem services and socio-economic activities affected by agricultural landscapes. Visualization tools can facilitate understanding of trade-offs and synergies among sustainability goals as reflected by individual indicators.",null,null,"sustainable agriculture"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D54","v":53},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G54","v":"Soil degradation, farming practices, institutions and policy responses: An analytical framework"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"There is a lack of knowledge about the effectiveness and efficiency of soil conservation policies in agriculture and there is a little understanding of how policy measures should be designed to encourage farmers to adopt soil conservation practices. This paper analyses institutional settings surrounding agricultural soil management in ten European countries based on the Institutions of Sustainability (IoS) framework. This framework considers the interdependencies between ecological and social systems, taking into account environmental conditions, farming practices impacting on soil conservation, different types of actors, policies, institutions and governance structures. The purpose of this paper is to describe the analytical framework and the methodology that all case studies are based on, present and discuss compared findings, outline implications for successful soil conservation policy and draw conclusions on the methodological approach. The case studies focused on the main soil degradation types occurring across Europe which are addressed by a broad range of mandatory and incentive policies. The findings highlight the following issues: (i) the need to design policies that target the locally most common soil threats and processes in the light of agricultural management; (ii) the need to take farming management constraints into consideration, (iii) the need for good communication and cooperation both between agricultural and environmental authorities as well as between governmental and non-governmental stakeholders; (iv) the necessary mix of mandatory and incentive instruments and (v) the need for data and monitoring systems allowing the evaluation of the effectiveness of policies and soil conservation practices.",null,null,"soil management","Europe"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D55","v":54},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G55","v":"A landscape perspective on sustainability of agricultural systems"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Agricultural sustainability considers the effects of farm activities on social, economic, and environmental conditions at local and regional scales. Adoption of more sustainable agricultural practices entails defining sustainability, developing easily measured indicators of sustainability, moving toward integrated agricultural systems, and offering incentives or imposing regulations to affect farmer behavior. Landscape ecology is an informative discipline in considering sustainability because it provides theory and methods for dealing with spatial heterogeneity, scaling, integration, and complexity. To move toward more sustainable agriculture, we propose adopting a systems perspective, recognizing spatial heterogeneity, integrating landscape-design principles and addressing the influences of context, such as the particular products and their distribution, policy background, stakeholder values, location, temporal influences, spatial scale, and baseline conditions. Topics that need further attention at local and regional scales include (1) protocols for quantifying material and energy flows; (2) standard specifications for management practices and corresponding effects; (3) incentives and disincentives for enhancing economic, environmental, and social conditions (including financial, regulatory and other behavioral motivations); (4) integrated landscape planning and management; (5) monitoring and assessment; (6) effects of societal demand; and (7) integrative policies for promoting agricultural sustainability.",null,null,"sustainable agriculture"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D56","v":55},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G56","v":"Plant diversity partitioning in Mediterranean croplands: Effects of farming intensity, field edge, and landscape context"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Farmland biodiversity is affected by factors acting at various spatial scales. However, most studies to date have focused on the field or farm scales that only account for local (a) diversity, and these may underestimate the contribution of other diversity components (b diversity) to total (c) farmland diversity. In this work, we aimed to identify the most suitable management options and the scale at which they should be implemented to maximize benefits for diversity. We used a multi-scale additive partitioning approach, with data on plant diversity from 640 plots in 32 cereal crop fields from three agricultural regions of central Spain that differed in landscape configuration. We analyzed the relative contribution to overall plant diversity of different diversity components at various spatial scales and how these diversity components responded to a set of local (application of agri-environment schemes [AES] and position within the field) and landscape (field size and landscape connectivity and composition) factors. Differences in species composition among regions and then among fields within regions contributed most to overall plant diversity. Positive edge effects were found on all diversity components at both the field- and regional scales, whereas application of AES benefited all diversity components only at the field scale. Landscape factors had strong influences on plant diversity, especially length of seminatural boundaries, which increased species richness at both the field and the regional scales. In addition, positive effects of percentage of nonproductive land-uses in the landscape were found on all diversity components at the regional scale. Results showed that components that contributed most to overall plant diversity were not benefited by current AES. We conclude that agri-environmental policies should incorporate and prioritize measures aimed at the maintenance of seminatural boundaries and patches of nonproductive habitats within agricultural landscapes, through landscape planning, cross-compliance, or high nature-value farmland programs. These options will help to conserve overall plant diversity at regional scales, as well as the spillover of plant species from such seminatural elements into crops, especially in Mediterranean areas that still harbor extensive farming and relatively complex landscapes.",null,null,"Biodiversity - plants","Spain"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D57","v":56},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G57","v":"Exploring cooperative place-based approaches to restorative agriculture"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"The modernisation of agriculture has been, and continues to be, the cause of an increasing disconnection between farming, nature, and society. This has given rise to a series of social, economic, and ecological crises in the food chain. Some farmers are responding to this by adjusting their land-use and farming practices so as to make their farms more sustainable. But such changes need to be aligned with the specificities of the local bio-physical environment and the logic of the political economic environment. This article highlights how cooperative approaches allow public and private regulatory systems to support ecological transitions. Through a theoretical lens on place-based and restorative farming practices it analyses and interprets three complementary cooperative approaches as possible starting points for the transition towards a more sustainable agri-food system. The case studies show how farmers cooperatives can be either linked to the environment and to public policies (and thus extrinsic product quality), or to the market (and intrinsic product quality), or a combination of both. These links provide competitive advantages to farmers, and enable them to increase income from farming. We then discuss the effectiveness of these forms of self-governance, and how cooperative approaches, if well organised and implemented and appropriately embedded, can empower farmers to further change and adapt their farming practices so as to restore and improve their endogenous resource base. The analysis shows that while they are place-specific they are far from locally/regionally-bounded and that their success (or failure) critically depends on their alignment with national, supra-national and global actants.",null,null,"farmers","Europe"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D58","v":57},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G58","v":"The role of network bridging organisations in compensation payments for agri-environmental services under the EU Common Agricultural Policy"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Compensation payments to farmers for the provision of agri-environmental services are a well-established policy scheme under the EU Common Agricultural Policy. However, in spite of the success in most EU countries in the uptake of the programme by farmers, the impact of the scheme on the long term commitment of farmers to change their practices remains poorly documented. To explore this issue, this paper presents the results of structured field interviews and a quantitative survey in the Walloon Region of Belgium. The main finding of this study is that farmers who have periodic contacts with network bridging organisations that foster cooperation and social learning in the agri-environmental landscapes show a higher commitment to change. This effect is observed both for farmers with high and low concern for biodiversity depletion. Support for network bridging organisations is foreseen under the EU Leader programme and the EU regulation 1306/2013, which could open-up interesting opportunities for enhancing the effectiveness of the current payment scheme for agri-environmental services.",null,null,"farmers","Belgium"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D59","v":58},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G59","v":"Ecological effectiveness of French grassland agri-environment schemes for farmland bird communities"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Agri-environment schemes (AES) have been implemented to cope with the loss of farmland biodiversity due to agricultural intensification over the last decades. In France, grassland measures (more closely linked to extensive grazing) are the most widely implemented within the French AES, and are presumably those whose effectiveness can be better assessed. In this paper, we have evaluated the effectiveness of French grassland agri-environmental measures (gAES) to enhance farmland bird diversity on a national scale, using local abundances of 19 farmland breeding birds within 463 Small Agricultural Regions (SAR) covering France during 2001-2008. We modeled responses of species abundances and estimated species richness to five categories of grassland AES, accounting for the characteristics of local production systems. Extensive management of grasslands had a positive effect on species richness. Despite mixed results on the effectiveness of the different grassland AES categories, our results are optimistic in terms of the ability of some French AES to provide benefits to birds. It seems that some grassland AES have achieved their objectives while meeting species ecological requirements. Moreover, this study highlights the fact that some of these grassland AES have the potential to enhance the population dynamics of declining species. Finally, although they all aim at benefitting biodiversity, it cannot be assumed that grassland measures lead to uniform conservation benefits.",null,null,"Biodiversity - birds","France"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D60","v":59},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G60","v":"Evaluating the effectiveness of conservation measures for European grassland-breeding waders"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Farmland birds are among the most threatened bird species in Europe, largely as a result of agricultural intensification which has driven widespread biodiversity losses. Breeding waders associated with grassland and arable habitats are particularly vulnerable and a frequent focus of agri-environment schemes (AES) designed to halt and reverse population declines. We review existing literature, providing a quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of policy and management interventions used throughout Europe to improve population and demographic metrics of grassland-breeding waders. Targeted AES and site protection measures were more likely to be effective than less targeted AES and were ten times more likely to be effective than would be expected by chance, particularly for population trend and productivity metrics. Positive effects of AES and site protection did not appear synergistic. Management interventions which had the greatest chance of increasing population growth or productivity included modification of mowing regimes, increasing wet conditions, and the use of nest protection. Success rates varied according to the species and metric being evaluated. None of the policy or management interventions we evaluated were associated with a significant risk of negative impacts on breeding waders. Our findings support the use of agri-environment schemes, site protection, and management measures for grassland-breeding wader conservation in Europe. Due to publication bias, our findings are most applicable to intensively managed agricultural landscapes. More studies are needed to identify measures that increase chick survival. Despite broadly effective conservation measures already in use, grassland-breeding waders in Europe continue to decline. More research is needed to improve the likelihood and magnitude of positive outcomes, coupled with wider implementation of effective measures to substantially increase favorable land management for these species.",null,null,"Biodiversity - birds","Europe"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D61","v":60},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G61","v":"Multiple benefits of carbon-friendly agricultural practices: Empirical assessment of conservation tillage"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"This study empirically estimates the multiple benefits of a subsidy policy that would offer payments to farmers in return for the adoption of conservation tillage, and compares the outcomes of alternative targeting designs for such a policy. The least-cost incentive payment policy schemes are simulated for the State of Iowa by using the data for roughly 12,000 National Resource Inventory (NRI) points. We use an economic conservation tillage adoption model to evaluate the costs of adoption and a physical process simulation model (EPIC) to estimate the environmental benefits due to adoption at each of the NRI points. Two targeting options are considered. We assess the costs and environmental consequences of a practice-based policy instrument (which maximizes the acres of land in conservation tillage, regardless of its level of environmental benefits) and contrast it to a performance-based instrument (which yields the highest amount of environmental benefits per dollar spent). Carbon sequestration in agricultural soils, reduction of soil erosion by wind and water, and the reduction in nitrogen runoff are considered as possible targets for the performance-based instruments. We find that the practice-based instrument provides high proportions of the four benefits relative to the policies that target the benefits directly, especially at the higher policy budget levels. Similarly, we estimate that targeting one of the four benefits individually provides high percentages of the other benefits as compared with the amounts of the benefits obtainable if they were targeted directly.",null,null,"carbon sequestration","United States"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D62","v":61},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G62","v":"Is it worth protecting groundwater from diffuse pollution with agri-environmental schemes? A hydro-economic modeling approach"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"In Europe, 30% of groundwater bodies are considered to be at risk of not achieving the Water Framework Directive (WFD) 'good status' objective by 2015, and 45% are in doubt of doing so. Diffuse agricultural pollution is one of the main pressures affecting groundwater bodies. To tackle this problem, the WFD requires Member States to design and implement cost-effective programs of measures to achieve the 'good status' objective by 2027 at the latest. Hitherto, action plans have mainly consisted of promoting the adoption of Agri-Environmental Schemes (AES). This raises a number of questions concerning the effectiveness of such schemes for improving groundwater status, and the economic implications of their implementation. We propose a hydro-economic model that combines a hydrogeological model to simulate groundwater quality evolution with agronomic and economic components to assess the expected costs, effectiveness, and benefits of AES implementation. This hydro-economic model can be used to identify cost-effective AES combinations at groundwater-body scale and to show the benefits to be expected from the resulting improvement in groundwater quality. The model is applied here to a rural area encompassing the Hesbaye aquifer, a large chalk aquifer which supplies about 230,000 inhabitants in the city of Liege (Belgium) and is severely contaminated by agricultural nitrates. We show that the time frame within which improvements in the Hesbaye groundwater quality can be expected may be much longer than that required by the WFD. Current WFD programs based on AES may be inappropriate for achieving the 'good status' objective in the most productive agricultural areas, in particular because these schemes are insufficiently attractive. Achieving 'good status' by 2027 would demand a substantial change in the design of AES, involving costs that may not be offset by benefits in the case of chalk aquifers with long renewal times.",null,null,"Groundwater","Belgium"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D63","v":62},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G63","v":"Agricultural public policy: Green or sustainable?"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"The future of agriculture constitutes a major challenge to the achievement of sustainable development. There are new perspectives on greening (focusing on ecological objectives) and sustainability (combining both ecological and social goals). Academic papers mainly study the ecological efficiency of agricultural public policies, while real public policies, such as the European Common Agricultural Policy, examine both ecological and social considerations. The objective of this paper is to consider economic, social and ecological objectives within the design of agricultural public policies. Using a bio-economic model applied to France, we compare different optimal public strategies. We show that, when the biodiversity objectives are either very limited or very demanding, grassland subsidies are the best instruments from both green and sustainable points of view. However for medium objectives, reducing crops subsidies is the cheapest way to green the CAP, while subsidies on grasslands are the only strategy from a sustainability perspective. Our work highlights new trade-offs related to policy implementation, such as social acceptance or technical difficulties, and the spatial equity of performance among regions.",null,null,"sustainable agriculture","France"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D64","v":63},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G64","v":"Restoration of plant diversity on ditch banks: Seed and site limitation in response to agri-environment schemes"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Recently it has become clear that seed limitation is probably a much more important factor in plant recovery than has often been recognized. However, in practice, restoration measures that are focussed on decreasing site limitation may actually increase seed limitation. We tried to determine whether the effects of restoration measures affect site or seed limitation or both. An experiment was set up on ditch banks in the Netherlands which applied agri-environment schemes (AES). To investigate whether nature reserves (seed source) can improve species diversity on the surroundings and to what extent AES is improving this function, we studied the plant diversity (presence of individual species and species richness) of ditch bank vegetations in relation to increasing distance from nature reserves. The presence or absence and species richness of 25 target plants were assessed in 26 ditch banks with AES and 36 non-AES at 15 plots each differing in distance to a nature reserve. Data were analyzed using a Hierarchical Generalized Linear Model (HGLM) with species richness and presence of individual species as response variables and distance to nature reserve and application of AES as factors, controlling for possible confounding factors. Results were interpreted as the effects of AES on seed and site limitation of the species. The results showed that plant diversity decreased significantly with distance from source populations. There were considerable differences in species diversity between AES and non-AES ditch banks, with the former showing greater plant diversity especially in the first 200 m from nature reserves. Presences of all individual species decreased with distance to nature reserve, but the strength of this relationship and the AES effects differed among species. AES ditch banks had lower site limitations for most plant species, but did not have lower seed limitation.",null,null,"biodiversity - plants","Netherlands"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D65","v":64},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G65","v":"Present agri-environment measures in Europe are not sufficient for the conservation of a highly sensitive bird species, the Corncrake Crex crex"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"The Corncrake Crex crex breeds mainly in managed grasslands in Europe. Agri-environment schemes (AES) were introduced in many European countries to protect broods from earlier and more frequent mowing. In order to assess the efficacy of these AES on the scale of regional populations, we obtained information on current AES options for Corncrakes in 33 countries and administrative regions within the European Union (EU) and European free Trade Association (EFTA) using a questionnaire. Options suitable for Corncrake conservation were available in 18 regions, but coverage of the regional Corncrake populations was highly variable. Coverage with AES was high in selected western regions, but low throughout eastern Europe where most Corncrakes breed. The various suitable options together covered only 6.2% of the total Corncrake population inside the EU and EFTA. While AES were effective at restoring Corncrake populations in Scotland, no evidence was found for effects on populations in other EU regions.Limited coverage of Corncrake populations in countries holding the largest populations, as well as its low breeding-site fidelity suggest that the Corncrake's future is not secured by the current extent of AES. If current farming practices in eastern European countries become more intensive as expected, the species’ future may be at risk. Besides developing AES which are more attractive to farmers and better targeting the requirement of Corncrakes, conservation of farmland birds in Europe should pay more attention to continent-wide changes of breeding conditions in order to be successful.",null,null,"Biodiversity - birds","Europe"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D66","v":65},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G66","v":"Influence of land sharing and land sparing strategies on patterns of vegetation and terrestrial vertebrate richness and occurrence in Australian endangered eucalypt woodlands"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Native vegetation placed under an agri-environment scheme (AES) is purported to support greater biodiversity than vegetation managed for intensive livestock grazing, and conservation reserves are purported to support greater biodiversity than land sharing under AES. These predictions underpin financial incentive delivery programs that enable landholders to adopt environmentally friendly agricultural practices. To evaluate these predictions, we established a biodiversity monitoring program in endangered temperate eucalypt woodland communities in southern Australia. We compared vegetation variables and vertebrate species richness and abundance among sites under different land management between 2010 and 2014. Our sites included: (1) woodland remnants on private property recently placed under an AES land management agreement (land sharing), (2) woodland remnants in State conservation reserves as reference areas (land sparing), and (3) woodland remnants used for intensive livestock production as controls. We used hierarchical generalized linear models to examine patterns of biodiversity among management classes and over time. We found conservation reserves were structurally more complex and floristically richer compared to production sites, and AES supported greater cover of native perennial grass. Reptile and amphibian species richness and abundance, and total bird species richness did not differ significantly among management classes, although AES and reference sites supported more birds of conservation concern. Arboreal marsupials were significantly more species rich in conservation reserves than AES. Temporal patterns in vertebrate species richness were related to post-drought climatic conditions. Our findings suggest that strategies involving land sharing under AES are as effective as land sparing (e.g. conservation reserves) for bird conservation, but alternative strategies may be required to enhance habitat for less mobile species such as frogs and reptiles, or species dependant on old growth vegetation such as arboreal marsupials.",null,null,"Biodiversity ","Australian"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D67","v":66},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G67","v":"Farmer awareness and implementation of sustainable agriculture practices in different types of farms in Poland"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Sustainability has been an emerging issue for years in the economy and agriculture. Making agriculture sustainable has become so essential that it has become part of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). However, producers ultimately decide individually the practices they implement. This is why farmers play a central role in ensuring a sustainable agricultural system, which results from farmers’ knowledge and expectations. Although numerous studies address sustainability issues, little is known about farmers’ knowledge and implementation of sustainable practices at different types of farms, especially in central and eastern Europe. This study aimed to determine Polish farmers’ awareness of sustainability with regards to animal and crop production. This paper also shows how farmers value the advantages arising from sustainable production. The study was carried out among 300 farms classified by type (dairy, beef cattle, pork, and crop production). The research instrument used was a questionnaire, with the Likert scale. The results show that dairy farmers and pork farmers declared higher knowledge and better implement sustainable practices than other farmers. The producers’ views on the benefits coming from sustainable agriculture varied. However, the two most significant advantages were recognized—the protection of water against pollution and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.",null,null,"farmers","Poland"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D68","v":67},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G68","v":"Towards sustainable land use: Public demand for plant diversity in agricultural landscapes of central Germany"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"In the stress field between World Trade Organization (WTO) policies to reduce agricultural overproduction and the public desire to preserve agricultural landscapes, secure the livelihood of inhabitants of rural regions in Germany and at the same time, to foster biodiversity and conservation issues in agriculture, agri-environmental payment schemes seem to be a promising perspective for agriculture in the decades to come. How can these schemes be designed and implemented in a way that ensures sustainability? This contribution resumes the results of a case study on a rural region of central Germany with regard to public demand for environmental services of agriculture. The population's willingness to pay for a specific ecological good was elicited by means of a contingent valuation survey. At the same time, the motivation of the local population to participate in this survey as an instrument of public decision making was evaluated. The contribution concludes discussing the suitability of the contingent valuation method and complementary techniques as an approach to sustainable policy making that takes into consideration ecological, economic and social criteria alike.",null,null,"Biodiversity - plants; sustainable agriculture","Germany"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D69","v":68},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G69","v":"Effect of agri-environment measure for the aquatic warbler on bird biodiversity in the extensively managed landscape of Biebrza Marshes (Poland)"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Farming intensification is one of the main factors responsible for bird populations declining in agricultural landscapes. Therefore, many countries implement agri-environment schemes (AES) to protect farmland biodiversity. However, recent studies showed that the effectiveness of AES varies between positive and negative. In this study we evaluated the effect an agri-environment measure, designed for aquatic warblers (AWM), has on bird biodiversity in a marginal, extensively managed landscape under strong succession pressure. We applied a point-count method to survey birds in areas within the AWM and outside the AWM and described habitat characteristics around these points. We found that AWM areas had a positive effect on the occurrence of aquatic warblers and six other bird species, meadow and Polish AES bird species richness; negatively affected the occurrence of three bird species and the all bird species richness, and was neutral for the occurrence of another ten bird species and for farmland bird species richness. We also show the diverse and sometimes mutually exclusive habitat preferences of the various species. The AWM implemented in extensively managed landscape successfully encouraged farmers to conduct extensive mowing of meadows and so stopped the habitat succession process. Simultaneously, if AWM is considered on a micro scale, it strongly supported some species but also eliminated others. Therefore, we suggest that management plans should be created at a landscape level. Such approach enables the determination of areas in which different species or groups of species are prioritised before others, allowing for the conservation of overall biodiversity.",null,null,"Biodiversity - birds","Poland"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D70","v":69},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G70","v":"Historical development, state and perspectives of environmental management in Bulgarian agriculture"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"This chapter presents a holistic framework for analyzing, assessing and improvement of environmental management in agriculture, and assesses the forms, factors and efficiency of agro-eco-management in Bulgaria during post-communist transition, European integration, and EU CAP implementation. It incorporates an interdisciplinary approach (combining Economics, Organization, Law, Behavioral and Environmental Sciences), and suggests a modern framework for analyzing and evaluating the system of environmental management in agrarian sector. After that it analyses the evolution of diverse formal and informal management forms for environmental management in Bulgarian agriculture during country's post-communist transition, EU integration, and implementation of EU common (agricultural, environmental, etc.) policies. After that, the results of the first large scale study on: forms, factors, efficiency and perspectives of environmental management in farming enterprises with different characteristics (juridical type, size, specialization, and location) in Bulgaria are presented. Finally, recommendations for improvement of agro-business strategies and public policies for sustainable environmental management are suggested.",null,null,"sustainable agriculture","Bulgaria"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D71","v":70},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G71","v":"Turning Farmers into Conservationists? Progress and Prospects"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Agri-Environment Schemes (AESs) are seen as important instruments in the delivery of sustainable countryside management. Central to the success of AESs are farmer participation and engagement. Social scientists, and geographers in particular, have now paid significant attention to these themes and this paper seeks to survey some key developments within this work. The paper begins by reflecting on the key themes emerging from AES 'adoption' research, and then discusses a recent strand of AES research which has paid specific attention to the ways that farmers socially construct their environments and identities. The paper then considers whether, after several decades in place, there is evidence from the extant literature that AESs are serving to change famer attitudes and farming cultures. Finally, the article concludes by sketching out potentially fruitful avenues for future farmer-AES research.",null,null,"farmers","Europe"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D72","v":71},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G72","v":"Agri-environmental schemes and the European agricultural landscapes: The role of indicators as valuing tools for evaluation"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"In Europe most conservation values, from biodiversity to scenic sites, are integral parts of agricultural landscapes. When these landscapes change as a result of agricultural policies, natural values - species, habitats, landscapes - are usually affected. Until recently however, these values have not been part of agricultural policies. The impacts of such new policies are difficult to evaluate because landscapes are complex and diverse, and the effects of policy are rarely immediate or causal. This paper evaluates the potential effects of Agri-environmental Regulation EC 2078/92 on European agricultural landscapes through the use of agri-environmental indicators (AEIs) on policy effects. After discussing the general framework of the evaluation methodology through the use of AEIs, we distinguish two types of agri-environmental policy (AEP) effects: policy performances and policy outcomes. The impediments to direct measurement of policy outcomes are stated. The potential for measuring policy performances are checked in two case study areas, one in Spain and one in Denmark, characterized by extensive agricultural land-uses and by the dual process of intensification/abandonment that is threatening their natural values. Both study areas are currently targeted by agri-environmental schemes under Reg. 2078/92. The realisability or availability of suitable statistical data to construct and report each AEI is stated for both types of effects. A problem of scale and content is found in most of the available statistics for assessing policy outcomes and the need for data at farm level is concluded to be indispensable if policy performances are to be measured. Effects of policy performance are measured for key selected AEIs in each study area on the basis of the results of a field survey based on questionnaires of participating and non-participating farmers in the AEP schemes. The main effects may be catalogued as improvement effects or protection effects since they represent a change in participant over non-participant farmers' decisions. Finally, the importance of this type of policy evaluation approach is discussed in the light of the likely future development of AEP in the European Union.",null,null,"sustainable agriculture","Spain; Denmark"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D73","v":72},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G73","v":"The effect of agri-environment schemes on amphibian diversity and abundance"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"The Western Peat District of The Netherlands has a characteristic Dutch landscape. It consists mainly of meadows for dairy farming, crisscrossed by a dense network of ditches. Its biodiversity is regarded as of high national and international importance, but is declining as a result of intensive farming. Besides the establishment of reserves, measures to conserve and restore biological diversity have been implemented in the form of agri-environment schemes (AES). The aim of this research is to investigate, first, whether the reserves, assuming these provide source populations, affect the distribution of amphibians and, second, whether AES in the form of nature-friendly ditch bank management benefits amphibian diversity and abundance and enhances distribution across the agricultural landscape. In total, 42 ditches (24 control ditches and 18 AES ditches) were studied. Each ditch was perpendicular to the boundary of one of the reserves and was divided into five ditch sections of 100 m spread over 800 m, starting in the reserve and proceeding into the farmland. Generalized Linear Modelling was used to quantify the effect of nature-friendly ditch bank management (AES) and distance to the nature reserve on amphibian diversity and abundance. Species richness was high in AES ditches as compared to control ditches. The number of observed green frog (Rana esculenta synkl.) seemed to decline in the control ditches at large distances from the reserve. The other species, although their abundances were higher in the reserves, did not show a declining trend across the farmland. However, all adult amphibians except green frogs together had significantly higher abundances in the AES ditches compared to the control ditches. These results illustrate the potential role of agricultural ditches, combined with reserves and nature-friendly ditch bank management, in the conservation of amphibian populations.",null,null,"biodiversity - amphibians","Netherlands"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D74","v":73},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G74","v":"Management of high nature value farmland in the republic of ireland: 25 years evolving toward locally adapted results-orientated solutions and payments"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"The effective conservation of high nature value farmland (HNV) will be crucial for the conservation of European and Irish biodiversity, and to meet the growing demand for a wide range of private and public goods and services from farmland. Here, we describe the evolution of policy and management of HNV farmland in the Republic of Ireland over the last 25 years and describe the emerging locally adapted, results-based payment approach that is valorizing a broad range of ecosystem services from these areas, which helps to underpin the future social, ecological, and financial viability of HNV farmland. HNV farmland in the Republic of Ireland covers approximately 33% of the agricultural land, and 50% of these areas coincide with Natura 2000 land. A broad diversity of landscape types dominated by seminatural vegetation from upland areas to lowland areas is a key challenge when designing policy support for HNV farmland areas. To date, action-based agri-environment schemes have struggled to adapt to these conditions, and to provide sufficient incentive and flexibility to deliver the desired environmental outcomes. In response, several projects and programs have implemented results-based payments, which we illustrate using three case studies from the Burren Programme, the Results Based Agri-environment Pilot Scheme (RBAPS), and European Innovation Partnership Operational Groups: The Hen Harrier and Pearl Mussel Projects. We highlight choices in the design and implementation of these case studies that aimed to better achieve the environmental objectives. We conclude with general lessons from the Irish experience with results-based approaches, and how they may be scaled up for wider implementation.",null,null,"Biodiversity","Ireland"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D75","v":74},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G75","v":"Stakeholder perceptions of the effectiveness and efficiency of agri-environment schemes in enhancing pollinators on farmland"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"In parts of the northern hemisphere, many pollinator species are in decline, with potential adverse implications for pollination and the ecosystem service of food production. It is therefore important to understand how habitats primarily orientated towards food production can be managed in an efficient way to enhance pollinator populations for current and future food security. In Europe, agri-environment schemes are a well-established method for promoting nature conservation on farmland. Some previous studies indicate that certain agri-environment schemes may be beneficial to pollinator populations by promoting increased floristic diversity in agricultural habitats. However, there has been no analysis of the efficiency or cost-effectiveness of these interventions. We used an online survey to evaluate the perceptions of growers in England following the Conservation Grade environmentally-sensitive farming protocol, regarding the effectiveness of different agri-environment scheme options in enhancing pollinators on their farms and the costs of implementation. Options within the agri-environment schemes that were perceived as most effective in enhancing pollinators were those related to improving floristic diversity of field headlands and enhancing or restoring semi-natural grassland. However, these options were not generally the most efficient, due to their high cost. Hedgerow management interventions were shown to be the most efficient, despite being perceived as relatively ineffective, due to the low costs of these options. We have therefore found that there is often a mis-match between effectiveness and efficiency of interventions for enhancing pollinators. Trade-offs are likely to be necessary when making decisions on implementing interventions, and farm size as well other local differences should be taken into account in this decision-making process.",null,null,"farmers","United Kingdom"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D76","v":75},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G76","v":"Assessing ecologically sustainable agricultural land-use in the Central Pyrénées at the field and landscape level"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Sustainable land use in agricultural systems involves the implementation of agricultural practices at the landscape level instead of at a field level. To test the above hypothesis a case study was conducted in two valleys of the Central Pyrénées (France), with two villages using two contrasting farming patterns: one village used a strong group organisation of agricultural practices at the valley level, while the other used a collection of practices at the field level. Two indicators of landscape organisation were used on both villages. The first indicator was the statistical contribution of the environment to the choice of agricultural practices by farmers, and was calculated at the field level on the overall valley territory. The second indicator was based on relationships between agro-ecological units and farms, measured at the valley level. The comparison between the group practices organised at the valley level and the individual practices organised at the field level showed that the latter system, with fragile and unstable agro-ecological units, had spatially specialised farms, and environmentally independent agricultural practices. Conversely the group practices used at the valley level were linked to stable agro-ecological units, fragmented farms, and environmentally dependent agricultural practices. The ecological sustainability of larger territories seemed to be in opposition with the standard criteria judging economical sustainability of farms. This analysis showed that the dependence of agricultural practices on the environmental features (i.e. the valley level versus the individual farm) secured the sustainability of the resources and landscape, even if it was in contradiction with a farm's economical criteria. The assessment of agro-environmental practices at a landscape level, intended as a natural level of organisation (such as valleys or watersheds) and larger than the plot level, is necessary, in order to enhance the effectiveness of future agricultural policies.",null,null,"sustainable agriculture","France"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D77","v":76},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G77","v":"Impacts of management at a local and landscape scale on pollinators in semi-natural grasslands"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Managing farmland to benefit biodiversity is becoming increasingly necessary to combat biodiversity declines and maintain ecosystem services. Results-based agri-environmental schemes are a tool used to achieve this by paying farmers based on environmental results delivered. These schemes often utilise plant indicator species to assess results at field scale; however, it is unknown if focusing on enhancing a subset of one biodiversity group within results-based schemes impacts wider biodiversity, and whether local-scale implementation of results-based schemes or/and the wider landscape are more important drivers of biodiversity patterns. Insect pollinators provide important pollination services for many crop and wild plants, and as mobile organisms often experience landscape at large spatial scales. We tested whether insect pollinators are affected at local scale by a results-based scheme scored based on plant indicators, or if landscape management is more important, and whether there were different responses between taxon-specific groups. Bumblebees, solitary bees, hoverflies and butterflies were sampled using transects and pan traps in 23 fields with varying scores assigned by the scheme, situated in high-intensity (≥65% improved grassland) or low-intensity (≥65% semi-natural grassland) landscapes. Results indicate taxon-specific responses to local and landscape management in semi-natural grasslands. Bumblebees responded positively to local-scale management in fields with higher floral diversity, whereas hoverflies and butterflies responded positively to low-intensity landscape management. Synthesis and applications. Using plant species as indicators for biodiversity in agri-environment schemes can have indirect benefits for non-target taxa like bumblebees, but broader indicators should be developed to incorporate other pollinator groups. Pollinator groups respond differently to local and landscape management in semi-natural grasslands. Agri-environmental management should consider a range of different management measures and landscape scale approaches where possible, to maximise benefits for a range of pollinator taxa.",null,null,"Biodiversity - pollinators"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D78","v":77},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G78","v":"Sustainable landscape, soil and crop management practices enhance biodiversity and yield in conventional cereal systems"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Input-driven, modern agriculture is commonly associated with large-scale threats to biodiversity, the disruption of ecosystem services and long-term risks to food security and human health. A switch to more sustainable yet highly productive farming practices seems unavoidable. However, an integrative evaluation of targeted management schemes at field and landscape scales is currently lacking. Furthermore, the often-disproportionate influence of soil conditions and agrochemicals on yields may mask the benefits of biodiversity-driven ecosystem services. Here, we used a real-world ecosystem approach to identify sustainable management practices for enhanced functional biodiversity and yield on 28 temperate wheat fields. Using path analysis, we assessed direct and indirect links between soil, crop and landscape management with natural enemies and pests, as well as follow-on effects on yield quantity and quality. A paired-field design with a crossed insecticide-fertilizer experiment allowed us to control for the relative influence of soil characteristics and agrochemical inputs. We demonstrate that biodiversity-enhancing management options such as reduced tillage, crop rotation diversity and small field size can enhance natural enemies without relying on agrochemical inputs. Similarly, we show that in this system controlling pests and weeds by agrochemical means is less relevant than expected for final crop productivity. Synthesis and applications. Our study highlights soil, crop and landscape management practices that can enhance beneficial biodiversity while reducing agrochemical usage and negative environmental impacts of conventional agriculture. The diversification of cropping systems and conservation tillage are practical measures most farmers can implement without productivity losses. Combining local measures with improved landscape management may also strengthen the sustainability and resilience of cropping systems in light of future global change.",null,null,"biodiversity; soil management; fertilizer"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D79","v":78},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G79","v":"Effects of agri-environmental schemes on farmland birds: Do food availability measurements improve patterns obtained from simple habitat models?"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Studies evaluating agri-environmental schemes (AES) usually focus on responses of single species or functional groups. Analyses are generally based on simple habitat measurements but ignore food availability and other important factors. This can limit our understanding of the ultimate causes determining the reactions of birds to AES. We investigated these issues in detail and throughout the main seasons of a bird's annual cycle (mating, postfledging and wintering) in a dry cereal farmland in a Special Protection Area for farmland birds in central Spain. First, we modeled four bird response parameters (abundance, species richness, diversity and \"Species of European Conservation Concern\" [SPEC]-score), using detailed food availability and vegetation structure measurements (food models). Second, we fitted new models, built using only substrate composition variables (habitat models). Whereas habitat models revealed that both, fields included and not included in the AES benefited birds, food models went a step further and included seed and arthropod biomass as important predictors, respectively, in winter and during the postfledging season. The validation process showed that food models were on average 13% better (up to 20% in some variables) in predicting bird responses. However, the cost of obtaining data for food models was five times higher than for habitat models. This novel approach highlighted the importance of food availability-related causal processes involved in bird responses to AES, which remained undetected when using conventional substrate composition assessment models. Despite their higher costs, measurements of food availability add important details to interpret the reactions of the bird community to AES interventions and thus facilitate evaluating the real efficiency of AES programs. We investigated the effects of three measures included in an AES on a steppe bird community in central Spain in different seasons. We also compared the predictive capacity and costs of models based on simple habitat measurements (habitat models) with that of models, which incorporate detailed food availability and vegetation structure measurements (food models). The two main conclusions of our study were the following: (i) AES benefited birds but some non-AES field types did it too and the effects of each agri-environmental measure varied seasonally. (ii) The so-called food models increased the explanatory power with respect to habitat models and enabled to identify the ultimate causes underlying birds' responses. ",null,null,"Biodiversity - birds","Spain"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D80","v":79},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G80","v":"Agri-environmental schemes for biodiversity and environmental protection: How were are not yet “hitting the right keys”"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Compensating land managers for the provision of public goods is currently one of the European Union's flagship policies, and one that that resonates across the globe more generally in the effort to meet Sustainable Development Goals. Despite having been central to the EU's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for several decades now, Agri-Environment Schemes (AES) seem to only have had limited success in preserving biodiversity and providing environmental benefits due, among other, to farmer-related factors. This paper systematically reviews and quantifies, for the first time, the body of evidence that explores these factors with respect to their influence on land managers’ willingness to accept (WTA) compensation for the delivery of biodiversity and environmental features’ protection. Our analysis shows a complex and nuanced picture. Farmers appear generally willing to enrol in AES, with average payment per hectare being around 327 Euros. However, the current evidence base provides few clues on how best that willingness is matched by contract design formats and features more generally. Providing support to farmers and exploring new ways of monitoring compliance emerge as issues worth considering as means of determining compensation in AES. Further, the broader evidence base seems to suggest that wealthier land managers stand to gain more than less wealthy in enroling in AES. However, this alone seems, in the overall, like a quite modest contribution from the body of evidence to inform policy design more broadly. It indeed does seem that we (academia and/or policy) are not yet hitting the right key on how to best match farmers preferences for enroling in AES for the delivery of biodiversity/environmental features A significant leap forward would not simply require an increased quantity of primary studies, but a deeper reflexion on how the complexity of farmers’ preferences is best captured in the design of policy instruments that have to both share common features while being adaptable to context dependent characteristics at the landscape level. This is more pressing than ever face to the unprecedented challenges of Brexit and the COVID19-induced economic recession, which is going to put every cent of public funding under the hardest of scrutinies in the years to come.",null,null,"Biodiversity","Europe"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D81","v":80},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G81","v":"Towards Sustainable Agriculture? The EU framework and local adaptation in Sweden and Poland"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Agricultural systems can be seen as nested social-ecological systems. European Union (EU) Member States vary considerably in terms of their agricultural, socio-economic and environmental circumstances. Yet, as participants in the common agricultural market, they are subject to a uniform Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). An important question is whether there is enough room for flexibility to sustain diverse agricultural systems and facilitate national targeting of sustainability-promoting measures. This article analyses the institutional arrangements concerning cross-scale interactions and interdependencies at national and regional (EU) levels, focusing on how Poland and Sweden implement CAP funds in relation to sustainable agriculture, in particular the agri-environmental schemes, for the period 2007-2013. What room is there in practice for accommodating national differences and sustainability priorities offered by the EU agricultural policy, and how are the existing opportunities used by the two countries? It is shown that agri-environmental funds are too small to prevent transition towards large-scale farming in new Member States and CAP does not effectively promote transformation towards sustainable practices in the EU.",null,null,"sustainable agriculture","Sweden; Poland"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D82","v":81},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G82","v":"The importance of spatial and temporal scale for agri-environment scheme delivery"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"There is currently little evidence that wider countryside agri-environment scheme (AES) management has led to population-level benefits for farmland birds and it is timely to consider why this might be the case, so that AES options can be improved if necessary. Two reasons why particular options might not deliver landscape-scale population benefits are that they do not take account of the full temporal scale of a resource gap for birds and that they do not provide resources at an appropriate spatial scale for the target population. This paper reviews the published evidence on both issues, focusing on the results of landscape-scale field experiments that used winter seed provision as a model AES option. There is strong evidence that most existing measures that aim to provide overwinter food resources for granivorous birds fail to do so during the late winter period, when the need for the resource is likely to be greatest. Consideration of within-season changes, such as vegetation growth and management of vegetation height, could also increase the value of options such as field margins for birds. Published research and new data together suggest that a separation of c. 1 km between winter food patches would provide all individuals in local Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs and Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella populations with access to the resource. This separation tallies well with the recommendation in Environmental Stewardship in England that seed crop patches should be sown in patches no larger than 2 ha, with no more than 3 ha/km2. Spatial scale issues could also be critical for AES success in terms of the degree to which complementary resources, within or between seasons, are sufficiently close to one another for the same birds to access the resources that they need. Although they are based on sound evidence, modern AESs might still be improved by revision of their organization or management prescriptions. Revisions that take both the temporal and the spatial scale of resource provision into account will be necessary if farmland bird population recovery goals are to be met. Such revisions could include seed crops or mixes managed specifically to provide food in late winter and the coordination of AES agreements between neighbouring farms to ensure that sufficient resources are provided at the appropriate spatial scale.",null,null,"Biodiversity"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D83","v":82},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G83","v":"Assessing pollinators' use of floral resource subsidies in agri-environment schemes: An illustration using Phacelia tanacetifolia and honeybees"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Background: Honeybees (Apis mellifera L.) are frequently used in agriculture for pollination services because of their abundance, generalist floral preferences, ease of management and hive transport. However, their populations are declining in many countries. Agri-Environment Schemes (AES) are being implemented in agricultural systems to combat the decline in populations of pollinators and other insects. Despite AES being increasingly embedded in policy and budgets, scientific assessments of many of these schemes still are lacking, and only a few studies have examined the extent to which insect pollinators use the floral enhancements that are part of AES and on which floral components they feed (i.e., pollen and/or nectar). Methods: In the present work, we used a combination of observations on honeybee foraging for nectar/pollen from the Californian annual plant Phacelia tanacetifolia in the field, collection of pollen pellets from hives, and pollen identification, to assess the value of adding phacelia to an agro-ecosystem to benefit honeybees. Results: It was found that phacelia pollen was almost never taken by honeybees. The work here demonstrates that honeybees may not use the floral enhancements added to a landscape as expected and points to the need for more careful assessments of what resources are used by honeybees in AES and understanding the role, if any, which AES play in enhancing pollinator fitness. Discussion: We recommend using the methodology in this paper to explore the efficacy of AES before particular flowering species are adopted more widely to give a more complete illustration of the actual efficacy of AES.",null,null,"Biodiversity - pollinators","United States"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D84","v":83},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G84","v":"Governing agri-environmental schemes: Lessons to be learned from the new institutional-economics approach"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"The authors analyze agri-environmental schemes (AES) from the perspective of new institutional economics (NIE). The field of NIE studies the effect of institutions on the decisions of economic actors. Policy is intended to shape institutions and thus influence behavior. NIE is therefore particularly suitable for the analysis of policy programs such as AES. Their aim is to explain some of the management problems that have arisen in AES and to contribute to finding solutions by using insights from NIE. To this end a specific Dutch AES is used as a case study, in which a number of administrative problems are analyzed. These problems prove to be similar to those that have been identified in other European AES, and are related to the ecological efficacy of this particular type of policy program, its economic efficiency, its administrative sustainability, and the level of sociopolitical support it enjoys. The explanation for the problems identified is based on NIE; this approach is also used to identify solutions. The solutions derived from this theory are then compared with the solutions that have been applied in reality. The authors conclude with a discussion of what these lessons imply for AES in general.",null,null,"sustainable agriculture","Netherlands"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D85","v":84},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G85","v":"Effects of agri-environment management for cirl buntings on other biodiversity"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Agri-environment scheme (AES) management has increased populations of cirl buntings (Emberiza cirlus) in South Devon, England, and might be expected to provide benefits for other declining biodiversity, due to less intensive farm management. Fields managed under AES for cirl buntings (low-input spring barley or permanent pasture without inputs) were contrasted with control fields under conventional management (spring barley without management restrictions and winter cereals, or grazed without management restrictions) to identify such benefits for vascular plants, butterflies, bumblebees, carabid beetles, foliar invertebrates and bats. Activity-density and species richness of carabid beetles were both higher in AES spring barley fields than in control spring barley and winter cereal fields. Forb cover and abundance of butterflies and bumblebees were higher in AES spring barley fields than in winter cereals, but did not differ between AES and control spring barley. No difference was observed in plant species richness between any of the arable field types. Plant species richness and butterfly abundance were higher in AES pasture fields than in controls. Abundance, activity-density and/or species richness of other taxa did not differ between AES and control pastures. Benefits observed in AES spring barley fields arise from management specific to AES agreements, and also, we suggest, from the maintenance of spring-sown barley in the landscape. Benefits in AES pasture fields are ascribed to the absence of fertiliser and pesticide inputs, and reductions in stocking arising from this; there is also likely to have been some pre-selection for older pastures to be entered into AES management agreements. Agri-environment measures for cirl buntings have benefits for a range of taxa beyond the target species, and therefore, largely through reduction of management intensity and maintenance of land-use diversity, improve the overall biodiversity of the farmed landscape where they are present.",null,null,"Biodiversity","United Kingdom"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D86","v":85},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G86","v":"Mixing public and private agri-environment schemes: Effects on farmers participation in quebec, canada"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Incentive-based mechanisms, such as payments for ecosystem services (PES) are increasingly being employed to encourage adoption of biodiversity conservation practices in agriculture. Farmers’ participation in a PES depends – amongst other factors – on their interactions with previous programs and schemes. This research analyses how the institutional characteristics and interactions of incentive-based mechanisms shape the type of farmers’ participation and the achievement of desired socio-ecological outcomes. This research focusses on the institutional frameworks of two programs in the Province of Quebec, Canada: the ‘Prime-Vert’ Program (public agri-environment scheme) and the ‘Alternative Land Use Services’ (ALUS) initiative (a privately-funded “PES” scheme). The institutional prescriptions of these two programs were examined and compared through the lenses of the Institutional Analysis and Development framework. We reveal the impact of the institutional framework on farmers’ participation by assessing the degree of farmers’ engagement in the implementation and management of schemes. Our results showed a strong dependence of the private PES on the public scheme, rendering both programs ultimately managed under the remit of the provincial government. While the complementarity of both programs diversifies sources of funding for farmers, the presence of rigid rules governing these incentives tend to treat farmers as passive beneficiaries of a network of centralized subsidies which they have little control over. This compromises farmers’ autonomy as the rigidity of rules impedes any attempt to achieve active participation in the design and implementation of agri-environmental practices.",null,null,"farmers","Canada"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D87","v":86},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G87","v":"Evaluation of a dairy agri-environmental programme for restoring woody green infrastructure"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Pastoral landscape woody vegetation provides ecosystem services, but potentially competes for space, light and nutrients that could provide additional farm production. A questionnaire determined the values and behaviours of New Zealand dairy farmers to evaluate voluntary agri-environmental programmes for restoring woody vegetation. Findings indicate the area is increasing, while the composition and configuration of networks are changing and redistributing. Farms with little are losing more, and those with more are gaining. Farmers are planting new areas to increase their public ecosystem services, but may not provide these services through planting and management. Barriers include insufficient private woody vegetation ecosystem services, and low rates of growth of native plants. Government incentive programmes are ineffective in overcoming barriers. Farmers may be motivated by stronger evidence of valued ecosystem services, information about their benefits and drawbacks and how to support services through planting and management. However, a targeted environmental stewardship scheme is required to overcome barriers to planting, with government and the dairy industry working together to develop and maintain a landscape-scaled woody vegetation network on private and public land. Such networks would build sustainability and resilience into dairy farming, leading to an equitably sharing of benefits and costs of their public ecosystem services.",null,null,"Biodiversity - plants","New Zealand"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D88","v":87},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G88","v":"Alternative agricultural policy scenarios, sector modelling and indicators: A sustainability assessment"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"In this article, we assess ecological, economic and social sustainability impacts of four alternative agricultural policy scenarios relevant to the European perspective. The analysed scenarios are: Prolonged Agenda 2000, On-going CAP reform, Integrated rural and environmental policy, and Liberalized Agricultural Trade. An economic agricultural sector model of Finnish agriculture is used in the evaluation of policy impacts up to 2020. Selected indicators representing the three dimensions of sustainability are calculated on the basis of the production variables of the model in each scenario. It is assumed that economic rationality, represented by the sector model, is a driving force directing agricultural production and land use, which, in turn, have a number of ecological, economic and social consequences. Our results show that a partial de-coupling of agricultural support from production and moderate reductions of commodity prices are likely to yield environmental benefits. In addition, there is a clear trade-off between environmental benefits and production volume and intensity. However, full de-coupling and radical price reductions are not likely to bring any additional environmental benefits but will result in a significant down-scaling and regional concentration of remaining agricultural activities. Hence the presented analysis is an interesting platform for discussion for stakeholders when implementing agricultural policy reforms.",null,null,"sustainable agriculture","Finland"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D89","v":88},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G89","v":"Radar remote sensing as a novel tool to assess the performance of an agri-environment scheme in coastal grasslands"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Coastal grasslands are semi-natural habitats used for agriculture, but they are also vital habitats for many taxa, such as waders. The importance of this habitat for wildlife has found recognition in the policies of the European Union, resulting in the implementation of biodiversity-friendly agri-environment schemes (AES) to ensure the sustainable management of these areas. However, the performance of AESs has often been questioned and data to analyse their effectiveness is mostly lacking. To fill this knowledge gap, we used freely available European Space Agency's Sentinel-1 Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) images and ground truth data to describe the vegetation height based habitat suitability of coastal grasslands as breeding sites for waders at a country-wide scale in Estonia, where the main threat to this habitat is overgrowing with high sward plant species. We show that satellite remote sensing can be used as a straight-forward and reliable tool to estimate the grazed coastal grassland habitat suitability for breeding waders in terms of vegetation height in two broad classes. We demonstrate that the AES applied on Estonian coastal grasslands is important for improving the suitability of this habitat for the breeding wader community: compared to 24% of suitable habitat in areas where no agricultural subsidies are paid, 60% of the land under the targeted AES is suitably managed for breeding waders. The highest proportion of habitat suitability (76%) is achieved in areas receiving targeted top-up subsidy for wader conservation. Continued monitoring of the performance of the AES is essential for taking timely and targeted conservation actions and we strongly recommend the wider use of remotely sensed data for this purpose. We promote the continuation of the AES scheme applied on Estonian coastal grasslands while improving its efficiency through carefully raised stocking rates and increased uptake of the top-up scheme.",null,null,"Biodiversity","Europe"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D90","v":89},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G90","v":"Are the conservation requirements of pseudo-steppe birds adequately covered by spanish agri-environmental schemes? An ex-ante assessment"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Aims: To assess ex-ante the adequacy of available agri-environmental schemes towards the agriculture-related conservation requirements of pseudo-steppe birds and their habitats in Spain. Methods: A literature review was made on these requirements, based on which 21 «desirable agricultural practices» were identified. National and regional legislative acts implementing schemes under the 2000-2006 programme as in December 2003 were then collected, and the degree to which these desirable practices had been included among the schemes' commitments was determined. The percentage of included desirable practices was considered an indication of the schemes' adequacy towards the conservation requirements of pseudosteppe birds. Schemes were also assessed in regards to their provisions for spatially targeted implementation. Results and Conclusions: Only 71% of identified desirable practices are included as commitments to farmers at the national level. Implementation deficit at the regional level diminishes this figure at an average 39%, with extreme cases at 0 % and 67 %. Further, schemes' implementation is generally not targeted to particular sites of special conservation interest, such as Special Protection Areas (Birds Directive). On the basis of encountered design deficiencies and limited implementation, it is concluded that limited effects in terms of pseudosteppe birds' conservation can be expected from current agri-environmental schemes in Spain. Further, it is argued that detected implementation deficits may be seriously impeding a needed learning-from-doing process in the agri-environment policy arena, an issue of capital importance in the actual context of the European Common Agricultural Policy.",null,null,"Biodiversity - birds","Spain"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D91","v":90},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G91","v":"System dynamics model to design effective policy strategies aiming at fostering the adoption of conservation agriculture practices in sicily"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"This paper presents a study based on System Dynamics Approach (SDA) whose aim is to support policy and decision makers to design effective policy strategies to foster the adoption of conservation agriculture practices in Sicily. The SDA is a methodological tool that can be used to study and manage complex and dynamic systems characterized by feedback mechanisms, which can be relevantly influenced by the policy&decision-making process and its delays. The SDA may help to define, implement and evaluate decision makers choices from the output of systems to stimulations from the outside. Scientific literature provides important experiences in the field of these simulation models, both for the development of ecological agriculture and for the simulation of the impacts of policy scenarios in a certain region/area. Conservation Agriculture (CA) is a farming system, mainly for arable crops, which helps to achieve goals of sustainable and profitable agriculture. It is currently playing an ever-increasing role in the frame of EU agricultural policies in consideration of the positive impacts it can produce, in terms of sustainable use of natural resources as well as of Climate Change mitigation and adaptation. At farm level, moreover, CA represents a way to combine environmental and sustainability concerns with profitability and competitiveness aspects, in a variety of agroecological zones and farming conditions. Short-term solutions and immediate benefits always attract farmers more than long-term ones. Unfortunately, the full technical, environmental and economic advantages provided by the adoption of CA can be measured and appreciated by farmers only in the medium and long-term, when its principles (minimum soil disturbance, permanent soil cover crop rotation) are well established within the farming system. This evidence, together with other technical, social and cultural forces, relevantly affects the process of CA adoption at farm level as well as the effectiveness of agricultural policy efforts aiming at this result. The aim of this study is to validate a Systemic Dynamic Model (SDM) to be used in ex-ante evaluation to address the public action towards the effective achievement of the planned result of supporting the adoption of CA techniques in a certain region. It seeks answers to strategic questions related to the elements that could influence the effectiveness of the support payment schemes programmed into the sub-measure 10.1 of 2014-2020 Sicily Rural Development Programme (SRDP). The SDA considers relevant variables which affect the application and dissemination of CA techniques among potential beneficiaries whose number is estimated based on sub-measure access conditions and restrictions. For this purpose, the model structure is based on environmental, social and economic issues, e.g. physical and economic farm dimensions, provision of machinery hire, advisory services, reduction of production costs, etc. Results show that in a long term dynamic context the environmental support payment scheme provided by Measure 10 does not represent the only driving force in the system to guide farmers towards the expected shift from conventional to CA agriculture. What is needed is a deeper integration with other policies (innovation policies) and other interventions, e.g. schemes promoting precision farming, collective investments, advice, training and information.",null,null,"farmers","Italy"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D92","v":91},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G92","v":"What influences farmers 'acceptance of agrienvironment schemes? An ex-post application of the Theory of Planned Behaviour'"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"A better understanding of farmers 'behaviour regarding agrienvironment schemes (AES) can be one step towards further improving these voluntary schemes. In order to assess farmers' acceptance and perception of agri-environment schemes, the 'Theory of Planned Behaviour' (TPB) was applied expost to identify factors influencing farmers' willingness to join agri-environment schemes. This ex-post application is a new approach of using the TPB and also the analysis of farmers' acceptance towards AES by using the TPB has not been done before. In the 'Yorkshire and The Humber' region of northern England, standardized face-to-face interviews were conducted with 32 farmers already participating in an AES. The results demonstrate that the general attitude and acceptance of the English scheme are high. Biodiversity, landscape, and natural resources are perceived to be improved by the scheme and to be valuable. An increase in weeds was perceived as an undesirable outcome. Farmers' families were ranked to have the highest and most positive social pressure on farmers' decisions to join AES. Interestingly, the opinion of other farmers or of the farm advisor did not influence the farmers much. More paperwork and more demanding management requirements would make it much more difficult to join the scheme. The provision of advice and greater consideration of environmental conservation in policy development were perceived to make joining the scheme more attractive. Most of the gained results are confirmed by the literature. This shows that the ex-post application of the TPB is feasible and that acceptance of AES can be analysed by using the TPB.",null,null,"farmers","United Kingdom"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D93","v":92},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G93","v":"Policy Integration for Sustainable Agricultural Landscapes: Taking Stock of UK Policy and Practice"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"This paper examines English experience with agri-environment schemes as a tool to promote sustainable landscapes. Evidence is drawn from policy and academic literature and selected recent research. Performance is assessed by reference to key notions of sustainable landscapes: spatial coherence, functionality and socio-cultural meaning. Whilst now widespread across England and well-supported by the environmental community, agri-environment schemes suffer from weaknesses in design and delivery including insensitivity to the evolving needs and concerns of farming businesses, the wider policy context, and thereby to the integrity of the landscape. An upland case study illustrates problems of poor communication and advice, narrow and inconsistent delivery, and under-recognition of social issues which together work against more sustainable agricultural landscapes. In the context of emerging EU and global challenges, a shift of emphasis towards systemic approaches, developed territorially in partnership with farmers, is needed. Emerging non-policy innovations and new initiatives may offer lessons for an improved approach.",null,null,"sustainable agriculture","United Kingdom"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D94","v":93},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G94","v":"Cost-effective Biodiversity Conservation:Procurement Auctions and Payment-by-Results"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Cost-effective Biodiversity Conservation: Procurement Auctions and Payment-by-Results Managed grasslands contribute in a number of ways to the biodiversity of European agricultural landscapes and provide a wide range of ecosystem services that are also of socio-economic value. Against the background of a rapid biodiversity loss in agricultural landscapes, increasing attention is being paid to farming practices that enhance ecosystem services. Therefore developing cost-effective conservation payment schemes is the main challenge facing present European agri-environmental policy. This article deals with the design, implementation and results of a case-study payment scheme in Steinburg county in Germany that compares payment-by-results conservation procurement auctions with a fixed flat-rate payment-by-results approach as a means of improving the cost-effectiveness of conservation schemes for grassland plant biodiversity. The empirical work indicates cost-effectiveness gains of auctioning - compared to current fixed flat-rate payment schemes - of up to 50 per cent. These findings along with the relatively high number of successful participants indicate that this specific approach will probably be an improvement over current action-orientated fixed flat-rate payments. This is mainly because low-cost producers gain smaller information rents and the conservation agency will - with a given budget - be able to close contracts with (some) high-cost farmers due to cost-effectiveness gains provided by low-cost landowners. ",null,null,"biodiversity","Germany"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D95","v":94},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G95","v":"Evaluation of agricultural ecosystem services in fallowing land based on farmers' participation and model simulation"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Fallowing with green fertilizer can benefit agricultural ecosystem services (AES). Farmers in Taiwan do not implement fallow practices and plant green fertilizer because the current subsidy level (46,000 NT$ per ha) is too low to manage fallowing. This paper defines the objective of government agriculture policy or the farmer's objective as maximization of farm productivity, approximated to the value of social welfare and AES. Farms, which do not follow proper fallowing practices, often have poorly maintained fallow land or left farmland abandoned. This results in negative environmental consequences such as cutworm infestations in abandoned land, which in turn can affect crops in adjacent farmlands. The objectives of this study are twofold. First, it determines the proper fallowing subsidy based on the concept of payment for ecosystem services to entice more farmers to participate in fallowing. Second, it simulates the benefit of planting green manure in fallow land to the supply of AES based on the rate of farmers who are willing to participate in fallow land practices and essential parameters that can affect soil fertility change. The approach involves a series of interviews and a developed empirical model. The value of AES when the rate of farmer participation is 100% represents a 1.5% increase in AES (448,317,000 NT$) over the value at the current participation rate of 14%. This study further concludes that the appropriate fallowing subsidy has a large positive impact on AES and social welfare (e. g., benefit from food and biofuel supplies) and is seen as a basis of ecological governance for sustainable agro-ecosystems.",null,null,"Ecosystem services; farmers","Taiwan"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D96","v":95},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G96","v":"Greenhouse gas mitigation strategies and opportunities for agriculture"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"To cope with increasing demands for food, feed, and energy along with environmental challenges due to climate change, the agricultural sector has a unique opportunity to meet sustainable development goals set by the United Nations through innovative and regenerative agriculture practices that enhance agricultural productivity, ecosystem services, and human well-being simultaneously. Among many sustainability metrics to measure agriculture's impacts on sustainability and contribution to its improvements, we focus on the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the agricultural sector as a key environmental indicator to assess several GHG mitigation practices from the perspective of life-cycle analysis applied to agriculture. We first analyze the key factors contributing to farming GHG emissions and then identify a range of GHG mitigation strategies, such as optimizing farm fertilizer/chemical inputs, manufacturing low-carbon fertilizer/chemical, reducing on-farm energy/fuel consumption, and increasing soil carbon stocks. Furthermore, we elaborate on how these strategies can be successfully implemented to different scales of farming through policies and incentives and better quantification and verification schemes for effective policies and incentives. Finally, we present the holistic evaluation of agricultural GHG emissions in terms of landscape management approaches and provide ecosystem services to address social and economic issues.",null,null,"Greenhouse gas"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D97","v":96},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G97","v":"Valoración indirecta de un programa agroambiental enfocado a la conservación de la avifauna esteparia en el norte de España"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Aims: To evaluate the suitability benefits of measures and agri-environmental schemes aimed at the conservation of steppe birds. Location: Steppes in northern Spain. Method: Through Delphi process, the assessment of twenty one experts was obtained on the measures and effects of an agri-environment scheme for steppe birds (ecological value). For each measure, the value was related to the area treated (ecological effectiveness) and its economic cost (cost effectiveness). Results: Experts assessed the measures as positive, reaching a higher ecological value those that implied an increase in the surface or the ecological quality of set aside agricultural areas, those that eliminated direct causes of mortality and the creation of refuge areas. For ecological effectiveness, the most important are the measures which are highly valued ecologically and have a wide area of application. Cost effectiveness penalizes those areas with poor ecological effectiveness and significant economic cost. Conclusions: Assessment of agri-environment schemes by an expert group suggests benefits, but no good opinion of the livestock management measures was detected. It is important to reach a great area of application for the efficacy of these schemes, without neglecting specific measures over small areas aimed at solving crucial aspects of the conservation of threatened species. For the new agri-environmental schemes, this paper address measures at two levels: horizontal (large area and cheap) and vertical (restricted0 and expensive), besides its scientific verification.",null,null,"Biodiversity - birds","Spain"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D98","v":97},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G98","v":"Balancing food production and biodiversity conservation in arable landscapes: Lessons from the Farm4Bio experiment"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"The success of crop protection products in reducing the impact of pests, weeds and diseases, along with increasing fertiliser use and a reduction in the diversity of crops being grown has led to undesired negative consequences for farmland biodiversity. The specific drivers of these declines in farmland wildlife have been extensively studied, especially for birds, leading to a number of high profile papers and the development of Entry Level and Higher Level Agri-environment schemes. However, while the farmland bird conservation agenda was a strong driver of agricultural land use policy in the late 1990s to mid 2000s, the more recent shift in emphasis towards increased food production and food security has brought into sharper relief the conflict between managing land for biodiversity and food. Faced with the pressures of an increasing population and climate change, there is a danger that non-crop biodiversity is seen as a luxury we may not be able to afford. In response to this increasing pressure on agricultural land and the drive towards so-called 'sustainable intensification', the production vs. conservation debate has shifted towards more fundamental questions. Firstly, can we define the relationships between the abundance of non-crop biodiversity and the ecosystem services they deliver that underpin crop production, including pollination and pest regulation? Secondly, how effective are current schemes in providing those services. Finally, how can biodiversity be integrated more efficiently into the landscape such that the minimum amount of land is lost to production. In 2006, the Farm4Bio project was set up as part of the Defra Sustainable Arable LINK programme to provide data to help answer these questions for arable landscapes in the UK.",null,null,"biodiversity","United Kingdom"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D99","v":98},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G99","v":"Environmentalizmus a pol'nohospodárska prax"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Two spheres of social regulation are analysed in the study: the environment protection and agriculture. In the last decades, both of these areas have become frequently discussed topics in the media and in public debates. Representatives of environmental movements as well as scientists have played an important role in promoting an environmental agenda in the political arena. Environmental aspects of human activities have been incorporated into many legislative acts and regulations. The European Union's Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has also been modified to fulfil environmental requirements. The new concept of multifunctional agriculture, introduced in the reformed CAP, aspires to reflect the principle of sustainable development that seeks to take economical, social, and environmental facets of agriculture equally into consideration. Focusing on the case of northern Slovakia, we analysed the context of launching the reformed CAP into agricultural practice using the example of the implementation of agro-environmental measures. Drawing on interviews with local farmers, we conclude that the main barrier to enlarging the participation in agro-environmental schemes is not due to the farmers' attitude to environmental or economic aspects, but to the social conditions of their agricultural enterprise.",null,null,"sustainable agriculture","Slovakia"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D100","v":99},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G100","v":"Operation pollinator: Positive action for pollinators and improved biodiversity on farm"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Operation Pollinator is an industry led initiative. This biodiversity enhancement programme has enabled better engagement and training of farmers in the delivery of high quality wildlife habitats as part of their national agri-environment schemes (AES). This overview presents findings from farm-scale studies that have shown the type and scale of effects required to deliver such benefits on farm and across the landscape. Significant efforts have already been made to promote biodiversity on farmland, but these results show that to improve the agricultural landscape really, we need to implement more of the best options so as to achieve the scale required to underpin the delivery of ecosystem services. The UK is still transitioning from the old Agricultural Policy Scheme (CAP) scheme, and so it will still be possible to use this type of off-crop mitigation to protect wildlife and ecosystem services in future AES, and this strategy has been described as using \"public money for public goods\" or \"payment for ecosystem services. The EU has proposed that farmers manage 5–7% of the landscape in this way and field margins are a critical mechanism for such farmland biodiversity programmes. The results presented are from a selection of farm scale studies (i.e. with plots of 40 ha – 100 ha) that were large enough to provide indications of the scale of implementation required as targeted AES measures to benefit both farmland birds and pollinators. This review is based on an earlier paper that was presented at a conference on \"Sustainable Intensification\" organised by the Association of Applied Biologists in 2016. ",null,null,"Biodiversity - pollinators","United Kingdom"]
[{"$f":"+'Top 100'!D101","v":100},{"$f":"+'Top 100'!G101","v":"Bedrijfsvoering zit in de weg: Landbouw slechts beperkt inzetbaar voor natuur- en landschapsbehoud"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"The Dutch government wants to realize nature and landscape targets on agricultural land. However, there is serious criticism on the effects of agri-environmental schemes. It turns out, almost all farmers choose only easy management types while more demanding management types with better prospects for nature are less popular. We noticed that the demanding types on a large portion of the farm area, need another agricultural management that is not financially stimulated by the government. Hence, agricultural schemes are not the solution. We think that a transition to sustainable agriculture does not yet support nature and landscape, but has the potential to do so.",null,null,"farmers","Netherlands"]

{"sheet":"Experts selection","index":2,"n_rows":13,"n_cols":19,"rows_kept":13,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["# selected","Top","Nr","Final Rank"," Abstract link","Title","Author(s)","Journal","DOI","Themes","Year","#citations","#cit/year","JIF Journal","Score citations","Score cit/year","Score IF","Ranking cit+IF/2","Notes"]
[1,"Top 3",1,1,1,"Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri-environment schemes in five European countries","Kleijn, D., Baquero, R. A., Clough, Y., Díaz, M., De Esteban, J., Fernández, F., Gabriel, D., Herzog, F., Holzschuh, A., Jöhl, R., Knop, E., Kruess, A., Marshall, E. J. P., Steffan-Dewenter, I., Tscharntke, T., Verhulst, J., West, T. M., Yela, J. L.","Ecology Letters"," https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00869.x",null,"2006",719,{"$f":"719/15","v":47.93333333333333},"8.17",2,3,3,{"$f":"(P2+Q2)/2","v":3}]
[2,"Top 3",2,2,2,"Environmental factors driving the effectiveness of European agri-environmental measures in mitigating pollinator loss - a meta-analysis","Scheper, J., Holzschuh, A., Kuussaari, M., Potts, S. G., Rundlöf, M., Smith, H. G., Kleijn, D.","Ecology Letters"," https://doi.org/10.1111/ele.12128",null,"2013",272,{"$f":"272/8","v":34},"8.17",5,4,4,4]
[3,"Top 10",4,3,4,"A scoping review on incentives for adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and their outcomes","Piñeiro, V., Arias, J., Dürr, J., Elverdin, P., Ibáñez, A. M., Kinengyere, A., Opazo, C. M., Owoo, N., Page, J. R., Prager, S. D., Torero, M.","Nature Sustainability"," https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00617-y",null,"2020",19,{"$f":"19/1","v":19},"9.65",38,8,2,5]
[4,"Top 10",5,4,5,"Aligning agri-environmental subsidies and environmental needs: A comparative analysis between the US and EU","Biffi, S., Traldi, R., Crezee, B., Beckmann, M., Egli, L., Epp Schmidt, D., Motzer, N., Okumah, M., Seppelt, R., Louise Slabbert, E., Tiedeman, K., Wang, H., Ziv, G.","Environmental Research Letters"," https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abfa4e",null,"2021",26,{"$f":"26/1","v":26},"6.15",32,5,8,6.5]
[5,"Top 10",7,6,7,"The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management","Batáry, P., Dicks, L. V., Kleijn, D., Sutherland, W. J.","Conservation Biology"," https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12536",null,"2015",397,{"$f":"397/6","v":66.166666666666671},"4.88",4,1,18,9.5]
[6,"Top 30",23,18,23,"Simplistic understandings of farmer motivations could undermine the environmental potential of the common agricultural policy","Brown, C., Kovács, E., Herzon, I., Villamayor-Tomas, S., Albizua, A., Galanaki, A., Grammatikopoulou, I., McCracken, D., Olsson, J. A., Zinngrebe, Y.","Land Use Policy"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105136",null,"2021",7,{"$f":"7/1","v":7},"5.57",50,26,10,18]
[7,"Top 30",24,19,24,"Ecological effectiveness of agri-environment schemes in different agricultural landscapes in The Netherlands","Kleijn, D., Berendse, F., Smit, R., Gilissen, N., Smit, J., Brak, B., Groeneveld, R.","Conservation Biology"," https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2004.00550.x",null,"2004",165,{"$f":"165/17","v":9.7058823529411757},"4.88",10,19,18,18.5]
[8,"Top 30",25,20,25,"Collective agri-environment schemes: How can regional environmental cooperatives enhance farmers' intentions for agri-environment schemes?","van Dijk, W. F. A., Lokhorst, A. M., Berendse, F., de Snoo, G. R.","Land Use Policy"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.10.005",null,"2015",34,{"$f":"34/6","v":5.666666666666667},"5.57",30,28,10,19]
[9,"Top 50",31,23,31,"Reshaping agri-environmental subsidies: From marginal farming to large-scale rewilding","Merckx, T., Pereira, H. M.","Basic and Applied Ecology"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.baae.2014.12.003",null,"2015",73,{"$f":"73/6","v":12.166666666666666},"3.10",19,15,29,22]
[10,"Top 50",32,23,32,"Increasing the proportion and quality of land under agri-environment schemes promotes birds and butterflies at the landscape scale","Zingg, S., Ritschard, E., Arlettaz, R., Humbert, J. Y.","Biological Conservation"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2018.12.022",null,"2019",11,{"$f":"11/2","v":5.5},"5.23",46,29,15,22]
[11,"Top 100",62,43,62,"Agricultural public policy: Green or sustainable?","Mouysset, L.","Ecological Economics"," https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2014.03.004",null,"2014",15,{"$f":"15/7","v":2.1428571428571428},"5.18",42,52,16,34]
[12,"Top 100",100,70,100,"Bedrijfsvoering zit in de weg: Landbouw slechts beperkt inzetbaar voor natuur- en landschapsbehoud","Sanders, M., Nieuwenhuizen, W., Dirkx, J., Schrijver, R., Smidt, R.","Landschap",null,null,"2013",0,0,"0.10",57,74,50,62]

{"sheet":"Abstracts Experts Selection","index":3,"n_rows":25,"n_cols":6,"rows_kept":25,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["Number","Article","Overview","Full article:","Theme(s)","Context"]
[{"$f":"+'Experts selection'!C2","v":1},{"$f":"+'Experts selection'!F2","v":"Mixed biodiversity benefits of agri-environment schemes in five European countries"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Agri-environment schemes are an increasingly important tool for the maintenance and restoration of farmland biodiversity in Europe but their ecological effects are poorly known. Scheme design is partly based on non-ecological considerations and poses important restrictions on evaluation studies. We describe a robust approach to evaluate agri-environment schemes and use it to evaluate the biodiversity effects of agri-environment schemes in five European countries. We compared species density of vascular plants, birds, bees, grasshoppers and crickets, and spiders on 202 paired fields, one with an agri-environment scheme, the other conventionally managed. In all countries, agri-environment schemes had marginal to moderately positive effects on biodiversity. However, uncommon species benefited in only two of five countries and species listed in Red Data Books rarely benefited from agri-environment schemes. Scheme objectives may need to differentiate between biodiversity of common species that can be enhanced with relatively simple modifications in farming practices and diversity or abundance of endangered species which require more elaborate conservation measures.",null,null,"Biodiversity","Europe"]
[{"$f":"+'Experts selection'!C3","v":2},{"$f":"+'Experts selection'!F3","v":"Environmental factors driving the effectiveness of European agri-environmental measures in mitigating pollinator loss - a meta-analysis"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"In Europe, agri-environmental schemes (AES) have been introduced in response to concerns about farmland biodiversity declines. Yet, as AES have delivered variable results, a better understanding of what determines their success or failure is urgently needed. Focusing on pollinating insects, we quantitatively reviewed how environmental factors affect the effectiveness of AES. Our results suggest that the ecological contrast in floral resources created by schemes drives the response of pollinators to AES but that this response is moderated by landscape context and farmland type, with more positive responses in croplands (vs. grasslands) located in simple (vs. cleared or complex) landscapes. These findings inform us how to promote pollinators and associated pollination services in species-poor landscapes. They do not, however, present viable strategies to mitigate loss of threatened or endangered species. This indicates that the objectives and design of AES should distinguish more clearly between biodiversity conservation and delivery of ecosystem services.",null,null,"Biodiversity - pollinators","Europe"]
[{"$f":"+'Experts selection'!C4","v":4},{"$f":"+'Experts selection'!F4","v":"A scoping review on incentives for adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and their outcomes"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"The increasing pressure on agricultural production systems to achieve global food security and prevent environmental degradation necessitates a transition towards more sustainable practices. The purpose of this scoping review is to understand how the incentives offered to farmers motivate the adoption of sustainable agricultural practices and, ultimately, how and whether they result in measurable outcomes. To this end, this scoping review examines the evidence of nearly 18,000 papers on whether incentive-based programmes lead to the adoption of sustainable practices and their effect on environmental, economic and productivity outcomes. We find that independent of the incentive type, programmes linked to short-term economic benefit have a higher adoption rate than those aimed solely at providing an ecological service. In the long run, one of the strongest motivations for farmers to adopt sustainable practices is perceived benefits for either their farms, the environment or both. Beyond this, the importance of technical assistance and extension services in promoting sustainable practices emerges strongly from this scoping review. Finally, we find that policy instruments are more effective if their design considers the characteristics of the target population, and the associated trade-offs between economic, environmental and social outcomes.",null,null,"Adoptie duurzame landbouwpraktijken"]
[{"$f":"+'Experts selection'!C5","v":5},{"$f":"+'Experts selection'!F5","v":"Aligning agri-environmental subsidies and environmental needs: A comparative analysis between the US and EU"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"The global recognition of modern agricultural practices' impact on the environment has fuelled policy responses to ameliorate environmental degradation in agricultural landscapes. In the US and the EU, agri-environmental subsidies (AES) promote widespread adoption of sustainable practices by compensating farmers who voluntarily implement them on working farmland. Previous studies, however, have suggested limitations of their spatial targeting, with funds not allocated towards areas of the greatest environmental need. We analysed AES in the US and EU - specifically through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and selected measures of the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - to identify if AES are going where they are most needed to achieve environmental goals, using a set of environmental need indicators, socio-economic variables moderating allocation patterns, and contextual variables describing agricultural systems. Using linear mixed models and linear models we explored the associations among AES allocation and these predictors at different scales. We found that higher AES spending was associated with areas of low soil organic carbon and high greenhouse gas emissions both in the US and EU, and nitrogen surplus in the EU. More so than successes, however, clear mismatches of funding and environmental need emerged - AES allocation did not successfully target areas of highest water stress, biodiversity loss, soil erosion, and nutrient runoff. Socio-economic and agricultural context variables may explain some of these mismatches; we show that AES were allocated to areas with higher proportions of female producers in the EU but not in the US, where funds were directed towards areas with less tenant farmers. Moreover, we suggest that the potential for AES to remediate environmental issues may be curtailed by limited participation in intensive agricultural landscapes. These findings can help inform refinements to EQIP and EAFRD allocation mechanisms and identify opportunities for improving future targeting of AES spending.",null,null,"environmental outcomes","Verenigde staten; Europe"]
[{"$f":"+'Experts selection'!C6","v":7},{"$f":"+'Experts selection'!F6","v":"The role of agri-environment schemes in conservation and environmental management"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Over half of the European landscape is under agricultural management and has been for millennia. Many species and ecosystems of conservation concern in Europe depend on agricultural management and are showing ongoing declines. Agri-environment schemes (AES) are designed partly to address this. They are a major source of nature conservation funding within the European Union (EU) and the highest conservation expenditure in Europe. We reviewed the structure of current AES across Europe. Since a 2003 review questioned the overall effectiveness of AES for biodiversity, there has been a plethora of case studies and meta-analyses examining their effectiveness. Most syntheses demonstrate general increases in farmland biodiversity in response to AES, with the size of the effect depending on the structure and management of the surrounding landscape. This is important in the light of successive EU enlargement and ongoing reforms of AES. We examined the change in effect size over time by merging the data sets of 3 recent meta-analyses and found that schemes implemented after revision of the EU's agri-environmental programs in 2007 were not more effective than schemes implemented before revision. Furthermore, schemes aimed at areas out of production (such as field margins and hedgerows) are more effective at enhancing species richness than those aimed at productive areas (such as arable crops or grasslands). Outstanding research questions include whether AES enhance ecosystem services, whether they are more effective in agriculturally marginal areas than in intensively farmed areas, whether they are more or less cost-effective for farmland biodiversity than protected areas, and how much their effectiveness is influenced by farmer training and advice? The general lesson from the European experience is that AES can be effective for conserving wildlife on farmland, but they are expensive and need to be carefully designed and targeted.",null,null,"Biodiversity"]
[{"$f":"+'Experts selection'!C7","v":23},{"$f":"+'Experts selection'!F7","v":"Simplistic understandings of farmer motivations could undermine the environmental potential of the common agricultural policy"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"The European Union Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has failed to achieve its aim of preserving European farmland biodiversity, despite massive investment in subsidies to incentivise environmentally-beneficial farming practices. This failure calls into question the design of the subsidy schemes, which are intended to either function as a safety net and make farming profitable or compensate farmers for costs and loss of income while undertaking environmental management. In this study, we assess whether the design of environmental payments in the CAP reflects current knowledge about farmers’ decision-making as found in the research literature. We do so on the basis of a comprehensive literature review on farmers’ uptake of agri-environmental management practices over the past 10 years and interviews specifically focused on Ecological Focus Areas with policy-makers, advisors and farmers in seven European countries. We find that economic and structural factors are the most commonly-identified determinants of farmers’ adoption of environmental management practices in the literature and in interviews. However, the literature suggests that these are complemented by – and partially dependent on – a broad range of social, attitudinal and other contextual factors that are not recognised in interview responses or, potentially, in policy design. The relatively simplistic conceptualisation of farmer behaviour that underlies some aspects of policy design may hamper the effectiveness of environmental payments in the CAP by over-emphasising economic considerations, potentially corroding farmer attitudes to policy and environmental objectives. We conclude that an urgent redesign of agricultural subsidies is needed to better align them with the economic, social and environmental factors affecting farmer decision-making in a complex production climate, and therefore to maximise potential environmental benefits.",null,null,"Boeren","Europe"]
[{"$f":"+'Experts selection'!C8","v":24},{"$f":"+'Experts selection'!F8","v":"Ecological effectiveness of agri-environment schemes in different agricultural landscapes in The Netherlands"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Agri-environment schemes are an instrument used by western European countries to counteract the negative effects of contemporary agriculture on biodiversity, but not much is known about their effectiveness. We investigated the ecological effects of Dutch agri-environment schemes aimed at promoting botanical diversity or meadow birds, and we tested whether the effectiveness of the schemes depends on landscape type or structure. In three different types of landscape, we surveyed plants, birds, bees, and hover flies on 78 paired fields that either had agri-environment schemes or were managed conventionally, and we collected data on a range of different environmental variables. Neither plant species richness nor abundance of meadow birds was higher on fields with agri-environment schemes. Landscape type had a significant effect on both species groups, but the effects of the schemes were independent of landscape type. Neither the diversity of plants nor the abundance of birds was related to any of the environmental variables. Agri-environment schemes designed to promote plant species richness or bird abundance did have positive side-effects because they enhanced the species richness of bees and hover flies, irrespective of the type of landscape. Furthermore, landscape type, groundwater level (hover flies), and area of wooded edges (bees) significantly affected both species groups. The failure of the schemes to promote the target species may be related to the high intensity of land use in The Netherlands. Simple conservation measures taken by farmers may not be sufficient to counteract the impact of factors that are often controlled at the landscape level (e.g., hydrology). Similar studies in other countries are needed to place the results of our study into a European context.",null,null,"Biodiversity","Nederland"]
[{"$f":"+'Experts selection'!C9","v":25},{"$f":"+'Experts selection'!F9","v":"Collective agri-environment schemes: How can regional environmental cooperatives enhance farmers' intentions for agri-environment schemes?"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"The effectiveness of agri-environment schemes (AES) in enhancing biodiversity on farmland and creating a long-lasting change in farmers' motivation towards a more environmental-friendly practice is still strongly debated. Applying a regional approach has been advocated widely to make AES more ecologically and socially sustainable. In the Netherlands, some AES are performed collectively by large regional groups of farmers called Environmental Cooperatives (EC). We hypothesise that these cooperatives enhance farmers' intention to participate by facilitating the application of AES, but also by generating group pressure. In the study at hand, we used an extended version of the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) to investigate which factors are associated with farmers' intention to participate in two kinds of collective AES (ditch bank management and the protection of meadow birds). Our results demonstrate that attitude and perceived personal ability to participate in these AES are associated with the intention of farmers to participate in ditch bank management. However, for the protection of meadow birds, social pressure, self-identity and facilitation by the EC also relate to the intention of farmers. We conclude that the facilitation undertaken by ECs positively relates to farmers' intention to participate in collective AES.",null,null,"Boeren; sustainable agriculture"]
[{"$f":"+'Experts selection'!C10","v":31},{"$f":"+'Experts selection'!F10","v":"Reshaping agri-environmental subsidies: From marginal farming to large-scale rewilding"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"Despite continued discussion about market distortions and environmental impacts, agricultural subsidies continue to be a key component of European Union policy. About 10% of the agro-forestry subsidies are targeted at supporting agri-environment schemes, and at supporting farming in Less Favoured Areas (LFA) such as mountain regions. One of the main justifications for these agri-environmental subsidies towards marginally productive land is that they promote the conservation of biodiversity by maintaining low-intensity farming practices. Here, we critically examine this assumption and argue instead for a two-tier approach to Europe's agri-environmental policy based on inherent land fertility and spatial scale: (i) at a local, single-farm scale, fertile agricultural land should preferentially be intensively but sustainably farmed with a focus on high yields, (ii) while simultaneously and at larger, regional scales, less-productive land, and especially protected areas, may be ecologically restored into 'wild' and resiliently functioning ecosystems. As such, agri-environmental subsidies towards fertile land should support the implementation of measures that benefit biodiversity while allowing, and even helping, the achievement of high agricultural yields. In contrast, agri-environmental and LFA subsidies towards marginal land and protected areas should also promote rewilding and the management of natural succession. In order for this approach to be successful, a higher proportion of the Common Agricultural Policy subsidies would need to be allocated to environmental goals.",null,null,"Biodiversity - vruchtbare grond","Europe"]
[{"$f":"+'Experts selection'!C11","v":32},{"$f":"+'Experts selection'!F11","v":"Increasing the proportion and quality of land under agri-environment schemes promotes birds and butterflies at the landscape scale"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"The intensification of agricultural practices that Western nations have experienced after World War II has led to an alarming decline in farmland biodiversity. With the aim of stopping and even reversing this decline, agri-environment schemes (AES) have been implemented in many European countries since the 1990s. In Switzerland, farmers are required to manage at least 7% of their land in the form of biodiversity promotion areas (BPA), which are extensively managed, wildlife-friendly farmland habitats such as hay meadows and traditional orchards. We investigated how the occurrence and characteristics of these BPA influence birds and butterflies in the Swiss lowlands. Butterfly species richness and abundance increased by 22% and 60%, respectively, when the proportion of BPA in the landscape increased from 5% to 15%. Likewise, bird species richness increased, but to a lesser extent, with the proportion of BPA in the landscape. For birds, the proportion of BPA characterized by a high ecological quality played a role in promoting both priority-farmland and red-listed species. For both taxonomic groups, the amount and quality of BPA habitats contributed more to species richness than their spatial configuration, connectivity included. This study shows that AES measures implemented at the field scale have positive effects on mobile species that are noticeable at the landscape scale, and that the fraction of AES in the cultivated landscape matters more than their spatial configuration, which has strong implications for designing multi-functional agro-ecosystems.",null,null,"Biodiversity - birds; Biodiversity - butterflies","Switzerland"]
[{"$f":"+'Experts selection'!C12","v":62},{"$f":"+'Experts selection'!F12","v":"Agricultural public policy: Green or sustainable?"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"The future of agriculture constitutes a major challenge to the achievement of sustainable development. There are new perspectives on greening (focusing on ecological objectives) and sustainability (combining both ecological and social goals). Academic papers mainly study the ecological efficiency of agricultural public policies, while real public policies, such as the European Common Agricultural Policy, examine both ecological and social considerations. The objective of this paper is to consider economic, social and ecological objectives within the design of agricultural public policies. Using a bio-economic model applied to France, we compare different optimal public strategies. We show that, when the biodiversity objectives are either very limited or very demanding, grassland subsidies are the best instruments from both green and sustainable points of view. However for medium objectives, reducing crops subsidies is the cheapest way to green the CAP, while subsidies on grasslands are the only strategy from a sustainability perspective. Our work highlights new trade-offs related to policy implementation, such as social acceptance or technical difficulties, and the spatial equity of performance among regions.",null,null,"sustainable agriculture","France"]
[{"$f":"+'Experts selection'!C13","v":100},{"$f":"+'Experts selection'!F13","v":"Bedrijfsvoering zit in de weg: Landbouw slechts beperkt inzetbaar voor natuur- en landschapsbehoud"},"Back to overview","DOI"]
[null,"The Dutch government wants to realize nature and landscape targets on agricultural land. However, there is serious criticism on the effects of agri-environmental schemes. It turns out, almost all farmers choose only easy management types while more demanding management types with better prospects for nature are less popular. We noticed that the demanding types on a large portion of the farm area, need another agricultural management that is not financially stimulated by the government. Hence, agricultural schemes are not the solution. We think that a transition to sustainable agriculture does not yet support nature and landscape, but has the potential to do so.",null,null,"farmers","Netherlands"]

{"sheet":"Overview themes","index":4,"n_rows":0,"n_cols":0,"rows_kept":0,"cut":false,"hidden":true,"merged":[]}