A systematic review of European farmer and non-farmer attitudes towards landscapes, ecosystem services, and agricultural management practices: Implications for permanent grassland management.
S. J. Tindale, J. Elliott, M. Elings, R. Gallardo-Cobos, E. Hunter, E. Lieberherr, S. Miskolci, P. Newell Price, S. Quatrini, P. Sanchez-Zamora, H. Schleuter, L. J. Frewer
Abstract
Permanent grassland (PG) is an important agricultural land use for the delivery of multiple ecosystem services (ES), including carbon sequestration, water quality protection, food production, habitat provision, and cultural activities. However, PG environments are threatened by sub-optimal management, cultivation, and abandonment that are influenced by context, land managers attitudes and societal demand for ES. Therefore, the perceptions and attitudes of key decision-makers (farmers) and other stakeholders (non-farmers, including citizens and consumers of the products of permanent grasslands, and ES) need to be understood to ensure the sustainability of PGs and the ES they provide. A systematic review of the literature identified 135 scholarly articles. Application of thematic analysis, allowed the organization, and synthesis of current research related to (different) stakeholder attitudes, and how these influence PG management and the delivery of ES. The results suggest that different stakeholders hold different views towards permanent grassland, with farmers in particular having to balance economic with other (potentially conflicting) drivers. The types of knowledge held by different groups of stakeholders, access to sources of information, as well as the influence of knowledge on behaviour; and environmental values (for example in relation to aesthetics or conservation of biodiversity) explained why certain motivations for attitudes and behaviours are held. A major gap, however, was identified in relation to PG as opposed to other types of landscape.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Powerful flowers: Public perception of grassland aesthetics is strongly related to management and biodiversity
Valentin H. Klaus, Franziska J. Richter, … Abdesslam Chai-allah·Agriculture Ecosystems & EnvironmentPeer-reviewed·Nov 24, 2025
- Assessing the impact of grassland management on landscape multifunctionality
M. Neyret, M. Fischer, … P. Manning·bioRxiv·Jul 17, 2020
- Can the response of above- and below-ground traits to overgrazing vary between annual and perennial species?
- Consumption rate and dietary choice of cattle in species-rich mesic grasslands
N. Balogh, B. Tothmeresz, … A. Kelemen·bioRxiv·Jan 23, 2020
- Reconciling biodiversity conservation, food production and farmers’ demand
Daniel Montoya, Sabrina Gaba, … Michel Loreau·bioRxiv·Dec 5, 2018
- Prairie management practices influence biodiversity, productivity and surface-atmosphere feedbacks
Ran Wang, John A. Gamon, … David A. Wedin·New PhytologistPeer-reviewed·May 14, 2025