1Animal Genetic Resources Branch,Animal Production and Health Division,Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO),00153,Rome,Italy.
2Centre for Genetic Resources,the Netherlands (CGN),Wageningen University and Research,P.O. Box 338,6700 AH Wageningen,The Netherlands.
Animal. 2018 Dec;12(12):2627-2638. doi: 10.1017/S1751731118001027. Epub 2018 May 14.
This study investigates how the ecosystem services (ES) linked to livestock grazing are perceived across countries. A total of 82 case studies collected from 42 countries via survey (53.7% cases from Europe and 46.3% from outside of Europe) have been analysed through a multivariate approach. In all, 18 non-provisioning ES were considered. Overall, the reported impacts of livestock grazing on the different ES were much more positive than negative. Notably, a large proportion of respondents reported either positive or very positive impacts for some cultural ES, namely cultural, historic and natural heritage (84%), knowledge systems and educational values (77%), landscape values (74%), and for some supporting and regulating ES, namely habitat provision (66%), nutrient cycling (65%), and bush encroachment/fire control (66%). Based on multiple regression analysis, geographic origin, stakeholder type and species category, as well as protection status of the grazing area, had significant effects on the perception of the impacts. Respondents reported those impacts as more positive in Europe, in protected areas and where several species were present in the grazing area. A significantly larger proportion of respondents reported recognition of ES provided by the grazing livestock population in European countries (40.9%) compared with non-European countries (23.7%). Based on the survey responses it appears that in non-European countries absence of formal recognition, especially by policy makers, is a major challenge for the continued provision of ES in grazing systems. In Europe, where such recognition is already often included in legislation, the long-term sustainability of related policies and incentives to provide such services is viewed as a major issue by the respondents.
本研究调查了与牲畜放牧相关的生态系统服务（ES）在各国是如何被感知的。通过多元分析，对从 42 个国家通过调查收集的 82 个案例研究（53.7%的案例来自欧洲，46.3%来自欧洲以外）进行了分析。总共考虑了 18 个非供应服务。总体而言，报告的牲畜放牧对不同生态系统服务的影响大多是积极的而不是消极的。值得注意的是，很大一部分受访者报告说，一些文化服务，即文化、历史和自然遗产（84%）、知识系统和教育价值（77%）、景观价值（74%），以及一些支持和调节服务，即栖息地提供（66%）、养分循环（65%）和灌木侵入/火灾控制（66%），对一些文化服务和一些支持和调节服务的影响是积极的或非常积极的。基于多元回归分析，地理起源、利益相关者类型和物种类别以及放牧区的保护状况对影响的感知有显著影响。受访者报告说，在欧洲、保护区以及放牧区存在多种物种的情况下，这些影响更为积极。在欧洲国家，与非欧洲国家相比（23.7%），报告认识到放牧牲畜种群提供的 ES 的受访者比例明显更大（40.9%）。根据调查结果，在非欧洲国家，缺乏正式承认，特别是政策制定者的承认，是放牧系统继续提供 ES 的主要挑战。在欧洲，这种承认已经经常被纳入立法，因此受访者认为相关政策的长期可持续性和提供这些服务的激励措施是一个主要问题。
