Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Multiple ecosystem services of a changing Alpine landscape: past, present and future

Multiple ecosystem services of a changing Alpine landscape: past, present and future International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 2013 Vol. 9, No. 2, 123–135, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2012.751936 a, b a c c a,b Uta Schirpke *, Georg Leitinger , Erich Tasser , Markus Schermer , Melanie Steinbacher and Ulrike Tappeiner a b Institute for Alpine Environment, EURAC research, Bolzano 39100, Italy; Institute of Ecology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck 6020, Austria; Department of Sociology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck 6020, Austria In mountain regions, ecosystem services provision is strongly linked to land use, topography and climate, where impacts can be expected under global change. For our study site in the Austrian Alps, we examined the relationship between agricultural activities and multiple ecosystem services on landscape scale from past to future. Modelling of future land-use patterns was based on stakeholder workshops considering different socio-economic and climate scenarios. In the past, land-use intensity was reduced resulting in less forage provision but better regulating services. Future scenarios predict contrasting develop- ments; under conditions of global change, farmers shift the focus of their activities towards tourism, but in times of global economic crisis farming becomes more important again. Developing the local economy facilitates new markets for agricul- tural products, but projected drought periods will cause an abandonment of farmland. While forest regeneration is valuable for regulating services, it reduces the aesthetic value. Both regulating and cultural services decrease when forage provision is optimized. To ensure multiple ecosystem service provision, agricultural management should be related to ecosystem services and included into land-use policies and agricultural incentives. Keywords: GIS; aesthetic value; carbon sequestration; forage quality; forage quantity; natural hazard regulation; soil stability; scenario Introduction e.g. downstream water quality (Gordon et al. 2010), nitro- gen and phosphorus soil balances (Bouwman et al. 2009), The management of agricultural ecosystems (1) ensures CH and N O emissions (Pitesky et al. 2009). Land-use 4 2 the provision of food, fibre and fuel; (2) regulates the changes related to an intensification of agricultural pro- water and carbon balance; (3) guards against natural haz- duction are considered a major threat for the capacity of ards and (4) preserves the aesthetic value of the land- ecosystems to provide multiple ecosystem services (Foley scape (Walz et al. 2007; de la Vega-Leinert et al. 2008; et al. 2005; Metzger et al. 2006). While the increasing Leitinger et al. 2008; Tappeiner et al. 2008; Lavorel demand for food, energy and water leads to changes in et al. 2011). Agricultural modernization with specializa- land-use pattern, climate change causes water stress and tion, rationalization and mechanization and other more vegetation shifts (Theurillat and Guisan 2001; Schröter profitable sources of income (Rudel et al. 2005) have led to et al. 2005). To analyse future impacts of human activ- a decrease of the used agricultural area in Europe since the ities on ecosystem services, management scenarios for mid-twentieth century (Rabbinge and van Diepen 2000). decision-making are used (de Groot et al. 2010; Swetnam The European Alps are particularly affected by dramatic et al. 2011). land-use changes with more intensive use of favourable An increasing number of studies have examined areas (good climate conditions for agriculture and accessi- ecosystem services on a global or continental scale bility with machinery) and a reduction of less favourable (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; Metzger et al. areas remaining in use, especially on alpine pastures 2006; Naidoo et al. 2008; Kienast et al. 2009), as well (Rutherford et al. 2008). Abandonment of agricultural as on a regional scale (Chan et al. 2006; Egoh et al. areas results in forest re-growth, leading to more homo- 2009; Eigenbrod et al. 2010). While several studies have geneous landscape patterns (Tasser et al. 2007). By the end addressed the spatial distribution of multiple ecosystem of the twentieth century, change rates seem to decelerate services at the level of a landscape (Troy and Wilson 2006; (Schneeberger et al. 2007), and Tilman et al. (2001) even Gimona and van der Horst 2007; Egoh et al. 2008; Naidoo predicted an increase of arable land and pastures. et al. 2008; Nelson et al. 2009), few studies were car- Agricultural productivity relies on a range of support- ried out in mountain regions (Grêt-Regamey et al. 2008; ing and regulating services (Swinton et al. 2007; Zhang Lavorel et al. 2011). Moreover, there is the need to exam- et al. 2007). At the same time, agricultural ecosystems ine the interdependence of multiple ecosystem services in on their part influence ecological functions (Swift et al. terms of their synergies and trade-offs (Bennett et al. 2009; 2004; Stallman 2011) and management activities can Nelson et al. 2009; Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2010). lead to altered ecosystem services (Lavorel et al. 2011), *Corresponding author. Email: uta.schirpke@eurac.edu Uta Schirpke and Georg Leitinger are joint first authors. © 2013 Taylor & Francis 124 U. Schirpke et al. In the current study, we aimed our efforts at examining managed with different intensities. More than half of these historical and future impacts of altered agricultural activi- grasslands have been abandoned in recent decades. They ties on multiple ecosystem services of mountain regions. are bounded below by open larch forest that changes to Since ecological functions rely greatly on topography, dense forest further down. The lower slopes and the valley climatic conditions and vegetation patterns (Dorner et al. floor are intensively used and covered mainly by grassland 2002; Mottet et al. 2006; Gellrich and Zimmermann 2007), for forage production. we adapted existing modelling approaches and developed Ecosystem services were modelled based on histori- new methods to quantify ecosystem services to the specific cal and future land-use pattern, vegetation distribution and characteristics of mountain regions based on a geographic topography. Historical land-use maps (1954, 1960, 1970, information system (GIS). Future multiple ecosystem ser- 1980, 1990, 2001 and 2011) were determined on the basis vices provision was projected based on socio-economic of orthophotos and historical maps as well as of interviews and climate scenarios. The specific objectives were as with farmers. Interpretation and mapping of land-use dis- follows: (1) assessment of socio-economic and climate tribution was done by on-screen digitizing. Missing time scenarios by a participatory approach; (2) GIS-based quan- periods were integrated using historical data (agricultural tification and spatial modelling of multiple ecosystem census and village chronicles) and free response inter- services; (3) impact analysis of ecosystem services based views with all 43 landowners and farmers to get detailed on historical and future land-use pattern and (4) trade-off information about land use, i.e. differentiation between analysis of multiple ecosystem services. meadows and pastures, number of mowings and grazing period. All information was included in the maps that were then checked by the farmers for accuracy (geometry and attributes). For more details on the mapping method Materials and methods used, see Tasser et al. (2009). The vegetation was mapped Study area and data collection in the field at a scale of 1:5000, based on orthophotos The Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Site 2 with a minimum plot-size of 25 m for herbaceous plant ◦  ◦  ◦  ◦ Kaserstattalm (11 15 –11 20 E, 47 5 –47 10 N) is loca- communities and ∼250 m for forests. For more details ted in the Stubai Valley in Austria on moderate to steep on the mapping method used, see Tasser and Tappeiner slopes facing south and southeast (Figure 1). It extends (2002). To derive topographical characteristics (elevation, over an area of 5.1 km and altitude ranges from 970 to slope and aspect), which were important for modelling bio- 2535 m. The average annual air temperature and precipita- physical and climate-dependent factors, a digital elevation tion are 2.4 C and 1100 mm at 1750 m a.s.l., respectively. model (DEM) with a spatial resolution of 5 m × 5mwas Agricultural use has shaped the landscape for centuries. used, provided by the Tyrolean Information System (tiris ) The upper part is covered by alpine meadows and pastures of the State Government of the Tyrol. Figure 1. Location of study area in Europe (a) and in the Stubai Valley (b). Land-use pattern for the status quo of the study site ‘Kaserstattalm’ (c). International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 125 Scenarios land according to the recreational demands in spe- cially designated locations. As both residents and To assess future trends, we used different scenarios for tourists are assumed to be price-conscious in their (1) socio-economic conditions and (2) climate change. purchasing behaviour for food products, local ori- gin and quality become rather irrelevant. Therefore, local food production is assumed to be not com- Socio-economic scenarios petitive because of declining producer prices on the Based on current trends of dynamics in the local develop- global market. Agricultural produce, as far as it can ment of settlements and job opportunities described by the be competitive on the world market, is processed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the in highly centralized facilities outside the valley. local demand for touristic services and the regional and Agricultural transfer payments are assumed to have international market opportunities for agricultural prod- fallen on average by about 20% for mountain farms ucts (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2000), (European Commission 2010). Out of the compen- we defined two contrasting socio-economic scenarios: (1a) sation payments of the second pillar of the CAP localized scenario and (1b) globalized scenario. The terms for farmers in mountain areas, every farmer still ‘localized’ and ‘globalized’ do not refer to any spatial receives a small basic income that increases with scale but to the direction of socio-economic development. the provision of global ecosystem services, such as In the localized scenario, the economic development path preservation and enhancement of biodiversity, water assumes rather closed local and regional economic cycles quality and plants for CO sequestration. These and is largely independent of global economic changes assumptions were based on ‘policy option 3’ as pre- (IPCC storyline B2). In contrast, for a globalized scenario, sented in the Communication from the European global competition on mass markets is more important than Commission (European Commission 2010). local and regional economic relations (IPCC storyline A1). Based on stakeholder consultations through expert inter- views and group discussions (Lamarque et al. 2011), the Climate scenarios IPCC scenarios were adapted to the specific conditions of Climate change scenarios of both General Circulation the study area. Models (GCMs) and Regional Climate Models (RCMs) To present the scenarios to stakeholders, the following suffer from uncertainties, especially in mountain regions storylines were designed: (Beniston 2006). To account for regional climate patterns, we used a daily climate change dataset for Austria The ‘localized’ socio-economic scenario (1a) with a spatial resolution of 1 km provided by Strauss suggests a development that focuses on the et al. (2012). The datasets were projected for the period local/regional economy and proposes an increase 2008–2040 with ACLiReM (Austrian Climate change in the number of commuters to the regional capital Model using Linear Regression, Strauss et al. 2011) based (within a distance of 20 km) in the lower part on historical daily weather station data from 1975 to of the valley and a focus on sustainable tourism 2007 and linear regression with repeated bootstrapping. activities (farm holidays, hiking, tobogganing and Starting from the status quo (SQ), we defined three dif- backcountry skiing in winter). Locally produced ferent climate scenarios for our study site: (2a) 5-year sce- food is increasingly in demand and regional and nario, (2b) 20-year scenario and (2c) worst-case scenario. organic products fetch high prices. Farmers receive Strauss et al. (2012) calculated three different temperature payments out of the second pillar of the Common scenarios. We selected the ‘high’ temperature scenario (i.e. Agricultural Policy (CAP) for rural development and maximum mean temperature for the period 2008–2040). agri-environmental measures. National and regional For changing precipitation rates, there is no clear sig- subsidies complement the CAP and also address nal for the next three decades and Strauss et al. (2012) regionally targeted environmental specifications. provide 17 different scenarios for precipitation. In line The regional and the local administrations contribute with Beniston (2006), we selected increasing daily winter financial support for infrastructure (road mainte- precipitation (September–February) by 10% and decreas- nance, joint processing and marketing facilities) and ing daily summer precipitation (March–August) by 10% join use of special agricultural equipment. for the 5-year and 20-year scenarios. For the worst-case The ‘globalized’ socio-economic scenario (1b) is scenario, we used decreasing daily precipitation by 20%. based on the assumption that the study area will To present the scenarios to stakeholders, the following aim for competitiveness on a world market. It also storylines were designed: forecasts an increasing number of commuters to the regional capital. In the upper part of the valley, tourism is based on an increasing number of ski runs In the 5-year scenario (2a), dry years are alternat- for winter activities, glacier skiing all year round ing with normally wet years and occur in three out and outdoor adventure activities in summer. This of 5 years. For dry years, spring-time conditions are results in mass tourism and new hotel complexes. dry with very little run-off due to missing melting The farmers are only paid to manage agricultural water from the tops. The summers are characterized 126 U. Schirpke et al. Table 1. Mean annual temperature, annual precipitation and To capture various opinions and solutions, the farm- summer precipitation (April–September) of the status quo and ers were selected by their socio-economic profiles, scenarios for normal and dry years. characterized by their modern or traditional habitus (Schallberger 1999) and their approach towards market Status quo/ 5-year 20-year 20-year 5-year dry normal dry and nature. This was reflected in different farming styles a b b normal year year year year (Van der Ploeg and Long 1994), combining production pat- terns (organic or conventional, high or low mechanization) Mean annual 2.4 6.9 5.8 7.7 with market approaches (direct/indirect marketing chan- temperature ( C) Annual precipitation 1100 549 845 416 nels) and different employment situation (i.e. part-time, or (mm) full-time, employed or self-employed). During the work- Summer 687 283 535 207 shops, the farmers were asked to develop a joint strategy precipitation (mm) to react to the specific scenarios. In addition, they were to Note: Corresponds conditions in the dry year 2003. explain related land-use changes. For the study area, spatial Strauss et al. (2012). mapping of the scenarios was done on orthophotos by the farmers and later digitalized. by little rainfall and high temperatures (Table 1). Precipitation in winter falls almost exclusively as Modelling ecosystem services rain and leads to a shorter period of solid snow cover. In dry years, vegetation below ∼1300 m experiences Lamarque et al. (2011) identified a common set of ecosys- extreme drought stress and hay yield is only 50% of tem services of mountain grasslands that were consid- the usual amount (Egger et al. 2005). ered important by local stakeholders and farmers for the For the 20-year scenario (2b), the trend with Stubai Valley (aesthetic value, carbon sequestration, forage increased temperatures and variable precipitation quality, forage quantity, natural hazard regulation, pollina- patterns continues and leads to warm winter months tion, recreation, soil stability, water quality and water quan- with very little snow (Table 1). We assume that dry tity). Accordingly, we modelled a selection of ecosystem years occur in 7 out of 10 years (Abegg 1996; Steiger services for our study site ‘Kaserstattalm’ based on land- 2010). Mainly on alpine meadows and pastures, use pattern, vegetation distribution and topographic char- average years produce little loss of yield (∼–10%), acteristics using 5 m × 5 m resolution data. We adapted while dry years reduce agricultural yields by about the different GIS-based modelling approaches, which are 50% (Egger et al. 2005; Pfurtscheller 2012, personal described in the following in detail, to the specific topo- communication). Snow cover becomes unreliable graphic conditions of mountain regions to quantify the below 1500 m a.s.l. and the conditions for artificial ecosystem services on a landscape scale. Raster maps snow-making are getting poorer. Ski tourism is only were created for historical dates and future scenarios and profitable above 1800 m a.s.l. (Steiger 2010). rescaled to values ranging from 0 to 100. For reporting, we In the worst-case scenario (2c), most years are very calculated mean values of the total study area. dry, with climatic conditions similar to the dry years of the 20-year scenario. As snow reliability fails Aesthetic value (Abegg 1996; Steiger 2010) and springs are dry, winter tourism collapses and hay yields are rarely The aesthetic value was assessed by a photo survey (see good enough to make farming feasible. supplementary online material http://informahealthcare. com/doi/suppl/[10.1080/21513732.2012.751936]). The standardized questionnaire was composed of five photo- Workshops graphic series, each consisting of four photographs, related The two socio-economic scenarios (termed ‘localized’ and to (1) different management types of alpine grassland ‘globalized’, see above) were combined with the climate (pasture, meadow and abandoned land), (2) different scenarios, resulting in six different overall scenarios: management intensities of meadows (number of mowings (1) localized 5-year LN(5), (2) localized 20-year LN(20), and fertilization), (3) different successional stages of (3) localized worst-case LW(20), (4) globalized 5-year abandoned land, (4) different management types of alpine GN(5), (5) globalized 20-year GN(20) and (6) glob- grassland at flowering season (meadow of low/high land- alized worst-case GW(20). To assess the management use intensity, pasture and abandoned land) and (5) different implications of the different scenarios, two workshops, management types of alpine grassland after cutting or one for the localized scenarios and another one for the grazing. A total of 78 persons, locals and tourists, were globalized scenarios, were organized with 4–6 farmers interviewed at the alpine hut, which is located at 1900 m from the Stubai Valley in each session. A qualitative a.s.l. on our study site ‘Kaserstattalm’ and asked to give approach was used to select farmers that represent typical scores to the pictures of each series according to their situations to get a ‘public opinion, collective attitudes preferences (1 for least preferred and 4 for most pre- and ideologies’ (Mayring 2002) in the context of future ferred). To map the aesthetic value, we linked the resulting land-use management. preference values to the different land-use categories. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 127 Carbon sequestration east) were used (Leitinger et al. 2008). Snow gliding also −1 increases the probability of landslides (Tasser et al. 2003). Carbon density (Mg C ha ) assigned to each vegetation Surface water run-off, contributing to landslides, mud- type was derived from above-ground and below-ground −1 −1 flows and floods, is a function of above-ground phytomass, phytomass (Mg ha ) and C-stocks (g g ) resulted from skeleton fraction-soil stone content in 0–0.1 m soil depth, project-area-relevant literature and own measurements. annual precipitation and elevation (Leitinger et al. 2010). Above-ground phytomass was measured by harvesting Root density is related to slope stability (Reubens et al. or cutting the vegetation of defined plots. Below-ground 2007). We mapped root mass associated to each vegetation phytomass was determined by taking soil cores and manual type (Tappeiner et al. 2008) and obtained an area-weighted excavation of roots. For further details, refer to Tappeiner mean value for each land-use category by overlaying the et al. (2008). Phytomass and C-content were multiplied and vegetation and the land-use maps. To determine natural an area-weighted mean value for each land-use category hazard regulation, the three input factors snow gliding, sur- was obtained by overlaying the vegetation and the land-use face water run-off and root density were added for each maps. raster cell. Forage quality Soil stability Each vegetation type was assigned a forage quality value To predict the soil stability, we used the universal soil loss according to Klapp et al. (1953). By overlaying the veg- equation (USLE, Wischmeier and Smith 1978). The rate of etation and the land-use maps, an area-weighted mean soil erosion is a function of land-use pattern, soil type, pre- value for each land-use category was obtained. To account cipitation and topography. The erosivity factor – the greater for changing climate conditions within land-use types, the intensity and duration of the rain storm, the higher the each raster cell was corrected by the elevation accord- erosion potential – was assumed to be equal throughout the ing to Egger (1999), where forage quality increases below study area and therefore excluded from calculation as we 1800 m a.s.l. (10% per 100 m) and decreases above 2200 m found no significant differences in rainfall intensity (mm a.s.l. (10% per 200 m). This leads to a differentiation per time unit) between our climate stations at 970, 1750, of our community-weighted mean for climatic and soil 1850 and 2000 m a.s.l. Slope characteristics were derived differences. from the DEM. As no data about soil characteristics were available, we used root density, which is related to soil sta- bility (Reubens et al. 2007). Root mass associated with Forage quantity each vegetation type (Tappeiner et al. 2008) was overlaid Forage quantity is a function of topography and land-use on the land-use map and an area-weighted mean value for pattern and was estimated on the basis of productivity type each land-use category calculated. of grassland, determined by plant species, and the growing season (Egger et al. 2005). Using the DEM, the days with vegetation growth were determined according to Harflinger Multiple ecosystem services analysis and Knees (1999) for the climate zone inner-alpine west. A multiple ecosystem services map was obtained by the Higher mean temperatures of the scenarios are considered sum of all ecosystem services using 0–100 scaled values. by lowering the DEM with the temperature lapse rate of Impacts of land-use change were visualized by creating 6 C per km of elevation (Körner 2003). The forage quan- maps of ecosystem service change. To understand trade- tity was corrected by topography, i.e. slope and aspect, offs and synergies between different ecosystem services, which can accelerate or diminish vegetation growth. a principal component analysis (PCA) was performed in As precipitation requirements for forage are 100 mm pre- TM ArcGIS (Version 9.3.1, Spatial Analyst, ESRI) for his- cipitation per 1000 kg forage (Egger et al. 2005), the torical dates and future scenarios. Using the six different maximum possible forage quantity is limited by the total ecosystem services maps as input raster layers, eigenvec- amount of summer precipitation (April–September). tors, eigenvalues, a covariance matrix and a correlation matrix were calculated, and maps of the components were generated. Natural hazard regulation Natural hazards in mountain regions are mainly mass movements, i.e. rock fall and landslides, debris flows and Results avalanches. As rock fall is no major issue in our study Scenario workshop area, natural hazard regulation was modelled on the basis of (1) snow gliding, (2) surface water run-off and (3) root During the workshop, the farmers specified that their deci- density. Avalanches are often caused by snow gliding sions about intensity and type of agricultural use are (Clarke and McClung 1999). To predict snow gliding, six driven by different key factors: agricultural policies, cli- key drivers (forest stand, slope angle, winter precipita- mate conditions, nature protection, topography and eco- tion, surface roughness, slope aspect west and slope aspect nomic motivations. The general strategies for responding 128 U. Schirpke et al. to the different socio-economic and climate scenarios are and overregulation. Farmers complained that the existing representative for the whole region. Spatial distribution regulations of contractual commitments for transfer pay- of land-use patterns was mapped only for the study area ments in the agri-environmental programme (no land-use ‘Kaserstattalm’. change within the 5-year period) already hinder innova- In the globalized scenarios, the farmers shift their tions. This leads to critical situations, especially in the activities towards tourism (in which most of them are course of farm succession. already engaged part-time) and continue managing alpine grasslands and pastures for landscape conservation. Large Land-use change meadows are managed as long as they can be mown by Historical changes machinery; otherwise, they are transformed into pastures. The farmers react to global pressure and decreasing From 1954 to 2011, agricultural use generally decreased market-prices with a shift in livestock, i.e. from cattle (Table 2). The main period of abandonment occurred in to sheep and goats. Higher temperatures due to climate the 1960s and 1970s. Larch meadows in particular were change allow a diversification of products, i.e. vegetables almost completely abandoned until 2011, leading to an or wine-growing, and animals can stay longer on pastures. increase of dense forest after several decades. Alpine pas- Irrigation might become necessary for agricultural use tures and meadows were reduced to 38% of the area in on the valley floor, but the farmers were convinced that 1954, meadows decreasing more rapidly than pastures. the glacier will continue to provide the required amount On the valley floor, arable land disappeared completely in of irrigation water, even in times of drought. For the 1970 and changed to grassland of high land-use intensity. globalized worst-case scenario GW(20) farmers assume a global financial crisis. In times of economic crisis, with scarce employment opportunities, farming becomes more Future changes important. Hence, almost any available area is used for Land-use changes for the scenarios GN(5) and LN(5) coin- agriculture to cover the subsistence food requirements of cide and land-use distribution is similar to the SQ (Table 2). the region. This is not astonishing as farmers depend on the trans- During the workshop on the localized scenarios, farm- fer payments from agri-environmental programmes with a ers rated the market opportunities of this scenario as good 5-year contractual period. Half of the abandoned land is and considered new crops like pumpkins on the valley floor used again as alpine pastures and the land-use intensity and new production niches, like dairy sheep farming on of meadows has increased. The change from abandoned the slope. The farmers considered water scarcity due to cli- land to alpine pastures continues with a lower transfor- mate change as the biggest problem. Irrigation, however, mation rate for the 20-year scenarios. Future changes are was seen as a solution only for some farmers in the val- expected to result from either a collapse of the world ley on areas of high land-use intensity. Farmers on dry economy (scenario GW(20)) or over-regulation in times of slopes would not benefit from irrigation as pumping up increased climatic variation. The results of both the sce- water for irrigation was not thought feasible. The use of narios are entirely different. In GW, the post-World War II favourable areas is intensified and diversified for products landscape is re-established, while in scenario LW(20) large needed on local markets (e.g. wine, fruits and vegetables). parts are expected to be reforested and abandoned. The Less favourable areas, especially on hill sites, are largely GW scenario forecasts massive intensification of use and a abandoned or used for grazing with sheep. Livestock farm- reversal of almost the entire area to agricultural use. Higher ing remains more important than arable farming, even if areas are dominated by pastures and meadows of low land- the proportion of arable land grows. The farmers continue use intensity. On favourable areas, land-use intensity of managing their agricultural land as long as it is profitable meadows is high. Even large areas of previously aban- (also due to payments for landscape preservation) and com- doned larch meadows are used again, especially in areas bine agricultural activities with other occupations, which of higher elevation where forest regeneration occurs more still allow part-time farming. Continued transfer payments slowly. On the valley floor, 30% of the grassland is trans- were thought necessary, but the restrictions imposed by the formed to arable land. The farmers considered LN(20) as compulsory 5-year period of the contracts were severely the maximum likely reduction of land use as long as the criticized. With the prospect of weather conditions pos- local conditions allow farming. However, future gener- sibly varying more frequently from year to year, farmers ations might change occupation and abandon all alpine requested more freedom in their management decisions. grassland, leading to an increase of forest and abandoned As tourism is likely to increase, especially during sum- land. The valley floor is still managed by big farmers. mer, some areas might be adapted for touristic use, e.g. with golf courses and small artificial lakes. There is no joint strategy for facing possible future socio-economic Ecosystem services and climate changes but rather individual solutions that Landscape pattern need to be developed and for each farm to find its own niche. The localized worst-case scenario is dominated by Spatial distribution of ecosystem services is related to land- an abandonment of farms due to prolonged drought periods use pattern and topography (Figures 2 and 3). The aesthetic International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 129 Table 2. Land-use distribution of the study area ‘Kaserstattalm’ for historical dates, the status quo and the scenarios. 1954 1960 1970 1980 1990 2001 SQ GN(5)/GL(5) GN(20) LN(20) GW(20) LW(20) Land-use distribution Area (ha) Forest 144 144 144 144 144 182 237 237 237 244 175 339 Abandoned land 41 55 56 103 113 103 103 69 64 64 18 120 Pasture 636666343231 27 67 75 71 80 0 Meadow of very low land-use intensity 000000 1 0 0 0 0 0 Meadow of low land-use intensity 37 20 21 10 5 5 6 5 5 5 28 0 Meadow of high land-use intensity 17 17 15 15 8 8 7 9 5 9 16 0 Meadow of high land-use intensity (valley) 15 18 19 18 18 18 18 18 12 12 13 12 Meadow/pasture 333077 5 0 0 0 1 0 Larch meadow (abandoned) 0 0 46 108 128 102 64 63 63 63 0 0 Larch meadow 148 147 101 39 17 15 3 3 3 3 135 0 Mountain pine 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Wine/Orchard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 Arableland 410000 0 0 0 0 6 0 Infrastructures 888888 8 8 8 8 8 8 Total changed area 226 208 161 98 95 57 − 42 55 46 221 119 Notes: The total changed area refers to the status quo. Mowing every 3–5 years. Mowing every 2 years. 1–2 mowings per year. 3–4 mowings per year. value is highest for meadows of low land-use intensity, fol- quality and quantity have risen continuously, particularly lowed by abandoned larch meadows. Alpine pastures and between 1970 and 1980. Large areas of alpine pastures meadows are preferred to abandoned land. Least attractive and meadows were abandoned and only areas with higher are meadows of high land-use intensity and forest. Carbon production rates and better forage quality continued to be sequestration is highest in forests and reaches good values managed. The total forage amount of the entire study site in larch meadows. Meadows of very low land-use inten- has decreased by 47% since 1954. Natural hazard regu- sity and abandoned land store more carbon than alpine lation and soil stability increased after 1990, when forest pastures, whereas meadows of high land-use intensity and replaced larch meadows, and managed grasslands were arable land store the least carbon. Meadows of high land- more and more abandoned. use intensity on the valley floor produce highest forage quantities and have the best forage quality. Production Future impacts rates and quality diminish with decreasing management The total ecosystem service value for all scenarios is lower intensity and increasing elevation. Pastures have lower for- than the SQ except LW(20) and decreases with time for age quality than meadows. Natural hazard regulation is the globalized scenarios, while decelerating for the local- lower for alpine pastures than for meadows of low land-use ized scenarios (Figure 3). In the 5-year scenarios, only intensity or abandoned land due to higher soil compaction small changes are predicted for carbon sequestration and and higher surface run-off. Forest and larch meadows soil stability. Less precipitation and higher temperatures have highest natural hazard regulation values. Soil stability generally lower the risk of natural hazards because of less depends highly on the slope gradient and the vegetation snow cover and reduced surface run-off. Areas for forage cover. Abandoned land has higher root densities than man- production are extended, but mean forage quality and quan- aged grasslands. Lowest erosion risk arises on the flat tity decrease because pastures are lower in forage quality valley floor and in forests, followed by larch meadows and and quantity than meadows. Higher impacts are estimated abandoned land on moderate slopes. for the 20-year scenarios. Carbon sequestration, natural hazard regulation and soil stability increase, while mean Historical impacts forage quality and quantity continue to decrease. Highest Historical land-use changes have led to an increase of the impacts occur in GW(20), where all ecosystem service total ecosystem service value but have influenced the anal- values decrease except aesthetic value and natural hazard ysed ecosystem services to different degrees (Figure 3). regulation. Forage production is limited due to signifi- The aesthetic value increased between 1954 and 1990, pri- cantly lower precipitation. Loss of areas with high land-use marily due to the abandonment of larch meadows, whereas intensity for forage production is compensated for by an the subsequent decrease was caused by forest regenera- enormous increase of used areas, especially pastures. Mean tion. An increase in carbon sequestration occurred after forage quantity and quality are therefore lower, but the total 1990 because of forest growth. Mean values of forage forage amount produced by the entire study site reaches 130 U. Schirpke et al. Figure 2. Ecosystem services of different land-use types for the status quo. Values are re-scaled to 0–100. more than double that of SQ. Impacts in LW(20) are SQ, see Table 3). The relationships between the differ- contrary to GW(20), with a decrease in the aesthetic value ent ecosystem services indicate only little changes across and improved regulating services. Agricultural activities time but differ between different land-use/cover categories continue only on the valley floor. Although provisioning (Figure 4). Thus, we concentrate on the SQ. The first axis is services improve significantly, the total forage amount of driven by contrasts between regulating ecosystem services, the entire study site is only about 17% of that in SQ. dominated by carbon sequestration and the aesthetic value and forage provision (Table 3, Figure 5). Regarding dif- ferent land-use types, the first component has high values Trade-offs for forest, while pastures and meadows have low val- We applied a PCA for all time steps to assess trade-offs ues (Figure 4). The second axis is driven by contrasts and synergies between multiple ecosystem services. The between the aesthetic value and forage provision (Table 3, first two components explain 85–89% of the variance (for Figure 5). High aesthetic values are associated to extensive International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 131 Figure 3. Landscape pattern of ecosystem services for the status quo. Values are re-scaled to 0–100. Historical development and future trends in normalized ecosystem services. All scores are normalized by their status quo levels. Table 3. Correlation matrix of PCA for the status quo. Forage Carbon Natural hazard Aesthetic value Forage quality quantity sequestration regulation Soil stability Aesthetic value 1 0.0602 0.0710 −0.5833 −0.5286 −0.4909 Forage quality 0.0602 1 0.9616 −0.3711 −0.3318 −0.2828 Forage quantity 0.0710 0.9616 1 −0.3792 −0.3391 −0.2936 Carbon sequestration −0.5833 −0.3711 −0.3792 1 0.9519 0.8871 Natural hazard regulation −0.5286 −0.3318 −0.3391 0.9519 1 0.8548 Soil stability −0.4909 −0.2828 −0.2936 0.8871 0.8548 1 132 U. Schirpke et al. quality and forage quantity (r > 0.5) (Table 4). Carbon sequestration, natural hazard regulation and soil stability are also positively correlated (r > 0.5). For forests, carbon sequestration, natural hazard regulation and soil stability are negatively correlated with the aesthetic value, while for other land-use categories the variables are independent. Discussion Scenario analysis has often been linked with participatory approaches to understand socio-economic, administrative, cultural, political and environmental dynamics within a particular region (Kok et al. 2006; Walz et al. 2007). We asked local farmers of the Stubai Valley to specify the management implications arising in different socio- economic conditions under climate change. As key drivers for land-use change the farmers identified agricultural funding policies, market prices and dryer climate condi- tions. While the farmers keep managing agricultural land in the globalized scenarios and respond to global pressure by diversification of products and livestock, agricultural land is partly abandoned in the localized scenarios (espe- cially on the slopes and on alpine pastures) or transformed into touristic areas. During the next 20 years, about 11% of the area will be subject to land-use changes in GN(20) and 9% in LN(20). GW(20), predicts even changes for 43% of the total area. The farmers considered LW(20), which affects 23% of the area, not very likely to occur since Figure 4. Maps of contrasts of (a) the first component and (b) the second component for the status quo. they keep managing agricultural land as long as the local economy allows. However, future generations might decide differently. During the last decade, agriculturally used use and lower values with intensive use, whereas forage areas have been widely abandoned in the European Alps, quantity and quality show contrary dependencies. Highest especially in southern Italian and French Alps (Höchtl et al. values of the second component emerge for abandoned 2005; Giupponi et al. 2006; Zimmermann et al. 2010). larch meadows, with high values for aesthetics and carbon The resulting land-use changes for our study site corre- sequestration (Figure 4). Synergies occur between forage spond generally to Europe-wide land-use/cover scenarios (Rounsevell et al. 2006; Bayfield et al. 2008). Since the Stubai Valley was identified by Tappeiner et al. (2003) as an Alpine ‘standard region’, characterized by agricultural use with a specialization in livestock farming, which is representative for 22% of the European Alps, the study results are likely to correspond to the development of other comparable regions within the European Alps. When analysing ecosystem services and their trade- offs, spatial and temporal scales have to be considered (Rodriguez et al. 2006). We used different GIS-based modelling approaches to quantify the provision of mul- tiple ecosystem services for historical dates and future scenarios on a landscape scale. In mountain regions, ecosystem services are influenced by topographic char- acteristics. For provisioning services, we found strong dependencies to topography. As confirmed by Chen et al. (2007), forage quantity decreases with increasing eleva- tion. Many regulating services are also determined by topography, e.g. natural hazard regulation and slope stabil- ity are better for smaller slope gradients. Consistent with other studies, different ecosystem services correspond to Figure 5. PCA plot of eigenvectors (component 1 × compo- landscape pattern (Gimona and van der Horst 2007; Naidoo nent 2) for the status quo. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 133 Table 4. Eigenvectors of PCA for the status quo. Component 12 3 4 5 6 Aesthetic value −0.344 0.617 0.703 0.039 −0.062 −0.004 Forage quality −0.141 −0.594 0.444 0.027 −0.038 −0.655 Forage quantity −0.126 −0.511 0.386 0.042 −0.033 0.756 Carbon sequestration 0.766 0.060 0.262 0.221 −0.540 −0.001 Natural hazard regulation 0.406 0.036 0.221 0.330 0.822 −0.004 Soil stability 0.306 0.013 0.204 −0.916 0.160 0.013 et al. 2008; Egoh et al. 2009). The aesthetic value is higher importance (Lamarque et al. 2011). Several ecosystem for alpine pastures and meadows of low land-use inten- services related to agriculture have been neglected, includ- sity than for forest or meadows of high land-use intensity. ing pollination, water quantity and quality and recreation. Carbon sequestration is higher for forest than for grassland. Moreover, management practices control disservices from Service hotspots are larch meadows, which have, however, agriculture, e.g. habitat loss, nutrient run-off, pesticide almost completely disappeared in recent decades. Impacts poisoning of non-target species (Zhang et al. 2007) and on multiple ecosystem services can be related to land- future efforts will be concentrated on modelling additional use/cover change. Previous land-use changes have led to services and disservices to agriculture. an increase of all ecosystem service values except the aes- thetic value. The scenarios predict a trend reversion for Conclusions most ecosystem services, apart from natural hazard regula- tion and the aesthetic value. For modelling future scenarios, Ecosystem services related to agriculture contribute to we assumed that plant species distribution is only influ- human well-being. Provisioning services are directly enced by land use. However, species distribution shifts and related to land use, but also regulating and cultural services even extinction of alpine plants can be expected due to depend on management practices. Future land-use policies climate change (Thuiller et al. 2005; Grabherr 2009). should take into account that ecosystem services in moun- We found trade-offs between provisioning ecosystem tain regions are closely linked to topographic and climatic services and both regulating and cultural ecosystem ser- conditions and a more flexible system for financial support vices, also confirmed by other studies (Bennett et al. 2009; could improve the farmers’ options for reacting to climatic Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2010). Forested areas cannot be variations. Trade-offs are related to land use and occur used for forage production but are very valuable for carbon between provisioning, regulating and cultural services. sequestration. The aesthetic value is negatively correlated Service hotspots and multiple ecosystem service provision to forage quantity and forage quality, i.e. increasing man- can be enhanced by sustainable agricultural management. agement intensity leads to higher forage production but Tourism is likely to be strengthened under both the global- reduces the aesthetic value. Comparable to Badgley et al. ized and the localized scenario and is positively influenced (2007), who found that trade-offs between agricultural pro- by extensive agricultural management enhancing the aes- duction and many ecosystem services can be avoided by thetic value. With regard to economic benefits deriving using sustainable management practices, our research find- from tourism, landscape preferences linked to agricultural ings indicate that extensive use has a positive influence on practices should be integrated into land-use policies and regulating and cultural ecosystem services. We also found agricultural incentives for a sustainable development of trade-offs between regulating and cultural ecosystem ser- mountain regions. vices. While the aesthetic value of dense forest is lower than for grasslands, carbon sequestration and natural haz- Acknowledgements ard regulation are higher. Since managed landscapes are areas of cultural importance, the local population is crit- We thank the farmers of the Stubai Valley for participating in the scenario workshop and for their valuable inputs. We wish ical of any shift from rural landscapes to forests (Höchtl to thank Michael Heinl for assistance during the workshop and et al. 2005; Bauer et al. 2009), but people living outside the for data analyses and Christian Newesely, Stefanie Rauscher and Alps perceive forest regeneration less negatively (Hunziker Dagmar Rubatscher for providing data. Three anonymous review- et al. 2008). The results of the survey indicate that tourists ers are acknowledged for their helpful comments. We also thank appreciate abandoned land and forest better than the local Brigitte Scott for language editing. This research was funded by the ERA-Net BiodivERsA, with the national funder FWF, population. We found the highest aesthetic values related part of the 2008 BiodivERsA call for research proposals. This to extensively managed grassland or larch meadows and study was conducted on the LTER site ‘Stubai Valley’, a member lower values for meadows of high land-use intensity or of the Austrian LTSER Platform ‘Tyrolean Alps’. The institu- abandoned land. tions involved are part of the interdisciplinary research centres ‘Ecology of the Alpine Region’ and ‘Mountain Agriculture’ In our study, we focused on a selection of ecosystem within the research area ‘Alpine Space – Man and Environment’ services to which local stakeholders and farmers attached at the University of Innsbruck. 134 U. Schirpke et al. European Commission. 2010. Brussels (Belgium): the CAP References towards 2020: meeting the food, natural resources and terri- Abegg B. 1996. Klimaänderung und Tourismus. Klimafol- torial challenges of the future [Internet]. [cited 2012 Aug 16]. genforschung am Beispiel des Wintertourismus in den Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex Schweizer Alpen. Zürich (Switzerland): vdf Hochschul- UriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0672:FIN:en:PDF verlag AG. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Badgley C, Moghtader J, Quintero E, Zakem E, Chappell MJ, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Coe MT, Daily GC, Gibbs HK, Avilés-Vázquez K, Samulon A, Perfecto I. 2007. Organic et al. 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science. agriculture and the global food supply. Renew Agr Food Sys. 309(5734):570–574. 22(2):86–108. Gellrich M, Zimmermann NE. 2007. Investigating the regional- Bauer N, Wallner A, Hunziker M. 2009. The change of scale pattern of agricultural land abandonment in the European landscapes: human-nature relationships, public Swiss mountains: a spatial statistical modelling approach. attitudes towards rewilding, and the implications for land- Landscape Urban Plan. 79(1):65–76. scape management in Switzerland. J Environ Manage. Gimona A, van der Horst D. 2007. Mapping hotspots of multiple 90(9):2910–2920. landscape functions: a case study on farmland afforestation Bayfield N, Barancok P, Furger M, Sebastià MT, Domínguez G, in Scotland. Landscape Ecol. 22(8):1255–1264. Lapka M, Cudlinova E, Vescovo L, Ganielle D, Cernusca A, Giupponi C, Ramanzin M, Sturaro E, Fuser S. 2006. Climate et al. 2008. Stakeholder perceptions of the impacts of rural and land use changes, biodiversity and agri-environmental funding scenarios on mountain landscapes across Europe. measures in the Belluno province, Italy. Environ Sci Policy. Ecosystems. 11(8):1368–1382. 9(2):163–173. Beniston M. 2006. Mountain weather and climate: a general Gordon LJ, Finlayson CM, Falkenmark M. 2010. Managing overview and a focus on climatic change in the Alps. water in agriculture for food production and other ecosystem Hydrobiologia. 562(1):3–16. services. Agric Water Manage. 97(4):512–519. Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ. 2009. Understanding Grabherr G. 2009. Biodiversity in the high ranges of the relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett. Alps: ethnobotanical and climate change perspectives. Global 12(12):1394–1404. Environ Change. 19(2):167–172. Bouwman AF, Beusen AHW, Billen G. 2009. Human alteration Grêt-Regamey A, Bebi P, Bishop ID, Schmid WA. 2008. Linking of the global nitrogen and phosphorus soil balances for the GIS-based models to value ecosystem services in an Alpine period 1970–2050. Global Biogeochem Cycles. 23:GB0A04. region. J Environ Manage. 89(3):197–208. Chan KMA, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily GC. Harlinger O, Knees G. 1999. Klimahandbuch Der 2006. Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Österreichischen Bodenschätzung. Klimatographie. 1. Biol. 4(11):e379. Teil. 1st ed. Innsbruck (Austria): Universitätsverlag Wagner. Chen XF, Chen JM, An SQ, Ju WM. 2007. Effects of topogra- Höchtl F, Lehringer S, Konold W. 2005. “Wilderness”: what it phy on simulated net primary productivity at landscape scale. means when it becomes a reality—a case study from the J Environ Manage. 85(3):585–596. southwestern Alps. Landscape Urban Plan. 70(1–2):85–95. Clarke J, McClung DM. 1999. Full-depth avalanche occur- Hunziker M, Felber P, Gehring K, Buchecker M, Bauer N, rences caused by snow gliding, Coquihalla, British Columbia, Kienast F. 2008. Evaluation of landscape change by different Canada. Canada J Glaciol. 45(151):539–546. social groups. Mt Res Dev. 28(2):140–147. de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L. 2010. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2000. Emissions Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services scenarios. A special report of working group III of the inter- and values in landscape planning, management and decision governmental panel on climate change. Cambridge (UK): making. Ecol Complex. 7(3):260–272. Cambridge University Press. de la Vega-Leinert A, Schröter D, Leemans R, Fritsch U, Kienast F, Bolliger J, Potschin M, de Groot R, Verburg P, Pluimers J. 2008. A stakeholder dialogue on European vul- Heller I, Wascher D, Haines-Young R. 2009. Assessing land- nerability. Reg Environ Change. 8(3):109–124. scape functions with broad-scale environmental data: insights Dorner B, Lertzman K, Fall J. 2002. Landscape pattern in topo- gained from a prototype development for Europe. Environ graphically complex landscapes: issues and techniques for Manage. 44(6):1099–1120. analysis. Landscape Ecol. 17(8):729–743. Klapp E, Boeker P, König F, Stählin A. 1953. Das Grünland. Egger G. 1999. Biotopkartierung Nationalpark Hohe Tauern. Hannover: Schaper. Wertzahlen der Grünlandpflanzen; Erhebung, Bewertung und Maßnahmenentwicklung aus- p. 38–40. gewählter Biotope der Außenzone des Nationalparks Hohe Kok K, Rothman DS, Patel M. 2006. Multi-scale narratives Tauern (Tirol). Studie im Auftrag von Bundesministerium für from an IA perspective: part I. European and Mediterranean Umwelt, Jugend und Familie, Klagenfurt. scenario development. Futures. 38(3):261–284. Egger G, Angermann K, Aigner S, Buchgraber K. 2005. Körner C. 2003. Alpine plant life: functional plant ecology of GIS-Gestützte Ertragsmodellierung zur Optimierung des high mountain ecosystems. 2nd ed. Heidelberg (Germany): Weidemanagements auf Almweiden. Gumpenstein: BAL – Springer. Bundesanst. für Alpenländ. Landwirtschaft. Lamarque P, Tappeiner U, Turner C, Steinbacher M, Bardgett R, Egoh B, Reyers B, Rouget M, Bode M, Richardson D. 2009. Szukics U, Schermer M, Lavorel S. 2011. Stakeholder per- Spatial congruence between biodiversity and ecosystem ser- ceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowl- vices in South Africa. Biol Conserv. 142(3):553–562. edge on soil fertility and biodiversity. Reg Environ Change. Egoh B, Reyers B, Rouget M, Richardson DM, Le Maitre 11(4):791–804. DC, van Jaarsveld AS. 2008. Mapping ecosystem services Lavorel S, Grigulis K, Lamarque P, Colace M, Garden D, Girel J, for planning and management. Agric Ecosyst Environ. Pellet G, Douzet R. 2011. Using plant functional traits to 127(1–2):135–140. understand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystem Eigenbrod F, Armsworth PR, Anderson BJ, Heinemeyer A, services. J Ecol. 99(1):135–147. Gillings S, Roy DB, Thomas CD, Gaston KJ. 2010. Leitinger G, Höller P, Tasser E, Walde J, Tappeiner U. 2008. Error propagation associated with benefits transfer-based Development and validation of a spatial snow-glide model. mapping of ecosystem services. Biol Conserv. 143(11): Ecol Model. 211(3–4):363–374. 2487–2493. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 135 Leitinger G, Tasser E, Newesely C, Obojes N, Tappeiner U. 2010. Steiger R. 2010. The impact of climate change on ski season Seasonal dynamics of surface runoff in mountain grass- length and snowmaking requirements in Tyrol, Austria. Clim land ecosystems differing in land use. J Hydrol. 385(1–4): Res. 43(3):251–262. 95–104. Strauss F, Formayer H, Schmid E. 2012. High resolution climate Mayring, P. 2002. Einführung in die Qualitative Sozialforschung. data for Austria in the period 2008–2040 from a statistical cli- 5th revised ed. Weinheim (Germany): Beltz Verlag. mate change model. Int J Climatol. DOI: 10.1002/joc.3434. Metzger MJ, Rounsevell M, Michlik A, Leemans R, Schröter D. Strauss F, Schmid E, Moltchanova E, Formayer H, Wang X. 2006. The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land use 2011. Modeling climate change and biophysical impacts of change. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 114(1):69–86. crop production in the Austrian Marchfeld region. Climatic Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Change. 111(3): 641–664. human well-being: synthesis. Washington (DC): Island Press. Swetnam RD, Fisher B, Mbilinyi BP, Munishi PKT, Willcock S, Mottet A, Ladet S, Coqué N, Gibon A. 2006. Agricultural Ricketts T, Mwakalila S, Balmford A, Burgess ND, Marshall land-use change and its drivers in mountain landscapes: AR, et al. 2011. Mapping socio-economic scenarios of land a case study in the Pyrenees. Agric Ecosyst Environ. cover change: a GIS method to enable ecosystem service 114(2–4):296–310. modeling. J Environ Manage. 92(3):563–574. Naidoo R, Balmford A, Costanza R, Fisher B, Green RE, Lehner Swift MJ, Izac AN, van Noordwijk M. 2004. Biodiversity and B, Malcolm TR, Ricketts TH. 2008. Global mapping of ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes—are we asking ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proc Natl the right questions? Agric Ecosyst Environ. 104(1):113–134. Acad Sci USA. 105(28):9495–9500. Swinton SM, Lupi F, Robertson GP, Hamilton SK. 2007. Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Tallis H, Cameron Ecosystem services and agriculture: cultivating agricultural DR, Chan KMA, Daily GC, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, et al. ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecol Econ. 64(2):245–252. 2009. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity Tappeiner U, Tappeiner G, Hilbert A, Mattanovich E. 2003. The conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at land- EU agricultural policy and the environment: evaluation of the scape scales. Front Ecol Environ. 7(1):4–11. alpine region. Oxford (UK): Blackwell. Pitesky ME, Stackhouse KR, Mitloehner FM. 2009. Clearing the Tappeiner U, Tasser E, Leitinger G, Cernusca A, Tappeiner G. air: livestock’s contribution to climate change. In: Sparks D, 2008. Effects of historical and likely future scenarios of land editor. Advances in agronomy. Burligton (MA): Academic use on above- and belowground vegetation carbon stocks of Press. p. 1–40. an alpine valley. Ecosystems. 11(8):1383–1400. Rabbinge R, van Diepen CA. 2000. Changes in agriculture and Tasser E, Mader M, Tappeiner U. 2003. Effects of land use in land use in Europe. Eur J Agron. 13(2–3):85–99. alpine grasslands on the probability of landslides. Basic Appl Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM. 2010. Ecosystem Ecol. 4(3):271–280. service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Tasser E, Ruffini F, Tappeiner U. 2009. An integrative approach Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 107(11):5242–5247. for analysing landscape dynamics in diverse cultivated and Reubens B, Poesen J, Danjon F, Geudens G, Muys B. 2007. The natural mountain areas. Landscape Ecol. 24(5):611–628. role of fine and coarse roots in shallow slope stability and Tasser E, Tappeiner U. 2002. Impact of land use changes on soil erosion control with a focus on root system architecture: mountain vegetation. Appl Veg Sci. 5(2):173–184. a review. Trees Struct Funct. 21(4):385–402. Tasser E, Walde J, Tappeiner U, Teutsch A, Noggler W. 2007. Rodriguez JP, Beard TD, Bennett E, Cumming GS, Cork S, Land-use changes and natural reforestation in the Eastern Agard J, Dobson A, Peterson G. 2006. Trade-offs across Central Alps. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 118(1–4):115–129. space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecol Soc. 11(1):28. Theurillat J, Guisan A. 2001. Potential impact of climate change Rounsevell MDA, Reginster I, Araújo MB, Carter TR, on vegetation in the European Alps: a review. Climatic Dendoncker N, Ewert F, House JI, Kankaanpää S, Change. 50(1):77–109. Leemans R, Metzger MJ, et al. 2006. A coherent set of future Thuiller W, Lavorel S, Araújo MB, Sykes MT, Prentice IC. 2005. land use change scenarios for Europe. Agric Ecosyst Environ. Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe. Proc Natl 114(1):57–68. Acad Sci USA. 102(23):8245–8250. Rudel TK, Coomes OT, Moran E, Achard F, Angelsen A, Tilman D, Fargione J, Wolff B, D’Antonio C, Dobson A, Howarth Xu J, Lambin E. 2005. Forest transitions: towards a global R, Schindler D, Schlesinger WH, Simberloff D, Swackhamer understanding of land use change. Global Environ Change. D. 2001. Forecasting agriculturally driven global environ- 15(1):23–31. mental change. Science. 292(5515):281–284. Rutherford GN, Bebi P, Edwards PJ, Zimmermann NE. 2008. Troy A, Wilson MA. 2006. Mapping ecosystem services: prac- Assessing land-use statistics to model land cover change in tical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value a mountainous landscape in the European Alps. Ecol Model. transfer. Ecol Econ. 60(2):435–449. 212(3–4):460–471. Van der Ploeg JD, Long A. 1994. Born from within: practice and Schallberger P. 1999. Wovon handeln bäuerliche Zukunfts- perspectives of endogenous rural development, Van Gorcum, vorstellungen? Determinanten, Dimensionen und Typen Assen. Styles of farming: an introductory note on concepts (German manuscript of the paper: De quel avenir parlent les and methodology. p. 7–30. paysans?). In: Droz Y, Mieville-Ott V, editors. On achève Walz A, Lardelli C, Behrendt H, Grêt-Regamey A, Lundström C, bien les paysans. Reconstruire une identité paysanne dans Kytzia S, Bebi P. 2007. Participatory scenario analysis un monde incertain. Genève (Switzerland): Edition Georg. p. for integrated regional modeling. Landscape Urban Plan. 103–126. 81(1–2):114–131. Schneeberger N, Bürgi M, Kienast F. 2007. Rates of landscape Wischmeier WH, Smith DD. 1978. Predicting rainfall erosion change at the northern fringe of the Swiss Alps: historical and losses – a guide to conservation planning. Washington (DC): recent tendencies. Landscape Urban Plan. 80(1–2):127–136. US Department of Agriculture. Schröter D, Cramer W, Leemans R, Prentice IC, Araújo MB, Zhang W, Ricketts TH, Kremen C, Carney K, Swinton SM. Arnell NW, Bondeau A, Bugmann H, Carter TR, Gracia CA, 2007. Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. et al. 2005. Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to Ecol Econ. 64(2):253–260. global change in Europe. Science. 310(5752):1333–1337. Zimmermann P, Tasser E, Leitinger G, Tappeiner U. 2010. Stallman HR. 2011. Ecosystem services in agriculture: determin- Effects of land-use and land-cover pattern on landscape-scale ing suitability for provision by collective management. Ecol biodiversity in the European Alps. Agric Ecosyst Environ. Econ. 71:131–139. 139(1–2):13–22. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management Taylor & Francis

Multiple ecosystem services of a changing Alpine landscape: past, present and future

Download PDF
13 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/multiple-ecosystem-services-of-a-changing-alpine-landscape-past-V2pi1xREGP

References (82)

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN
2151-3732
eISSN
2151-3740
DOI
10.1080/21513732.2012.751936
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, 2013 Vol. 9, No. 2, 123–135, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2012.751936 a, b a c c a,b Uta Schirpke *, Georg Leitinger , Erich Tasser , Markus Schermer , Melanie Steinbacher and Ulrike Tappeiner a b Institute for Alpine Environment, EURAC research, Bolzano 39100, Italy; Institute of Ecology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck 6020, Austria; Department of Sociology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck 6020, Austria In mountain regions, ecosystem services provision is strongly linked to land use, topography and climate, where impacts can be expected under global change. For our study site in the Austrian Alps, we examined the relationship between agricultural activities and multiple ecosystem services on landscape scale from past to future. Modelling of future land-use patterns was based on stakeholder workshops considering different socio-economic and climate scenarios. In the past, land-use intensity was reduced resulting in less forage provision but better regulating services. Future scenarios predict contrasting develop- ments; under conditions of global change, farmers shift the focus of their activities towards tourism, but in times of global economic crisis farming becomes more important again. Developing the local economy facilitates new markets for agricul- tural products, but projected drought periods will cause an abandonment of farmland. While forest regeneration is valuable for regulating services, it reduces the aesthetic value. Both regulating and cultural services decrease when forage provision is optimized. To ensure multiple ecosystem service provision, agricultural management should be related to ecosystem services and included into land-use policies and agricultural incentives. Keywords: GIS; aesthetic value; carbon sequestration; forage quality; forage quantity; natural hazard regulation; soil stability; scenario Introduction e.g. downstream water quality (Gordon et al. 2010), nitro- gen and phosphorus soil balances (Bouwman et al. 2009), The management of agricultural ecosystems (1) ensures CH and N O emissions (Pitesky et al. 2009). Land-use 4 2 the provision of food, fibre and fuel; (2) regulates the changes related to an intensification of agricultural pro- water and carbon balance; (3) guards against natural haz- duction are considered a major threat for the capacity of ards and (4) preserves the aesthetic value of the land- ecosystems to provide multiple ecosystem services (Foley scape (Walz et al. 2007; de la Vega-Leinert et al. 2008; et al. 2005; Metzger et al. 2006). While the increasing Leitinger et al. 2008; Tappeiner et al. 2008; Lavorel demand for food, energy and water leads to changes in et al. 2011). Agricultural modernization with specializa- land-use pattern, climate change causes water stress and tion, rationalization and mechanization and other more vegetation shifts (Theurillat and Guisan 2001; Schröter profitable sources of income (Rudel et al. 2005) have led to et al. 2005). To analyse future impacts of human activ- a decrease of the used agricultural area in Europe since the ities on ecosystem services, management scenarios for mid-twentieth century (Rabbinge and van Diepen 2000). decision-making are used (de Groot et al. 2010; Swetnam The European Alps are particularly affected by dramatic et al. 2011). land-use changes with more intensive use of favourable An increasing number of studies have examined areas (good climate conditions for agriculture and accessi- ecosystem services on a global or continental scale bility with machinery) and a reduction of less favourable (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005; Metzger et al. areas remaining in use, especially on alpine pastures 2006; Naidoo et al. 2008; Kienast et al. 2009), as well (Rutherford et al. 2008). Abandonment of agricultural as on a regional scale (Chan et al. 2006; Egoh et al. areas results in forest re-growth, leading to more homo- 2009; Eigenbrod et al. 2010). While several studies have geneous landscape patterns (Tasser et al. 2007). By the end addressed the spatial distribution of multiple ecosystem of the twentieth century, change rates seem to decelerate services at the level of a landscape (Troy and Wilson 2006; (Schneeberger et al. 2007), and Tilman et al. (2001) even Gimona and van der Horst 2007; Egoh et al. 2008; Naidoo predicted an increase of arable land and pastures. et al. 2008; Nelson et al. 2009), few studies were car- Agricultural productivity relies on a range of support- ried out in mountain regions (Grêt-Regamey et al. 2008; ing and regulating services (Swinton et al. 2007; Zhang Lavorel et al. 2011). Moreover, there is the need to exam- et al. 2007). At the same time, agricultural ecosystems ine the interdependence of multiple ecosystem services in on their part influence ecological functions (Swift et al. terms of their synergies and trade-offs (Bennett et al. 2009; 2004; Stallman 2011) and management activities can Nelson et al. 2009; Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2010). lead to altered ecosystem services (Lavorel et al. 2011), *Corresponding author. Email: uta.schirpke@eurac.edu Uta Schirpke and Georg Leitinger are joint first authors. © 2013 Taylor & Francis 124 U. Schirpke et al. In the current study, we aimed our efforts at examining managed with different intensities. More than half of these historical and future impacts of altered agricultural activi- grasslands have been abandoned in recent decades. They ties on multiple ecosystem services of mountain regions. are bounded below by open larch forest that changes to Since ecological functions rely greatly on topography, dense forest further down. The lower slopes and the valley climatic conditions and vegetation patterns (Dorner et al. floor are intensively used and covered mainly by grassland 2002; Mottet et al. 2006; Gellrich and Zimmermann 2007), for forage production. we adapted existing modelling approaches and developed Ecosystem services were modelled based on histori- new methods to quantify ecosystem services to the specific cal and future land-use pattern, vegetation distribution and characteristics of mountain regions based on a geographic topography. Historical land-use maps (1954, 1960, 1970, information system (GIS). Future multiple ecosystem ser- 1980, 1990, 2001 and 2011) were determined on the basis vices provision was projected based on socio-economic of orthophotos and historical maps as well as of interviews and climate scenarios. The specific objectives were as with farmers. Interpretation and mapping of land-use dis- follows: (1) assessment of socio-economic and climate tribution was done by on-screen digitizing. Missing time scenarios by a participatory approach; (2) GIS-based quan- periods were integrated using historical data (agricultural tification and spatial modelling of multiple ecosystem census and village chronicles) and free response inter- services; (3) impact analysis of ecosystem services based views with all 43 landowners and farmers to get detailed on historical and future land-use pattern and (4) trade-off information about land use, i.e. differentiation between analysis of multiple ecosystem services. meadows and pastures, number of mowings and grazing period. All information was included in the maps that were then checked by the farmers for accuracy (geometry and attributes). For more details on the mapping method Materials and methods used, see Tasser et al. (2009). The vegetation was mapped Study area and data collection in the field at a scale of 1:5000, based on orthophotos The Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) Site 2 with a minimum plot-size of 25 m for herbaceous plant ◦  ◦  ◦  ◦ Kaserstattalm (11 15 –11 20 E, 47 5 –47 10 N) is loca- communities and ∼250 m for forests. For more details ted in the Stubai Valley in Austria on moderate to steep on the mapping method used, see Tasser and Tappeiner slopes facing south and southeast (Figure 1). It extends (2002). To derive topographical characteristics (elevation, over an area of 5.1 km and altitude ranges from 970 to slope and aspect), which were important for modelling bio- 2535 m. The average annual air temperature and precipita- physical and climate-dependent factors, a digital elevation tion are 2.4 C and 1100 mm at 1750 m a.s.l., respectively. model (DEM) with a spatial resolution of 5 m × 5mwas Agricultural use has shaped the landscape for centuries. used, provided by the Tyrolean Information System (tiris ) The upper part is covered by alpine meadows and pastures of the State Government of the Tyrol. Figure 1. Location of study area in Europe (a) and in the Stubai Valley (b). Land-use pattern for the status quo of the study site ‘Kaserstattalm’ (c). International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 125 Scenarios land according to the recreational demands in spe- cially designated locations. As both residents and To assess future trends, we used different scenarios for tourists are assumed to be price-conscious in their (1) socio-economic conditions and (2) climate change. purchasing behaviour for food products, local ori- gin and quality become rather irrelevant. Therefore, local food production is assumed to be not com- Socio-economic scenarios petitive because of declining producer prices on the Based on current trends of dynamics in the local develop- global market. Agricultural produce, as far as it can ment of settlements and job opportunities described by the be competitive on the world market, is processed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the in highly centralized facilities outside the valley. local demand for touristic services and the regional and Agricultural transfer payments are assumed to have international market opportunities for agricultural prod- fallen on average by about 20% for mountain farms ucts (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2000), (European Commission 2010). Out of the compen- we defined two contrasting socio-economic scenarios: (1a) sation payments of the second pillar of the CAP localized scenario and (1b) globalized scenario. The terms for farmers in mountain areas, every farmer still ‘localized’ and ‘globalized’ do not refer to any spatial receives a small basic income that increases with scale but to the direction of socio-economic development. the provision of global ecosystem services, such as In the localized scenario, the economic development path preservation and enhancement of biodiversity, water assumes rather closed local and regional economic cycles quality and plants for CO sequestration. These and is largely independent of global economic changes assumptions were based on ‘policy option 3’ as pre- (IPCC storyline B2). In contrast, for a globalized scenario, sented in the Communication from the European global competition on mass markets is more important than Commission (European Commission 2010). local and regional economic relations (IPCC storyline A1). Based on stakeholder consultations through expert inter- views and group discussions (Lamarque et al. 2011), the Climate scenarios IPCC scenarios were adapted to the specific conditions of Climate change scenarios of both General Circulation the study area. Models (GCMs) and Regional Climate Models (RCMs) To present the scenarios to stakeholders, the following suffer from uncertainties, especially in mountain regions storylines were designed: (Beniston 2006). To account for regional climate patterns, we used a daily climate change dataset for Austria The ‘localized’ socio-economic scenario (1a) with a spatial resolution of 1 km provided by Strauss suggests a development that focuses on the et al. (2012). The datasets were projected for the period local/regional economy and proposes an increase 2008–2040 with ACLiReM (Austrian Climate change in the number of commuters to the regional capital Model using Linear Regression, Strauss et al. 2011) based (within a distance of 20 km) in the lower part on historical daily weather station data from 1975 to of the valley and a focus on sustainable tourism 2007 and linear regression with repeated bootstrapping. activities (farm holidays, hiking, tobogganing and Starting from the status quo (SQ), we defined three dif- backcountry skiing in winter). Locally produced ferent climate scenarios for our study site: (2a) 5-year sce- food is increasingly in demand and regional and nario, (2b) 20-year scenario and (2c) worst-case scenario. organic products fetch high prices. Farmers receive Strauss et al. (2012) calculated three different temperature payments out of the second pillar of the Common scenarios. We selected the ‘high’ temperature scenario (i.e. Agricultural Policy (CAP) for rural development and maximum mean temperature for the period 2008–2040). agri-environmental measures. National and regional For changing precipitation rates, there is no clear sig- subsidies complement the CAP and also address nal for the next three decades and Strauss et al. (2012) regionally targeted environmental specifications. provide 17 different scenarios for precipitation. In line The regional and the local administrations contribute with Beniston (2006), we selected increasing daily winter financial support for infrastructure (road mainte- precipitation (September–February) by 10% and decreas- nance, joint processing and marketing facilities) and ing daily summer precipitation (March–August) by 10% join use of special agricultural equipment. for the 5-year and 20-year scenarios. For the worst-case The ‘globalized’ socio-economic scenario (1b) is scenario, we used decreasing daily precipitation by 20%. based on the assumption that the study area will To present the scenarios to stakeholders, the following aim for competitiveness on a world market. It also storylines were designed: forecasts an increasing number of commuters to the regional capital. In the upper part of the valley, tourism is based on an increasing number of ski runs In the 5-year scenario (2a), dry years are alternat- for winter activities, glacier skiing all year round ing with normally wet years and occur in three out and outdoor adventure activities in summer. This of 5 years. For dry years, spring-time conditions are results in mass tourism and new hotel complexes. dry with very little run-off due to missing melting The farmers are only paid to manage agricultural water from the tops. The summers are characterized 126 U. Schirpke et al. Table 1. Mean annual temperature, annual precipitation and To capture various opinions and solutions, the farm- summer precipitation (April–September) of the status quo and ers were selected by their socio-economic profiles, scenarios for normal and dry years. characterized by their modern or traditional habitus (Schallberger 1999) and their approach towards market Status quo/ 5-year 20-year 20-year 5-year dry normal dry and nature. This was reflected in different farming styles a b b normal year year year year (Van der Ploeg and Long 1994), combining production pat- terns (organic or conventional, high or low mechanization) Mean annual 2.4 6.9 5.8 7.7 with market approaches (direct/indirect marketing chan- temperature ( C) Annual precipitation 1100 549 845 416 nels) and different employment situation (i.e. part-time, or (mm) full-time, employed or self-employed). During the work- Summer 687 283 535 207 shops, the farmers were asked to develop a joint strategy precipitation (mm) to react to the specific scenarios. In addition, they were to Note: Corresponds conditions in the dry year 2003. explain related land-use changes. For the study area, spatial Strauss et al. (2012). mapping of the scenarios was done on orthophotos by the farmers and later digitalized. by little rainfall and high temperatures (Table 1). Precipitation in winter falls almost exclusively as Modelling ecosystem services rain and leads to a shorter period of solid snow cover. In dry years, vegetation below ∼1300 m experiences Lamarque et al. (2011) identified a common set of ecosys- extreme drought stress and hay yield is only 50% of tem services of mountain grasslands that were consid- the usual amount (Egger et al. 2005). ered important by local stakeholders and farmers for the For the 20-year scenario (2b), the trend with Stubai Valley (aesthetic value, carbon sequestration, forage increased temperatures and variable precipitation quality, forage quantity, natural hazard regulation, pollina- patterns continues and leads to warm winter months tion, recreation, soil stability, water quality and water quan- with very little snow (Table 1). We assume that dry tity). Accordingly, we modelled a selection of ecosystem years occur in 7 out of 10 years (Abegg 1996; Steiger services for our study site ‘Kaserstattalm’ based on land- 2010). Mainly on alpine meadows and pastures, use pattern, vegetation distribution and topographic char- average years produce little loss of yield (∼–10%), acteristics using 5 m × 5 m resolution data. We adapted while dry years reduce agricultural yields by about the different GIS-based modelling approaches, which are 50% (Egger et al. 2005; Pfurtscheller 2012, personal described in the following in detail, to the specific topo- communication). Snow cover becomes unreliable graphic conditions of mountain regions to quantify the below 1500 m a.s.l. and the conditions for artificial ecosystem services on a landscape scale. Raster maps snow-making are getting poorer. Ski tourism is only were created for historical dates and future scenarios and profitable above 1800 m a.s.l. (Steiger 2010). rescaled to values ranging from 0 to 100. For reporting, we In the worst-case scenario (2c), most years are very calculated mean values of the total study area. dry, with climatic conditions similar to the dry years of the 20-year scenario. As snow reliability fails Aesthetic value (Abegg 1996; Steiger 2010) and springs are dry, winter tourism collapses and hay yields are rarely The aesthetic value was assessed by a photo survey (see good enough to make farming feasible. supplementary online material http://informahealthcare. com/doi/suppl/[10.1080/21513732.2012.751936]). The standardized questionnaire was composed of five photo- Workshops graphic series, each consisting of four photographs, related The two socio-economic scenarios (termed ‘localized’ and to (1) different management types of alpine grassland ‘globalized’, see above) were combined with the climate (pasture, meadow and abandoned land), (2) different scenarios, resulting in six different overall scenarios: management intensities of meadows (number of mowings (1) localized 5-year LN(5), (2) localized 20-year LN(20), and fertilization), (3) different successional stages of (3) localized worst-case LW(20), (4) globalized 5-year abandoned land, (4) different management types of alpine GN(5), (5) globalized 20-year GN(20) and (6) glob- grassland at flowering season (meadow of low/high land- alized worst-case GW(20). To assess the management use intensity, pasture and abandoned land) and (5) different implications of the different scenarios, two workshops, management types of alpine grassland after cutting or one for the localized scenarios and another one for the grazing. A total of 78 persons, locals and tourists, were globalized scenarios, were organized with 4–6 farmers interviewed at the alpine hut, which is located at 1900 m from the Stubai Valley in each session. A qualitative a.s.l. on our study site ‘Kaserstattalm’ and asked to give approach was used to select farmers that represent typical scores to the pictures of each series according to their situations to get a ‘public opinion, collective attitudes preferences (1 for least preferred and 4 for most pre- and ideologies’ (Mayring 2002) in the context of future ferred). To map the aesthetic value, we linked the resulting land-use management. preference values to the different land-use categories. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 127 Carbon sequestration east) were used (Leitinger et al. 2008). Snow gliding also −1 increases the probability of landslides (Tasser et al. 2003). Carbon density (Mg C ha ) assigned to each vegetation Surface water run-off, contributing to landslides, mud- type was derived from above-ground and below-ground −1 −1 flows and floods, is a function of above-ground phytomass, phytomass (Mg ha ) and C-stocks (g g ) resulted from skeleton fraction-soil stone content in 0–0.1 m soil depth, project-area-relevant literature and own measurements. annual precipitation and elevation (Leitinger et al. 2010). Above-ground phytomass was measured by harvesting Root density is related to slope stability (Reubens et al. or cutting the vegetation of defined plots. Below-ground 2007). We mapped root mass associated to each vegetation phytomass was determined by taking soil cores and manual type (Tappeiner et al. 2008) and obtained an area-weighted excavation of roots. For further details, refer to Tappeiner mean value for each land-use category by overlaying the et al. (2008). Phytomass and C-content were multiplied and vegetation and the land-use maps. To determine natural an area-weighted mean value for each land-use category hazard regulation, the three input factors snow gliding, sur- was obtained by overlaying the vegetation and the land-use face water run-off and root density were added for each maps. raster cell. Forage quality Soil stability Each vegetation type was assigned a forage quality value To predict the soil stability, we used the universal soil loss according to Klapp et al. (1953). By overlaying the veg- equation (USLE, Wischmeier and Smith 1978). The rate of etation and the land-use maps, an area-weighted mean soil erosion is a function of land-use pattern, soil type, pre- value for each land-use category was obtained. To account cipitation and topography. The erosivity factor – the greater for changing climate conditions within land-use types, the intensity and duration of the rain storm, the higher the each raster cell was corrected by the elevation accord- erosion potential – was assumed to be equal throughout the ing to Egger (1999), where forage quality increases below study area and therefore excluded from calculation as we 1800 m a.s.l. (10% per 100 m) and decreases above 2200 m found no significant differences in rainfall intensity (mm a.s.l. (10% per 200 m). This leads to a differentiation per time unit) between our climate stations at 970, 1750, of our community-weighted mean for climatic and soil 1850 and 2000 m a.s.l. Slope characteristics were derived differences. from the DEM. As no data about soil characteristics were available, we used root density, which is related to soil sta- bility (Reubens et al. 2007). Root mass associated with Forage quantity each vegetation type (Tappeiner et al. 2008) was overlaid Forage quantity is a function of topography and land-use on the land-use map and an area-weighted mean value for pattern and was estimated on the basis of productivity type each land-use category calculated. of grassland, determined by plant species, and the growing season (Egger et al. 2005). Using the DEM, the days with vegetation growth were determined according to Harflinger Multiple ecosystem services analysis and Knees (1999) for the climate zone inner-alpine west. A multiple ecosystem services map was obtained by the Higher mean temperatures of the scenarios are considered sum of all ecosystem services using 0–100 scaled values. by lowering the DEM with the temperature lapse rate of Impacts of land-use change were visualized by creating 6 C per km of elevation (Körner 2003). The forage quan- maps of ecosystem service change. To understand trade- tity was corrected by topography, i.e. slope and aspect, offs and synergies between different ecosystem services, which can accelerate or diminish vegetation growth. a principal component analysis (PCA) was performed in As precipitation requirements for forage are 100 mm pre- TM ArcGIS (Version 9.3.1, Spatial Analyst, ESRI) for his- cipitation per 1000 kg forage (Egger et al. 2005), the torical dates and future scenarios. Using the six different maximum possible forage quantity is limited by the total ecosystem services maps as input raster layers, eigenvec- amount of summer precipitation (April–September). tors, eigenvalues, a covariance matrix and a correlation matrix were calculated, and maps of the components were generated. Natural hazard regulation Natural hazards in mountain regions are mainly mass movements, i.e. rock fall and landslides, debris flows and Results avalanches. As rock fall is no major issue in our study Scenario workshop area, natural hazard regulation was modelled on the basis of (1) snow gliding, (2) surface water run-off and (3) root During the workshop, the farmers specified that their deci- density. Avalanches are often caused by snow gliding sions about intensity and type of agricultural use are (Clarke and McClung 1999). To predict snow gliding, six driven by different key factors: agricultural policies, cli- key drivers (forest stand, slope angle, winter precipita- mate conditions, nature protection, topography and eco- tion, surface roughness, slope aspect west and slope aspect nomic motivations. The general strategies for responding 128 U. Schirpke et al. to the different socio-economic and climate scenarios are and overregulation. Farmers complained that the existing representative for the whole region. Spatial distribution regulations of contractual commitments for transfer pay- of land-use patterns was mapped only for the study area ments in the agri-environmental programme (no land-use ‘Kaserstattalm’. change within the 5-year period) already hinder innova- In the globalized scenarios, the farmers shift their tions. This leads to critical situations, especially in the activities towards tourism (in which most of them are course of farm succession. already engaged part-time) and continue managing alpine grasslands and pastures for landscape conservation. Large Land-use change meadows are managed as long as they can be mown by Historical changes machinery; otherwise, they are transformed into pastures. The farmers react to global pressure and decreasing From 1954 to 2011, agricultural use generally decreased market-prices with a shift in livestock, i.e. from cattle (Table 2). The main period of abandonment occurred in to sheep and goats. Higher temperatures due to climate the 1960s and 1970s. Larch meadows in particular were change allow a diversification of products, i.e. vegetables almost completely abandoned until 2011, leading to an or wine-growing, and animals can stay longer on pastures. increase of dense forest after several decades. Alpine pas- Irrigation might become necessary for agricultural use tures and meadows were reduced to 38% of the area in on the valley floor, but the farmers were convinced that 1954, meadows decreasing more rapidly than pastures. the glacier will continue to provide the required amount On the valley floor, arable land disappeared completely in of irrigation water, even in times of drought. For the 1970 and changed to grassland of high land-use intensity. globalized worst-case scenario GW(20) farmers assume a global financial crisis. In times of economic crisis, with scarce employment opportunities, farming becomes more Future changes important. Hence, almost any available area is used for Land-use changes for the scenarios GN(5) and LN(5) coin- agriculture to cover the subsistence food requirements of cide and land-use distribution is similar to the SQ (Table 2). the region. This is not astonishing as farmers depend on the trans- During the workshop on the localized scenarios, farm- fer payments from agri-environmental programmes with a ers rated the market opportunities of this scenario as good 5-year contractual period. Half of the abandoned land is and considered new crops like pumpkins on the valley floor used again as alpine pastures and the land-use intensity and new production niches, like dairy sheep farming on of meadows has increased. The change from abandoned the slope. The farmers considered water scarcity due to cli- land to alpine pastures continues with a lower transfor- mate change as the biggest problem. Irrigation, however, mation rate for the 20-year scenarios. Future changes are was seen as a solution only for some farmers in the val- expected to result from either a collapse of the world ley on areas of high land-use intensity. Farmers on dry economy (scenario GW(20)) or over-regulation in times of slopes would not benefit from irrigation as pumping up increased climatic variation. The results of both the sce- water for irrigation was not thought feasible. The use of narios are entirely different. In GW, the post-World War II favourable areas is intensified and diversified for products landscape is re-established, while in scenario LW(20) large needed on local markets (e.g. wine, fruits and vegetables). parts are expected to be reforested and abandoned. The Less favourable areas, especially on hill sites, are largely GW scenario forecasts massive intensification of use and a abandoned or used for grazing with sheep. Livestock farm- reversal of almost the entire area to agricultural use. Higher ing remains more important than arable farming, even if areas are dominated by pastures and meadows of low land- the proportion of arable land grows. The farmers continue use intensity. On favourable areas, land-use intensity of managing their agricultural land as long as it is profitable meadows is high. Even large areas of previously aban- (also due to payments for landscape preservation) and com- doned larch meadows are used again, especially in areas bine agricultural activities with other occupations, which of higher elevation where forest regeneration occurs more still allow part-time farming. Continued transfer payments slowly. On the valley floor, 30% of the grassland is trans- were thought necessary, but the restrictions imposed by the formed to arable land. The farmers considered LN(20) as compulsory 5-year period of the contracts were severely the maximum likely reduction of land use as long as the criticized. With the prospect of weather conditions pos- local conditions allow farming. However, future gener- sibly varying more frequently from year to year, farmers ations might change occupation and abandon all alpine requested more freedom in their management decisions. grassland, leading to an increase of forest and abandoned As tourism is likely to increase, especially during sum- land. The valley floor is still managed by big farmers. mer, some areas might be adapted for touristic use, e.g. with golf courses and small artificial lakes. There is no joint strategy for facing possible future socio-economic Ecosystem services and climate changes but rather individual solutions that Landscape pattern need to be developed and for each farm to find its own niche. The localized worst-case scenario is dominated by Spatial distribution of ecosystem services is related to land- an abandonment of farms due to prolonged drought periods use pattern and topography (Figures 2 and 3). The aesthetic International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 129 Table 2. Land-use distribution of the study area ‘Kaserstattalm’ for historical dates, the status quo and the scenarios. 1954 1960 1970 1980 1990 2001 SQ GN(5)/GL(5) GN(20) LN(20) GW(20) LW(20) Land-use distribution Area (ha) Forest 144 144 144 144 144 182 237 237 237 244 175 339 Abandoned land 41 55 56 103 113 103 103 69 64 64 18 120 Pasture 636666343231 27 67 75 71 80 0 Meadow of very low land-use intensity 000000 1 0 0 0 0 0 Meadow of low land-use intensity 37 20 21 10 5 5 6 5 5 5 28 0 Meadow of high land-use intensity 17 17 15 15 8 8 7 9 5 9 16 0 Meadow of high land-use intensity (valley) 15 18 19 18 18 18 18 18 12 12 13 12 Meadow/pasture 333077 5 0 0 0 1 0 Larch meadow (abandoned) 0 0 46 108 128 102 64 63 63 63 0 0 Larch meadow 148 147 101 39 17 15 3 3 3 3 135 0 Mountain pine 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Wine/Orchard 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 Arableland 410000 0 0 0 0 6 0 Infrastructures 888888 8 8 8 8 8 8 Total changed area 226 208 161 98 95 57 − 42 55 46 221 119 Notes: The total changed area refers to the status quo. Mowing every 3–5 years. Mowing every 2 years. 1–2 mowings per year. 3–4 mowings per year. value is highest for meadows of low land-use intensity, fol- quality and quantity have risen continuously, particularly lowed by abandoned larch meadows. Alpine pastures and between 1970 and 1980. Large areas of alpine pastures meadows are preferred to abandoned land. Least attractive and meadows were abandoned and only areas with higher are meadows of high land-use intensity and forest. Carbon production rates and better forage quality continued to be sequestration is highest in forests and reaches good values managed. The total forage amount of the entire study site in larch meadows. Meadows of very low land-use inten- has decreased by 47% since 1954. Natural hazard regu- sity and abandoned land store more carbon than alpine lation and soil stability increased after 1990, when forest pastures, whereas meadows of high land-use intensity and replaced larch meadows, and managed grasslands were arable land store the least carbon. Meadows of high land- more and more abandoned. use intensity on the valley floor produce highest forage quantities and have the best forage quality. Production Future impacts rates and quality diminish with decreasing management The total ecosystem service value for all scenarios is lower intensity and increasing elevation. Pastures have lower for- than the SQ except LW(20) and decreases with time for age quality than meadows. Natural hazard regulation is the globalized scenarios, while decelerating for the local- lower for alpine pastures than for meadows of low land-use ized scenarios (Figure 3). In the 5-year scenarios, only intensity or abandoned land due to higher soil compaction small changes are predicted for carbon sequestration and and higher surface run-off. Forest and larch meadows soil stability. Less precipitation and higher temperatures have highest natural hazard regulation values. Soil stability generally lower the risk of natural hazards because of less depends highly on the slope gradient and the vegetation snow cover and reduced surface run-off. Areas for forage cover. Abandoned land has higher root densities than man- production are extended, but mean forage quality and quan- aged grasslands. Lowest erosion risk arises on the flat tity decrease because pastures are lower in forage quality valley floor and in forests, followed by larch meadows and and quantity than meadows. Higher impacts are estimated abandoned land on moderate slopes. for the 20-year scenarios. Carbon sequestration, natural hazard regulation and soil stability increase, while mean Historical impacts forage quality and quantity continue to decrease. Highest Historical land-use changes have led to an increase of the impacts occur in GW(20), where all ecosystem service total ecosystem service value but have influenced the anal- values decrease except aesthetic value and natural hazard ysed ecosystem services to different degrees (Figure 3). regulation. Forage production is limited due to signifi- The aesthetic value increased between 1954 and 1990, pri- cantly lower precipitation. Loss of areas with high land-use marily due to the abandonment of larch meadows, whereas intensity for forage production is compensated for by an the subsequent decrease was caused by forest regenera- enormous increase of used areas, especially pastures. Mean tion. An increase in carbon sequestration occurred after forage quantity and quality are therefore lower, but the total 1990 because of forest growth. Mean values of forage forage amount produced by the entire study site reaches 130 U. Schirpke et al. Figure 2. Ecosystem services of different land-use types for the status quo. Values are re-scaled to 0–100. more than double that of SQ. Impacts in LW(20) are SQ, see Table 3). The relationships between the differ- contrary to GW(20), with a decrease in the aesthetic value ent ecosystem services indicate only little changes across and improved regulating services. Agricultural activities time but differ between different land-use/cover categories continue only on the valley floor. Although provisioning (Figure 4). Thus, we concentrate on the SQ. The first axis is services improve significantly, the total forage amount of driven by contrasts between regulating ecosystem services, the entire study site is only about 17% of that in SQ. dominated by carbon sequestration and the aesthetic value and forage provision (Table 3, Figure 5). Regarding dif- ferent land-use types, the first component has high values Trade-offs for forest, while pastures and meadows have low val- We applied a PCA for all time steps to assess trade-offs ues (Figure 4). The second axis is driven by contrasts and synergies between multiple ecosystem services. The between the aesthetic value and forage provision (Table 3, first two components explain 85–89% of the variance (for Figure 5). High aesthetic values are associated to extensive International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 131 Figure 3. Landscape pattern of ecosystem services for the status quo. Values are re-scaled to 0–100. Historical development and future trends in normalized ecosystem services. All scores are normalized by their status quo levels. Table 3. Correlation matrix of PCA for the status quo. Forage Carbon Natural hazard Aesthetic value Forage quality quantity sequestration regulation Soil stability Aesthetic value 1 0.0602 0.0710 −0.5833 −0.5286 −0.4909 Forage quality 0.0602 1 0.9616 −0.3711 −0.3318 −0.2828 Forage quantity 0.0710 0.9616 1 −0.3792 −0.3391 −0.2936 Carbon sequestration −0.5833 −0.3711 −0.3792 1 0.9519 0.8871 Natural hazard regulation −0.5286 −0.3318 −0.3391 0.9519 1 0.8548 Soil stability −0.4909 −0.2828 −0.2936 0.8871 0.8548 1 132 U. Schirpke et al. quality and forage quantity (r > 0.5) (Table 4). Carbon sequestration, natural hazard regulation and soil stability are also positively correlated (r > 0.5). For forests, carbon sequestration, natural hazard regulation and soil stability are negatively correlated with the aesthetic value, while for other land-use categories the variables are independent. Discussion Scenario analysis has often been linked with participatory approaches to understand socio-economic, administrative, cultural, political and environmental dynamics within a particular region (Kok et al. 2006; Walz et al. 2007). We asked local farmers of the Stubai Valley to specify the management implications arising in different socio- economic conditions under climate change. As key drivers for land-use change the farmers identified agricultural funding policies, market prices and dryer climate condi- tions. While the farmers keep managing agricultural land in the globalized scenarios and respond to global pressure by diversification of products and livestock, agricultural land is partly abandoned in the localized scenarios (espe- cially on the slopes and on alpine pastures) or transformed into touristic areas. During the next 20 years, about 11% of the area will be subject to land-use changes in GN(20) and 9% in LN(20). GW(20), predicts even changes for 43% of the total area. The farmers considered LW(20), which affects 23% of the area, not very likely to occur since Figure 4. Maps of contrasts of (a) the first component and (b) the second component for the status quo. they keep managing agricultural land as long as the local economy allows. However, future generations might decide differently. During the last decade, agriculturally used use and lower values with intensive use, whereas forage areas have been widely abandoned in the European Alps, quantity and quality show contrary dependencies. Highest especially in southern Italian and French Alps (Höchtl et al. values of the second component emerge for abandoned 2005; Giupponi et al. 2006; Zimmermann et al. 2010). larch meadows, with high values for aesthetics and carbon The resulting land-use changes for our study site corre- sequestration (Figure 4). Synergies occur between forage spond generally to Europe-wide land-use/cover scenarios (Rounsevell et al. 2006; Bayfield et al. 2008). Since the Stubai Valley was identified by Tappeiner et al. (2003) as an Alpine ‘standard region’, characterized by agricultural use with a specialization in livestock farming, which is representative for 22% of the European Alps, the study results are likely to correspond to the development of other comparable regions within the European Alps. When analysing ecosystem services and their trade- offs, spatial and temporal scales have to be considered (Rodriguez et al. 2006). We used different GIS-based modelling approaches to quantify the provision of mul- tiple ecosystem services for historical dates and future scenarios on a landscape scale. In mountain regions, ecosystem services are influenced by topographic char- acteristics. For provisioning services, we found strong dependencies to topography. As confirmed by Chen et al. (2007), forage quantity decreases with increasing eleva- tion. Many regulating services are also determined by topography, e.g. natural hazard regulation and slope stabil- ity are better for smaller slope gradients. Consistent with other studies, different ecosystem services correspond to Figure 5. PCA plot of eigenvectors (component 1 × compo- landscape pattern (Gimona and van der Horst 2007; Naidoo nent 2) for the status quo. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 133 Table 4. Eigenvectors of PCA for the status quo. Component 12 3 4 5 6 Aesthetic value −0.344 0.617 0.703 0.039 −0.062 −0.004 Forage quality −0.141 −0.594 0.444 0.027 −0.038 −0.655 Forage quantity −0.126 −0.511 0.386 0.042 −0.033 0.756 Carbon sequestration 0.766 0.060 0.262 0.221 −0.540 −0.001 Natural hazard regulation 0.406 0.036 0.221 0.330 0.822 −0.004 Soil stability 0.306 0.013 0.204 −0.916 0.160 0.013 et al. 2008; Egoh et al. 2009). The aesthetic value is higher importance (Lamarque et al. 2011). Several ecosystem for alpine pastures and meadows of low land-use inten- services related to agriculture have been neglected, includ- sity than for forest or meadows of high land-use intensity. ing pollination, water quantity and quality and recreation. Carbon sequestration is higher for forest than for grassland. Moreover, management practices control disservices from Service hotspots are larch meadows, which have, however, agriculture, e.g. habitat loss, nutrient run-off, pesticide almost completely disappeared in recent decades. Impacts poisoning of non-target species (Zhang et al. 2007) and on multiple ecosystem services can be related to land- future efforts will be concentrated on modelling additional use/cover change. Previous land-use changes have led to services and disservices to agriculture. an increase of all ecosystem service values except the aes- thetic value. The scenarios predict a trend reversion for Conclusions most ecosystem services, apart from natural hazard regula- tion and the aesthetic value. For modelling future scenarios, Ecosystem services related to agriculture contribute to we assumed that plant species distribution is only influ- human well-being. Provisioning services are directly enced by land use. However, species distribution shifts and related to land use, but also regulating and cultural services even extinction of alpine plants can be expected due to depend on management practices. Future land-use policies climate change (Thuiller et al. 2005; Grabherr 2009). should take into account that ecosystem services in moun- We found trade-offs between provisioning ecosystem tain regions are closely linked to topographic and climatic services and both regulating and cultural ecosystem ser- conditions and a more flexible system for financial support vices, also confirmed by other studies (Bennett et al. 2009; could improve the farmers’ options for reacting to climatic Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2010). Forested areas cannot be variations. Trade-offs are related to land use and occur used for forage production but are very valuable for carbon between provisioning, regulating and cultural services. sequestration. The aesthetic value is negatively correlated Service hotspots and multiple ecosystem service provision to forage quantity and forage quality, i.e. increasing man- can be enhanced by sustainable agricultural management. agement intensity leads to higher forage production but Tourism is likely to be strengthened under both the global- reduces the aesthetic value. Comparable to Badgley et al. ized and the localized scenario and is positively influenced (2007), who found that trade-offs between agricultural pro- by extensive agricultural management enhancing the aes- duction and many ecosystem services can be avoided by thetic value. With regard to economic benefits deriving using sustainable management practices, our research find- from tourism, landscape preferences linked to agricultural ings indicate that extensive use has a positive influence on practices should be integrated into land-use policies and regulating and cultural ecosystem services. We also found agricultural incentives for a sustainable development of trade-offs between regulating and cultural ecosystem ser- mountain regions. vices. While the aesthetic value of dense forest is lower than for grasslands, carbon sequestration and natural haz- Acknowledgements ard regulation are higher. Since managed landscapes are areas of cultural importance, the local population is crit- We thank the farmers of the Stubai Valley for participating in the scenario workshop and for their valuable inputs. We wish ical of any shift from rural landscapes to forests (Höchtl to thank Michael Heinl for assistance during the workshop and et al. 2005; Bauer et al. 2009), but people living outside the for data analyses and Christian Newesely, Stefanie Rauscher and Alps perceive forest regeneration less negatively (Hunziker Dagmar Rubatscher for providing data. Three anonymous review- et al. 2008). The results of the survey indicate that tourists ers are acknowledged for their helpful comments. We also thank appreciate abandoned land and forest better than the local Brigitte Scott for language editing. This research was funded by the ERA-Net BiodivERsA, with the national funder FWF, population. We found the highest aesthetic values related part of the 2008 BiodivERsA call for research proposals. This to extensively managed grassland or larch meadows and study was conducted on the LTER site ‘Stubai Valley’, a member lower values for meadows of high land-use intensity or of the Austrian LTSER Platform ‘Tyrolean Alps’. The institu- abandoned land. tions involved are part of the interdisciplinary research centres ‘Ecology of the Alpine Region’ and ‘Mountain Agriculture’ In our study, we focused on a selection of ecosystem within the research area ‘Alpine Space – Man and Environment’ services to which local stakeholders and farmers attached at the University of Innsbruck. 134 U. Schirpke et al. European Commission. 2010. Brussels (Belgium): the CAP References towards 2020: meeting the food, natural resources and terri- Abegg B. 1996. Klimaänderung und Tourismus. Klimafol- torial challenges of the future [Internet]. [cited 2012 Aug 16]. genforschung am Beispiel des Wintertourismus in den Available from: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Lex Schweizer Alpen. Zürich (Switzerland): vdf Hochschul- UriServ.do?uri=COM:2010:0672:FIN:en:PDF verlag AG. Foley JA, DeFries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Badgley C, Moghtader J, Quintero E, Zakem E, Chappell MJ, Carpenter SR, Chapin FS, Coe MT, Daily GC, Gibbs HK, Avilés-Vázquez K, Samulon A, Perfecto I. 2007. Organic et al. 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science. agriculture and the global food supply. Renew Agr Food Sys. 309(5734):570–574. 22(2):86–108. Gellrich M, Zimmermann NE. 2007. Investigating the regional- Bauer N, Wallner A, Hunziker M. 2009. The change of scale pattern of agricultural land abandonment in the European landscapes: human-nature relationships, public Swiss mountains: a spatial statistical modelling approach. attitudes towards rewilding, and the implications for land- Landscape Urban Plan. 79(1):65–76. scape management in Switzerland. J Environ Manage. Gimona A, van der Horst D. 2007. Mapping hotspots of multiple 90(9):2910–2920. landscape functions: a case study on farmland afforestation Bayfield N, Barancok P, Furger M, Sebastià MT, Domínguez G, in Scotland. Landscape Ecol. 22(8):1255–1264. Lapka M, Cudlinova E, Vescovo L, Ganielle D, Cernusca A, Giupponi C, Ramanzin M, Sturaro E, Fuser S. 2006. Climate et al. 2008. Stakeholder perceptions of the impacts of rural and land use changes, biodiversity and agri-environmental funding scenarios on mountain landscapes across Europe. measures in the Belluno province, Italy. Environ Sci Policy. Ecosystems. 11(8):1368–1382. 9(2):163–173. Beniston M. 2006. Mountain weather and climate: a general Gordon LJ, Finlayson CM, Falkenmark M. 2010. Managing overview and a focus on climatic change in the Alps. water in agriculture for food production and other ecosystem Hydrobiologia. 562(1):3–16. services. Agric Water Manage. 97(4):512–519. Bennett EM, Peterson GD, Gordon LJ. 2009. Understanding Grabherr G. 2009. Biodiversity in the high ranges of the relationships among multiple ecosystem services. Ecol Lett. Alps: ethnobotanical and climate change perspectives. Global 12(12):1394–1404. Environ Change. 19(2):167–172. Bouwman AF, Beusen AHW, Billen G. 2009. Human alteration Grêt-Regamey A, Bebi P, Bishop ID, Schmid WA. 2008. Linking of the global nitrogen and phosphorus soil balances for the GIS-based models to value ecosystem services in an Alpine period 1970–2050. Global Biogeochem Cycles. 23:GB0A04. region. J Environ Manage. 89(3):197–208. Chan KMA, Shaw MR, Cameron DR, Underwood EC, Daily GC. Harlinger O, Knees G. 1999. Klimahandbuch Der 2006. Conservation planning for ecosystem services. PLoS Österreichischen Bodenschätzung. Klimatographie. 1. Biol. 4(11):e379. Teil. 1st ed. Innsbruck (Austria): Universitätsverlag Wagner. Chen XF, Chen JM, An SQ, Ju WM. 2007. Effects of topogra- Höchtl F, Lehringer S, Konold W. 2005. “Wilderness”: what it phy on simulated net primary productivity at landscape scale. means when it becomes a reality—a case study from the J Environ Manage. 85(3):585–596. southwestern Alps. Landscape Urban Plan. 70(1–2):85–95. Clarke J, McClung DM. 1999. Full-depth avalanche occur- Hunziker M, Felber P, Gehring K, Buchecker M, Bauer N, rences caused by snow gliding, Coquihalla, British Columbia, Kienast F. 2008. Evaluation of landscape change by different Canada. Canada J Glaciol. 45(151):539–546. social groups. Mt Res Dev. 28(2):140–147. de Groot RS, Alkemade R, Braat L, Hein L, Willemen L. 2010. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2000. Emissions Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services scenarios. A special report of working group III of the inter- and values in landscape planning, management and decision governmental panel on climate change. Cambridge (UK): making. Ecol Complex. 7(3):260–272. Cambridge University Press. de la Vega-Leinert A, Schröter D, Leemans R, Fritsch U, Kienast F, Bolliger J, Potschin M, de Groot R, Verburg P, Pluimers J. 2008. A stakeholder dialogue on European vul- Heller I, Wascher D, Haines-Young R. 2009. Assessing land- nerability. Reg Environ Change. 8(3):109–124. scape functions with broad-scale environmental data: insights Dorner B, Lertzman K, Fall J. 2002. Landscape pattern in topo- gained from a prototype development for Europe. Environ graphically complex landscapes: issues and techniques for Manage. 44(6):1099–1120. analysis. Landscape Ecol. 17(8):729–743. Klapp E, Boeker P, König F, Stählin A. 1953. Das Grünland. Egger G. 1999. Biotopkartierung Nationalpark Hohe Tauern. Hannover: Schaper. Wertzahlen der Grünlandpflanzen; Erhebung, Bewertung und Maßnahmenentwicklung aus- p. 38–40. gewählter Biotope der Außenzone des Nationalparks Hohe Kok K, Rothman DS, Patel M. 2006. Multi-scale narratives Tauern (Tirol). Studie im Auftrag von Bundesministerium für from an IA perspective: part I. European and Mediterranean Umwelt, Jugend und Familie, Klagenfurt. scenario development. Futures. 38(3):261–284. Egger G, Angermann K, Aigner S, Buchgraber K. 2005. Körner C. 2003. Alpine plant life: functional plant ecology of GIS-Gestützte Ertragsmodellierung zur Optimierung des high mountain ecosystems. 2nd ed. Heidelberg (Germany): Weidemanagements auf Almweiden. Gumpenstein: BAL – Springer. Bundesanst. für Alpenländ. Landwirtschaft. Lamarque P, Tappeiner U, Turner C, Steinbacher M, Bardgett R, Egoh B, Reyers B, Rouget M, Bode M, Richardson D. 2009. Szukics U, Schermer M, Lavorel S. 2011. Stakeholder per- Spatial congruence between biodiversity and ecosystem ser- ceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowl- vices in South Africa. Biol Conserv. 142(3):553–562. edge on soil fertility and biodiversity. Reg Environ Change. Egoh B, Reyers B, Rouget M, Richardson DM, Le Maitre 11(4):791–804. DC, van Jaarsveld AS. 2008. Mapping ecosystem services Lavorel S, Grigulis K, Lamarque P, Colace M, Garden D, Girel J, for planning and management. Agric Ecosyst Environ. Pellet G, Douzet R. 2011. Using plant functional traits to 127(1–2):135–140. understand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystem Eigenbrod F, Armsworth PR, Anderson BJ, Heinemeyer A, services. J Ecol. 99(1):135–147. Gillings S, Roy DB, Thomas CD, Gaston KJ. 2010. Leitinger G, Höller P, Tasser E, Walde J, Tappeiner U. 2008. Error propagation associated with benefits transfer-based Development and validation of a spatial snow-glide model. mapping of ecosystem services. Biol Conserv. 143(11): Ecol Model. 211(3–4):363–374. 2487–2493. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 135 Leitinger G, Tasser E, Newesely C, Obojes N, Tappeiner U. 2010. Steiger R. 2010. The impact of climate change on ski season Seasonal dynamics of surface runoff in mountain grass- length and snowmaking requirements in Tyrol, Austria. Clim land ecosystems differing in land use. J Hydrol. 385(1–4): Res. 43(3):251–262. 95–104. Strauss F, Formayer H, Schmid E. 2012. High resolution climate Mayring, P. 2002. Einführung in die Qualitative Sozialforschung. data for Austria in the period 2008–2040 from a statistical cli- 5th revised ed. Weinheim (Germany): Beltz Verlag. mate change model. Int J Climatol. DOI: 10.1002/joc.3434. Metzger MJ, Rounsevell M, Michlik A, Leemans R, Schröter D. Strauss F, Schmid E, Moltchanova E, Formayer H, Wang X. 2006. The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land use 2011. Modeling climate change and biophysical impacts of change. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 114(1):69–86. crop production in the Austrian Marchfeld region. Climatic Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and Change. 111(3): 641–664. human well-being: synthesis. Washington (DC): Island Press. Swetnam RD, Fisher B, Mbilinyi BP, Munishi PKT, Willcock S, Mottet A, Ladet S, Coqué N, Gibon A. 2006. Agricultural Ricketts T, Mwakalila S, Balmford A, Burgess ND, Marshall land-use change and its drivers in mountain landscapes: AR, et al. 2011. Mapping socio-economic scenarios of land a case study in the Pyrenees. Agric Ecosyst Environ. cover change: a GIS method to enable ecosystem service 114(2–4):296–310. modeling. J Environ Manage. 92(3):563–574. Naidoo R, Balmford A, Costanza R, Fisher B, Green RE, Lehner Swift MJ, Izac AN, van Noordwijk M. 2004. Biodiversity and B, Malcolm TR, Ricketts TH. 2008. Global mapping of ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes—are we asking ecosystem services and conservation priorities. Proc Natl the right questions? Agric Ecosyst Environ. 104(1):113–134. Acad Sci USA. 105(28):9495–9500. Swinton SM, Lupi F, Robertson GP, Hamilton SK. 2007. Nelson E, Mendoza G, Regetz J, Polasky S, Tallis H, Cameron Ecosystem services and agriculture: cultivating agricultural DR, Chan KMA, Daily GC, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, et al. ecosystems for diverse benefits. Ecol Econ. 64(2):245–252. 2009. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity Tappeiner U, Tappeiner G, Hilbert A, Mattanovich E. 2003. The conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at land- EU agricultural policy and the environment: evaluation of the scape scales. Front Ecol Environ. 7(1):4–11. alpine region. Oxford (UK): Blackwell. Pitesky ME, Stackhouse KR, Mitloehner FM. 2009. Clearing the Tappeiner U, Tasser E, Leitinger G, Cernusca A, Tappeiner G. air: livestock’s contribution to climate change. In: Sparks D, 2008. Effects of historical and likely future scenarios of land editor. Advances in agronomy. Burligton (MA): Academic use on above- and belowground vegetation carbon stocks of Press. p. 1–40. an alpine valley. Ecosystems. 11(8):1383–1400. Rabbinge R, van Diepen CA. 2000. Changes in agriculture and Tasser E, Mader M, Tappeiner U. 2003. Effects of land use in land use in Europe. Eur J Agron. 13(2–3):85–99. alpine grasslands on the probability of landslides. Basic Appl Raudsepp-Hearne C, Peterson GD, Bennett EM. 2010. Ecosystem Ecol. 4(3):271–280. service bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapes. Tasser E, Ruffini F, Tappeiner U. 2009. An integrative approach Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 107(11):5242–5247. for analysing landscape dynamics in diverse cultivated and Reubens B, Poesen J, Danjon F, Geudens G, Muys B. 2007. The natural mountain areas. Landscape Ecol. 24(5):611–628. role of fine and coarse roots in shallow slope stability and Tasser E, Tappeiner U. 2002. Impact of land use changes on soil erosion control with a focus on root system architecture: mountain vegetation. Appl Veg Sci. 5(2):173–184. a review. Trees Struct Funct. 21(4):385–402. Tasser E, Walde J, Tappeiner U, Teutsch A, Noggler W. 2007. Rodriguez JP, Beard TD, Bennett E, Cumming GS, Cork S, Land-use changes and natural reforestation in the Eastern Agard J, Dobson A, Peterson G. 2006. Trade-offs across Central Alps. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 118(1–4):115–129. space, time, and ecosystem services. Ecol Soc. 11(1):28. Theurillat J, Guisan A. 2001. Potential impact of climate change Rounsevell MDA, Reginster I, Araújo MB, Carter TR, on vegetation in the European Alps: a review. Climatic Dendoncker N, Ewert F, House JI, Kankaanpää S, Change. 50(1):77–109. Leemans R, Metzger MJ, et al. 2006. A coherent set of future Thuiller W, Lavorel S, Araújo MB, Sykes MT, Prentice IC. 2005. land use change scenarios for Europe. Agric Ecosyst Environ. Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe. Proc Natl 114(1):57–68. Acad Sci USA. 102(23):8245–8250. Rudel TK, Coomes OT, Moran E, Achard F, Angelsen A, Tilman D, Fargione J, Wolff B, D’Antonio C, Dobson A, Howarth Xu J, Lambin E. 2005. Forest transitions: towards a global R, Schindler D, Schlesinger WH, Simberloff D, Swackhamer understanding of land use change. Global Environ Change. D. 2001. Forecasting agriculturally driven global environ- 15(1):23–31. mental change. Science. 292(5515):281–284. Rutherford GN, Bebi P, Edwards PJ, Zimmermann NE. 2008. Troy A, Wilson MA. 2006. Mapping ecosystem services: prac- Assessing land-use statistics to model land cover change in tical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value a mountainous landscape in the European Alps. Ecol Model. transfer. Ecol Econ. 60(2):435–449. 212(3–4):460–471. Van der Ploeg JD, Long A. 1994. Born from within: practice and Schallberger P. 1999. Wovon handeln bäuerliche Zukunfts- perspectives of endogenous rural development, Van Gorcum, vorstellungen? Determinanten, Dimensionen und Typen Assen. Styles of farming: an introductory note on concepts (German manuscript of the paper: De quel avenir parlent les and methodology. p. 7–30. paysans?). In: Droz Y, Mieville-Ott V, editors. On achève Walz A, Lardelli C, Behrendt H, Grêt-Regamey A, Lundström C, bien les paysans. Reconstruire une identité paysanne dans Kytzia S, Bebi P. 2007. Participatory scenario analysis un monde incertain. Genève (Switzerland): Edition Georg. p. for integrated regional modeling. Landscape Urban Plan. 103–126. 81(1–2):114–131. Schneeberger N, Bürgi M, Kienast F. 2007. Rates of landscape Wischmeier WH, Smith DD. 1978. Predicting rainfall erosion change at the northern fringe of the Swiss Alps: historical and losses – a guide to conservation planning. Washington (DC): recent tendencies. Landscape Urban Plan. 80(1–2):127–136. US Department of Agriculture. Schröter D, Cramer W, Leemans R, Prentice IC, Araújo MB, Zhang W, Ricketts TH, Kremen C, Carney K, Swinton SM. Arnell NW, Bondeau A, Bugmann H, Carter TR, Gracia CA, 2007. Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture. et al. 2005. Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability to Ecol Econ. 64(2):253–260. global change in Europe. Science. 310(5752):1333–1337. Zimmermann P, Tasser E, Leitinger G, Tappeiner U. 2010. Stallman HR. 2011. Ecosystem services in agriculture: determin- Effects of land-use and land-cover pattern on landscape-scale ing suitability for provision by collective management. Ecol biodiversity in the European Alps. Agric Ecosyst Environ. Econ. 71:131–139. 139(1–2):13–22.

Journal

International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management – Taylor & Francis

Published: Jun 1, 2013

Keywords: GIS; aesthetic value; carbon sequestration; forage quality; forage quantity; natural hazard regulation; soil stability; scenario

There are no references for this article.