ARPHA Preprints, doi: 10.3897/arphapreprints.e144087
D4.4 Systematic analysis of the case studies
Gabriela Popova‡, Tomáš Václavík§, Tomáš Čejka|, Marek Bednář§, Meike Will¶, Stephanie Roilo#, Michael Beckmann¤, Anne Paulus«, Katharina Schneider«, Bartosz Bartkowski«, Nastasija Grujic», Sanja Brdar», Predrag Lugonja», Cristina Domingo-Marimon˄, Annelies Broekman˄, Rosemary Wool˅, Arjan Gosal¦, Chunhui Li˅, George Breckenridge˅, Jodi Gunning˅, Guy Ziv˅‡ Pensoft Publishers, Sofia, Bulgaria§ Palacký University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic| Palacký University, Olomouc, Czech Republic¶ Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Leipzig, Germany# Technische Universität Dresden, Dresden, Germany¤ Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ, Leipzig, Germany« Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research - UFZ, Leipzig, Germany» BioSense Institute, Novi Sad, Serbia˄ CREAF, Bellaterra, Spain˅ University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom¦ University of Leeds, Leeds, Germany
Corresponding author: Gabriela Popova ( g.popova@pensoft.net ) © Gabriela Popova, Tomáš Václavík, Tomáš Čejka, Marek Bednář, Meike Will, Stephanie Roilo, Michael Beckmann, Anne Paulus, Katharina Schneider, Bartosz Bartkowski, Nastasija Grujic, Sanja Brdar, Predrag Lugonja, Cristina Domingo-Marimon, Annelies Broekman, Rosemary Wool, Arjan Gosal, Chunhui Li, George Breckenridge, Jodi Gunning, Guy Ziv. This is an open access preprint distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Citation:
Popova G, Václavík T, Čejka T, Bednář M, Will M, Roilo S, Beckmann M, Paulus A, Schneider K, Bartkowski B, Grujic N, Brdar S, Lugonja P, Domingo-Marimon C, Broekman A, Wool R, Gosal A, Li C, Breckenridge G, Gunning J, Ziv G (2024) D4.4 Systematic analysis of the case studies. ARPHA Preprints. https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e144087 |  |
Abstract
This document provides a summary of the systematic analyses conducted across BESTMAP five CS as part of the activities in Work Packages (WP) 1, 2, 3 and 4. First, we describe the main qualitative findings obtained from farmers during the semi-structured interview campaigns regarding their attitudes towards the implementation of agri-environmental schemes (AES). Second, we elaborate on the results from the follow-up online questionnaire which included the Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to investigate farmers’ personal views, socio-economic background and especially their preferences for specific AES contract characteristics which were subsequently used to inform the parameterization of CS agentbased models (ABMs). Third, we summarise the similarities and differences in the types of farms that occur in each CS, using the Farming System Archetypes typology based on several categories of farm specialisation and economic size. Fourth, we quantify the main results of the biophysical models of WP3 tailored specifically for each CS, comparing the values of biodiversity and ecosystem services calculated for the scenario of the current AES implementation with ecosystem service values calculated for a scenario simulating no AES adoption. Finally, we synthesise the main findings of the ABMs developed in WP4, specifically investigating the effects of four AES policy scenarios (advisory support, high payment rates, short contracts and low bureaucracy) as compared to the status-quo scenario of the current AES adoption rates
Keywords
farmers, agriculture, environment, biodiversity