Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T18:54:55.043Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing multiple goods and services derived from livestock farming on a nation-wide gradient

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2017

J. Ryschawy ,
C. Disenhaus ,
S. Bertrand ,
G. Allaire ,
O. Aznar ,
S. Plantureux ,
E. Josien ,
C. Guinot ,
J. Lasseur  and
C. Perrot
...Show all authors
J. Ryschawy
Affiliation:
AGIR, Université de Toulouse, INP-ENSAT, INP-Purpan, INRA, 31320 Auzeville, France
C. Disenhaus
Affiliation:
UMR 1348 PEGASE, INRA-AGROCAMPUS-OUEST, 35042 Rennes, France
S. Bertrand
Affiliation:
CNIEL, Service Environnement, Direction des Affaires Scientifiques et Techniques, 75314 Paris, France
G. Allaire
Affiliation:
INRA, US ODR, 31324 Toulouse, France
O. Aznar
Affiliation:
VetAgro Sup, 63370 Lempdes, France
S. Plantureux
Affiliation:
Agronomie et Environnement, UMR 1121, Université de Lorraine, 54500 Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France Agronomie et Environnement, UMR 1121, INRA, 54500 Vandoeuvre-les-Nancy, France
E. Josien
Affiliation:
VetAgro Sup, 63370 Lempdes, France
C. Guinot
Affiliation:
Interbev, Département Environnement et Territoires, 75587 Paris, France
J. Lasseur
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR SELMET, 34060 Montpellier, France
C. Perrot
Affiliation:
Institut de l’Elevage, Département Economie, 75595 Paris, France
E. Tchakerian
Affiliation:
Institut de l’Elevage, Parc Scientifique Agropolis, 34397 Montpellier, France
C. Aubert
Affiliation:
ITAVI, 22440 Ploufragan, France
M. Tichit*
Affiliation:
UMR SADAPT, INRA, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, 75005 Paris, France
*
†E-mail: muriel.tichit@agroparistech.fr
Get access

Abstract

Livestock farming is an essential activity in many rural areas, where it contributes to the maintenance of soil fertility and farmland biodiversity, as well as to a set of social public goods including food security, rural vitality and culture. However, livestock sustainability assessments tend to focus primarily on environmental and economic dimensions; therefore, these valuations might be limited because they do not consider the complete set of associated goods and services (GS). Hence, a need exists to recognise the multiple contributions provided by livestock to human well-being and society. The objective of this study was to analyse the provision of multiple GS derived from livestock across regions in France and empirically demonstrate sets of GS that repeatedly appeared together. We designated these multiple GS provided by livestock as contributions to productive, environmental, rural vitality and cultural benefits that human populations derive directly or indirectly from livestock agroecosystems. First, we combined expert knowledge with results of a literature review to define a bundle of GS provided by livestock. We then described indicators that quantified each good or service and screened national databases to determine the availability of supporting data. Finally, we assessed the GS and their relationships (synergies or trade-offs) on a nation-wide gradient in France at the department level (Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics 3). Four main categories of GS were considered: provisioning (e.g. food quantity and quality), environmental quality (e.g. biodiversity, landscape heterogeneity, water quality), rural vitality (e.g. employment, rural dynamism) and culture (e.g. gastronomy and landscape heritage). Four major types of GS bundles were identified, which suggested strong contrasts among French rural areas in terms of the nature of the GS that occurred together and their levels of provision. GS bundles in France had a non-random spatial distribution. This study represents an initial step towards developing a methodology to consider GS bundles provided by livestock. Nonetheless, further research is needed to understand socio-economic, environmental, political and geographic determinants of the composition of GS bundles.

Keywords

agroecologyecosystem servicetrade-offindicatormulti-criteria
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 10 , October 2017 , pp. 1861 - 1872
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Animal Task Force 2013. Research & innovation for a sustainable livestock sector in Europe. Animal Task Force white paper. Retrieved on 27 November 2016 from http://www.animaltaskforce.eu/Portals/0/ATF/documents%20for%20scare/ATF%20white%20paper%20Research%20priorities%20for%20a%20sustainable%20livestock%20sector%20in%20Europe.pdf Google Scholar
Bennett, EM, Peterson, GD and Gordon, LJ 2009. Understanding relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecology Letters 12, 1394–1404.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernués, A, Ruiz, R, Olaizola, A, Villalba, D and Casasus, I 2011. Sustainability of pasture based livestock farming systems in the European Mediterranean context: synergies and tradeoffs. Livestock Science 139, 44–57.Google Scholar
Beudou, J, Martin, G and Ryschawy, J 2017. Unlocking the agroecological transition in livestock farming: the key role of the cultural and territorial vitality services provided by livestock to society. Submitted to ASD.Google Scholar
Chatellier V and Gaigné C 2012. Les logiques économiques de la spécialisation productive du territoire agricole français. Innovations Agronomiques 22, 185–203.Google Scholar
Costanza, R, d’Arge, R, de Groot, R, Farber, S, Grasso, M, Hannon, B, Naeem, S, Limburg, K, Paruelo, J, O’Neill, RV, Raskin, R, Sutton, P and van den Belt, M 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387, 253–260.Google Scholar
Crouzat, E, Mouchet, M, Turkelboom, F, Byczek, C, Meersmans, J, Berger, F and Lavorel, S 2015. Assessing bundles of ecosystem services from regional to landscape scale: insights from the French Alps. Journal of Applied Ecology 52, 1145–1155.Google Scholar
Daily, G 1997. Introduction: what are ecosystem services? In Nature’s services. Societal dependence on natural ecosystems (ed. G Daily), pp. 1–10. Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
de Groot, RS, Alkemade, R, Braat, L, Hein, L and Willemen, L 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological Complexity 7, 260–272.Google Scholar
Dolman, MA, Sonneveld, MPW, Mollenhorst, H and de Boer, IJM 2014. Benchmarking the economic, environmental and societal performance of Dutch dairy farms aiming at internal recycling of nutrients. Journal of Cleaner Production 73, 245–252.Google Scholar
Egoh, B, Reyers, B, Rouget, M, Richardson, DM, Le Maitre, DC and Van Jaarsveld, AS 2008. Mapping ecosystem services for planning and management. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 127, 135–140.Google Scholar
Franzluebbers, AJ 2013. Introduction to themed section – supporting ecosystem services with conservation agricultural approaches. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 28, 99–101.Google Scholar
Gadrey, J 2012. Indicateurs. Revue Projet No. 331, pp. 26–32. Retrieved on 20 May 2013 from http://www.cairn.info/revue-projet-2012-6page-26.htm Google Scholar
Haines-Young, R and Potschin, M 2013. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES). Report to the European Environment Agency EEA/BSS/07/007. Retrieved on 15 October 2016 from www.cices.eu Google Scholar
Jopke, C, Kreyling, J, Maes, J and Koellner, T 2015. Interactions among ecosystem services across Europe: bagplots and cumulative correlation coefficients reveal synergies, trade-offs, and regional patterns. Ecological Indicators 49, 46–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamarque, P, Tappeiner, U, Turner, C, Steinbacher, M, Bardgett, RD, Szukics, U, Schermer, M and Lavorel, S 2011. Stakeholder perceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowledge on soil fertility and biodiversity. Regional Environmental Change 11, 791–804.Google Scholar
Leback, T, Baret, P and Stilmant, D 2013. Sustainability indicators for livestock farming. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development 33, 311–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lynch, DH, Sumner, J and Martin, RC 2014. Framing the social, ecological and economic goods and services derived from organic agriculture in the Canadian context. In Organic farming, prototype for sustainable agricultures (ed. Stephane Bellon and Servane Penvern), pp. 347–365. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, Springer, The Netherlands.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makowski, D, Tichit, M, Guichard, L and Van Keulen, H 2009. Measuring the accuracy of agro-environmental indicators. Journal of Environmental Management 90, 139–146.Google Scholar
Martín-López, B, Iniesta-Arandia, I, García-Llorente, M, Palomo, I, Casado-Arzuaga, I, García Del Amo, D, Gómez-Baggethun, E, Oteros-Rozas, E, Palacios-Agundez, I, Willaarts, B, González, JA, Santos-Martín, F, Onaindia, M, López-Santiago, C and Montes, C 2012. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLOS ONE 7, e38970.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA) 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC, USA.Google Scholar
Mohamad, IB and Usman, D 2013. Standardization and its effects on K-means clustering algorithm. Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering and Technology 6, 3299–3303.Google Scholar
Perrot, C, Béguin, E, Morhain, B and Tchakérian, E 2005. L’élevage dans les exploitations françaises. Économie rurale 288, 25–39.Google Scholar
Peyraud, J-L, Taboada, M and Delaby, L 2014. Integrated crop and livestock systems in Western Europe and South America: a review. European Journal of Agronomy 57, 31–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plieninger, T, Dijks, S, Oteros-Rozas, E and Bieling, C 2013. Assessing, mapping, and quantifying cultural ecosystem services at community level. Land Use Policy 33, 118–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pretty, JN, Noble, AD, Bossio, D, Dixon, J, Hine, RE, de Vries, F and Morison, JL 2006. Resource-conserving agriculture in-creases yields in developing countries. Environmental Science and Technology 40, 1114–1119.Google Scholar
Raudsepp-Hearne, C, Peterson, GD and Bennett, EM 2010. Ecosystem service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, 5242–5247.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team 2011. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Ortega, T, Oteros-Rozas, E, Ripoll-Bosch, R, Tichit, M, Martín-López, B and Bernués, A 2014. Applying the ecosystem services framework to pasture-based livestock farming systems in Europe. Animal 8, 1361–1372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ryschawy, J, Choisis, N, Choisis, JP and Gibon, A 2013. Paths to last in mixed crop-livestock farming: lessons from an assessment of farm trajectories of change. Animal 7, 673–681.Google Scholar
Ryschawy, J, Tichit, M, Bertrand, S, Allaire, G, Aubert, C, Aznar, O, Guinot, C, Josien, E, Lasseur, J, Plantureux, S, Tchakérian, E and Disenhaus, C 2015. Comment évaluer les services rendus par l'élevage? Une première approche méthodologique sur le cas de la France. INRA Productions Animales 28, 23–38.Google Scholar
Sabatier, R, Doyen, L and Tichit, M 2010. Modelling trade-offs between livestock grazing and water conservation in a grassland ecosystem. Ecological Modelling 221, 1292–1300.Google Scholar
Sabatier, R, Teillard, F, Rossing, WAH, Doyen, L and Tichit, M 2015. Trade-offs between pasture production and farmland bird conservation: exploration of options using a dynamic farm model. Animal 9, 899–907.Google Scholar
Steinfeld, H, Mooney, HA, Schneider, F and Neville, LE 2013. Livestock in a changing landscape, volume 1: drivers, consequences, and responses. Island Press, Washington DC, USA.Google Scholar
Steinfeld, H and Wassenaar, T 2007. The role of livestock production in carbon and nitrogen cycles. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 32, 271–294.Google Scholar
Teillard, F, Allaire, G, Cahuzac, E, Leger, F, Maigne, E and Tichit, M 2012. A novel method for mapping agricultural intensity reveals its spatial aggregation: implications for conservation policies. Agriculture Ecosystems and Environment 149, 135–143.Google Scholar
Thornton, PK 2010. Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 365, 2853–2867.Google Scholar
Willemen, L, Hein, L, van Mensvoort, ME and Verburg, PH 2010. Space for people, plants, and livestock? Quantifying interactions among multiple landscape functions in a Dutch rural region. Ecological Indicators 10, 62–73.Google Scholar
Zhang, W, Ricketts, TH, Kremen, C, Carney, K and Swinton, SM 2007. Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. Ecological Economics 64, 253–260.Google Scholar
Zehetmeier, M, Gandorfer, M, Hoffmann, H, Muller, UK and de Boer, IJM 2014. The impact of uncertainties on predicted GHG emissions of dairy cow production systems. Journal of Cleaner Production 73, 116–124.Google Scholar

Ryschawy supplementary material

Ryschawy supplementary

Download Ryschawy supplementary material(Audio)
Audio 160.7 KB