This article was downloaded by: [152.77.24.34] On: 04 January 2013, At: 09:43 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tbsm21 Multiple ecosystem services of a changing Alpine landscape: past, present and future Uta Schirpke a , Georg Leitinger b , Erich Tasser a , Markus Schermer c , Melanie Steinbacher c & Ulrike Tappeiner a b a Institute for Alpine Environment, EURAC research, Bolzano, 39100, Italy b Institute of Ecology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, 6020, Austria c Department of Sociology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, 6020, Austria Version of record first published: 17 Dec 2012. To cite this article: Uta Schirpke , Georg Leitinger , Erich Tasser , Markus Schermer , Melanie Steinbacher & Ulrike Tappeiner (2012): Multiple ecosystem services of a changing Alpine landscape: past, present and future, International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management, DOI:10.1080/21513732.2012.751936 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21513732.2012.751936 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Transcript
This article was downloaded by [152772434]On 04 January 2013 At 0943Publisher Taylor amp FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number 1072954 Registered office MortimerHouse 37-41 Mortimer Street London W1T 3JH UK
International Journal of Biodiversity ScienceEcosystem Services amp ManagementPublication details including instructions for authors and subscription informationhttpwwwtandfonlinecomloitbsm21
Multiple ecosystem services of a changing Alpinelandscape past present and futureUta Schirpke a Georg Leitinger b Erich Tasser a Markus Schermer c MelanieSteinbacher c amp Ulrike Tappeiner a ba Institute for Alpine Environment EURAC research Bolzano 39100 Italyb Institute of Ecology University of Innsbruck Innsbruck 6020 Austriac Department of Sociology University of Innsbruck Innsbruck 6020 AustriaVersion of record first published 17 Dec 2012
To cite this article Uta Schirpke Georg Leitinger Erich Tasser Markus Schermer Melanie Steinbacher amp UlrikeTappeiner (2012) Multiple ecosystem services of a changing Alpine landscape past present and future InternationalJournal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management DOI101080215137322012751936
To link to this article httpdxdoiorg101080215137322012751936
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use httpwwwtandfonlinecompageterms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research teaching and private study purposes Any substantial or systematicreproduction redistribution reselling loan sub-licensing systematic supply or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date The accuracy of any instructions formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources The publisher shall not be liable for any loss actionsclaims proceedings demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp ManagementiFirst 2012 1ndash13
Multiple ecosystem services of a changing Alpine landscape past present and future
Uta Schirpkea Georg Leitingerb Erich Tassera Markus Schermerc Melanie Steinbacherc and Ulrike Tappeinerab
aInstitute for Alpine Environment EURAC research Bolzano 39100 Italy bInstitute of Ecology University of Innsbruck Innsbruck6020 Austria cDepartment 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 canbe expected under global change For our study site in the Austrian Alps we examined the relationship between agriculturalactivities and multiple ecosystem services on landscape scale from past to future Modelling of future land-use patterns wasbased on stakeholder workshops considering different socio-economic and climate scenarios In the past land-use intensitywas 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 globaleconomic 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 valuablefor regulating services it reduces the aesthetic value Both regulating and cultural services decrease when forage provision isoptimized To ensure multiple ecosystem service provision agricultural management should be related to ecosystem servicesand included into land-use policies and agricultural incentives
The management of agricultural ecosystems (1) ensuresthe provision of food fibre and fuel (2) regulates thewater and carbon balance (3) guards against natural haz-ards and (4) preserves the aesthetic value of the land-scape (Walz et al 2007 de la Vega-Leinert et al 2008Leitinger et al 2008 Tappeiner et al 2008 Lavorelet al 2011) Agricultural modernization with specializa-tion rationalization and mechanization and other moreprofitable sources of income (Rudel et al 2005) have led toa decrease of the used agricultural area in Europe since themid-twentieth century (Rabbinge and van Diepen 2000)The European Alps are particularly affected by dramaticland-use changes with more intensive use of favourableareas (good climate conditions for agriculture and accessi-bility with machinery) and a reduction of less favourableareas remaining in use especially on alpine pastures(Rutherford et al 2008) Abandonment of agriculturalareas results in forest re-growth leading to more homo-geneous landscape patterns (Tasser et al 2007) By the endof the twentieth century change rates seem to decelerate(Schneeberger et al 2007) and Tilman et al (2001) evenpredicted an increase of arable land and pastures
Agricultural productivity relies on a range of support-ing and regulating services (Swinton et al 2007 Zhanget al 2007) At the same time agricultural ecosystemson their part influence ecological functions (Swift et al2004 Stallman 2011) and management activities canlead to altered ecosystem services (Lavorel et al 2011)
Corresponding author Email utaschirpkeeuraceduUta Schirpke and Georg Leitinger are joint first authors
eg downstream water quality (Gordon et al 2010) nitro-gen and phosphorus soil balances (Bouwman et al 2009)CH4 and N2O emissions (Pitesky et al 2009) Land-usechanges related to an intensification of agricultural pro-duction are considered a major threat for the capacity ofecosystems to provide multiple ecosystem services (Foleyet al 2005 Metzger et al 2006) While the increasingdemand for food energy and water leads to changes inland-use pattern climate change causes water stress andvegetation shifts (Theurillat and Guisan 2001 Schroumlteret al 2005) To analyse future impacts of human activ-ities on ecosystem services management scenarios fordecision-making are used (de Groot et al 2010 Swetnamet al 2011)
An increasing number of studies have examinedecosystem services on a global or continental scale(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 Metzger et al2006 Naidoo et al 2008 Kienast et al 2009) as wellas on a regional scale (Chan et al 2006 Egoh et al2009 Eigenbrod et al 2010) While several studies haveaddressed the spatial distribution of multiple ecosystemservices at the level of a landscape (Troy and Wilson 2006Gimona and van der Horst 2007 Egoh et al 2008 Naidooet al 2008 Nelson et al 2009) few studies were car-ried out in mountain regions (Grecirct-Regamey et al 2008Lavorel et al 2011) Moreover there is the need to exam-ine the interdependence of multiple ecosystem services interms of their synergies and trade-offs (Bennett et al 2009Nelson et al 2009 Raudsepp-Hearne et al 2010)
ISSN 2151-3732 printISSN 2151-3740 onlinecopy 2012 Taylor amp Francishttpdxdoiorg101080215137322012751936httpwwwtandfonlinecom
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
2 U Schirpke et al
In the current study we aimed our efforts at examininghistorical and future impacts of altered agricultural activi-ties on multiple ecosystem services of mountain regionsSince ecological functions rely greatly on topographyclimatic conditions and vegetation patterns (Dorner et al2002 Mottet et al 2006 Gellrich and Zimmermann 2007)we adapted existing modelling approaches and developednew methods to quantify ecosystem services to the specificcharacteristics of mountain regions based on a geographicinformation system (GIS) Future multiple ecosystem ser-vices provision was projected based on socio-economicand climate scenarios The specific objectives were asfollows (1) assessment of socio-economic and climatescenarios by a participatory approach (2) GIS-based quan-tification and spatial modelling of multiple ecosystemservices (3) impact analysis of ecosystem services basedon historical and future land-use pattern and (4) trade-offanalysis of multiple ecosystem services
Materials and methods
Study area and data collection
The Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) SiteKaserstattalm (1115primendash1120prime E 475primendash4710prime N) is loca-ted in the Stubai Valley in Austria on moderate to steepslopes facing south and southeast (Figure 1) It extendsover an area of 51 km2 and altitude ranges from 970 to2535 m The average annual air temperature and precipita-tion are 24C and 1100 mm at 1750 m asl respectivelyAgricultural use has shaped the landscape for centuriesThe upper part is covered by alpine meadows and pastures
managed with different intensities More than half of thesegrasslands have been abandoned in recent decades Theyare bounded below by open larch forest that changes todense forest further down The lower slopes and the valleyfloor are intensively used and covered mainly by grasslandfor forage production
Ecosystem services were modelled based on histori-cal and future land-use pattern vegetation distribution andtopography Historical land-use maps (1954 1960 19701980 1990 2001 and 2011) were determined on the basisof orthophotos and historical maps as well as of interviewswith farmers Interpretation and mapping of land-use dis-tribution was done by on-screen digitizing Missing timeperiods were integrated using historical data (agriculturalcensus and village chronicles) and free response inter-views with all 43 landowners and farmers to get detailedinformation about land use ie differentiation betweenmeadows and pastures number of mowings and grazingperiod All information was included in the maps thatwere then checked by the farmers for accuracy (geometryand attributes) For more details on the mapping methodused see Tasser et al (2009) The vegetation was mappedin the field at a scale of 15000 based on orthophotoswith a minimum plot-size of 25 m2 for herbaceous plantcommunities and sim250 m2 for forests For more detailson the mapping method used see Tasser and Tappeiner(2002) To derive topographical characteristics (elevationslope and aspect) which were important for modelling bio-physical and climate-dependent factors a digital elevationmodel (DEM) with a spatial resolution of 5 m times 5 m wasused provided by the Tyrolean Information System (tiriscopy)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 sitelsquoKaserstattalmrsquo (c)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 3
Scenarios
To assess future trends we used different scenarios for(1) socio-economic conditions and (2) climate change
Socio-economic scenarios
Based on current trends of dynamics in the local develop-ment of settlements and job opportunities described by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) thelocal demand for touristic services and the regional andinternational market opportunities for agricultural prod-ucts (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2000)we defined two contrasting socio-economic scenarios (1a)localized scenario and (1b) globalized scenario The termslsquolocalizedrsquo and lsquoglobalizedrsquo do not refer to any spatialscale but to the direction of socio-economic developmentIn the localized scenario the economic development pathassumes rather closed local and regional economic cyclesand is largely independent of global economic changes(IPCC storyline B2) In contrast for a globalized scenarioglobal competition on mass markets is more important thanlocal and regional economic relations (IPCC storyline A1)Based on stakeholder consultations through expert inter-views and group discussions (Lamarque et al 2011) theIPCC scenarios were adapted to the specific conditions ofthe study area
To present the scenarios to stakeholders the followingstorylines were designed
The lsquolocalizedrsquo socio-economic scenario (1a)suggests a development that focuses on thelocalregional economy and proposes an increasein the number of commuters to the regional capital(within a distance of 20 km) in the lower partof the valley and a focus on sustainable tourismactivities (farm holidays hiking tobogganing andbackcountry skiing in winter) Locally producedfood is increasingly in demand and regional andorganic products fetch high prices Farmers receivepayments out of the second pillar of the CommonAgricultural Policy (CAP) for rural development andagri-environmental measures National and regionalsubsidies complement the CAP and also addressregionally targeted environmental specificationsThe regional and the local administrations contributefinancial support for infrastructure (road mainte-nance joint processing and marketing facilities) andjoin use of special agricultural equipment
The lsquoglobalizedrsquo socio-economic scenario (1b) isbased on the assumption that the study area willaim for competitiveness on a world market It alsoforecasts an increasing number of commuters to theregional capital In the upper part of the valleytourism is based on an increasing number of ski runsfor winter activities glacier skiing all year roundand outdoor adventure activities in summer Thisresults in mass tourism and new hotel complexesThe farmers are only paid to manage agricultural
land according to the recreational demands in spe-cially designated locations As both residents andtourists are assumed to be price-conscious in theirpurchasing behaviour for food products local ori-gin and quality become rather irrelevant Thereforelocal food production is assumed to be not com-petitive because of declining producer prices on theglobal market Agricultural produce as far as it canbe competitive on the world market is processedin highly centralized facilities outside the valleyAgricultural transfer payments are assumed to havefallen on average by about 20 for mountain farms(European Commission 2010) Out of the compen-sation payments of the second pillar of the CAPfor farmers in mountain areas every farmer stillreceives a small basic income that increases withthe provision of global ecosystem services such aspreservation and enhancement of biodiversity waterquality and plants for CO2 sequestration Theseassumptions were based on lsquopolicy option 3rsquo as pre-sented in the Communication from the EuropeanCommission (European Commission 2010)
Climate scenarios
Climate change scenarios of both General CirculationModels (GCMs) and Regional Climate Models (RCMs)suffer from uncertainties especially in mountain regions(Beniston 2006) To account for regional climate patternswe used a daily climate change dataset for Austriawith a spatial resolution of 1 km2 provided by Strausset al (2012) The datasets were projected for the period2008ndash2040 with ACLiReM (Austrian Climate changeModel using Linear Regression Strauss et al 2011) basedon historical daily weather station data from 1975 to2007 and linear regression with repeated bootstrappingStarting from the status quo (SQ) we defined three dif-ferent climate scenarios for our study site (2a) 5-year sce-nario (2b) 20-year scenario and (2c) worst-case scenarioStrauss et al (2012) calculated three different temperaturescenarios We selected the lsquohighrsquo temperature scenario (iemaximum mean temperature for the period 2008ndash2040)For changing precipitation rates there is no clear sig-nal for the next three decades and Strauss et al (2012)provide 17 different scenarios for precipitation In linewith Beniston (2006) we selected increasing daily winterprecipitation (SeptemberndashFebruary) by 10 and decreas-ing daily summer precipitation (MarchndashAugust) by 10for the 5-year and 20-year scenarios For the worst-casescenario we used decreasing daily precipitation by 20
To present the scenarios to stakeholders the followingstorylines were designed
In the 5-year scenario (2a) dry years are alternat-ing with normally wet years and occur in three outof 5 years For dry years spring-time conditions aredry with very little run-off due to missing meltingwater from the tops The summers are characterized
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
4 U Schirpke et al
Table 1 Mean annual temperature annual precipitation andsummer precipitation (AprilndashSeptember) of the status quo andscenarios for normal and dry years
Status quo5-year
normal year
5-yeardry
yeara
20-yearnormalyearb
20-yeardry
yearb
Mean annualtemperature (C)
24 69 58 77
Annual precipitation(mm)
1100 549 845 416
Summerprecipitation (mm)
687 283 535 207
Note aCorresponds conditions in the dry year 2003bStrauss et al (2012)
by little rainfall and high temperatures (Table 1)Precipitation in winter falls almost exclusively asrain and leads to a shorter period of solid snow coverIn dry years vegetation below sim1300 m experiencesextreme drought stress and hay yield is only 50 ofthe usual amount (Egger et al 2005)
For the 20-year scenario (2b) the trend withincreased temperatures and variable precipitationpatterns continues and leads to warm winter monthswith very little snow (Table 1) We assume that dryyears occur in 7 out of 10 years (Abegg 1996 Steiger2010) Mainly on alpine meadows and pasturesaverage years produce little loss of yield (simndash10)while dry years reduce agricultural yields by about50 (Egger et al 2005 Pfurtscheller 2012 personalcommunication) Snow cover becomes unreliablebelow 1500 m asl and the conditions for artificialsnow-making are getting poorer Ski tourism is onlyprofitable above 1800 m asl (Steiger 2010)
In the worst-case scenario (2c) most years are verydry with climatic conditions similar to the dry yearsof the 20-year scenario As snow reliability fails(Abegg 1996 Steiger 2010) and springs are drywinter tourism collapses and hay yields are rarelygood enough to make farming feasible
Workshops
The two socio-economic scenarios (termed lsquolocalizedrsquo andlsquoglobalizedrsquo see above) were combined with the climatescenarios resulting in six different overall scenarios(1) localized 5-year LN(5) (2) localized 20-year LN(20)(3) localized worst-case LW(20) (4) globalized 5-yearGN(5) (5) globalized 20-year GN(20) and (6) glob-alized worst-case GW(20) To assess the managementimplications of the different scenarios two workshopsone for the localized scenarios and another one for theglobalized scenarios were organized with 4ndash6 farmersfrom the Stubai Valley in each session A qualitativeapproach was used to select farmers that represent typicalsituations to get a lsquopublic opinion collective attitudesand ideologiesrsquo (Mayring 2002) in the context of futureland-use management
To capture various opinions and solutions the farm-ers were selected by their socio-economic profilescharacterized by their modern or traditional habitus(Schallberger 1999) and their approach towards marketand nature This was reflected in different farming styles(Van der Ploeg and Long 1994) combining production pat-terns (organic or conventional high or low mechanization)with market approaches (directindirect marketing chan-nels) and different employment situation (ie part-time orfull-time employed or self-employed) During the work-shops the farmers were asked to develop a joint strategyto react to the specific scenarios In addition they were toexplain related land-use changes For the study area spatialmapping of the scenarios was done on orthophotos by thefarmers and later digitalized
Modelling ecosystem services
Lamarque et al (2011) identified a common set of ecosys-tem services of mountain grasslands that were consid-ered important by local stakeholders and farmers for theStubai Valley (aesthetic value carbon sequestration foragequality forage quantity natural hazard regulation pollina-tion recreation soil stability water quality and water quan-tity) Accordingly we modelled a selection of ecosystemservices for our study site lsquoKaserstattalmrsquo based on land-use pattern vegetation distribution and topographic char-acteristics using 5 m times 5 m resolution data We adaptedthe different GIS-based modelling approaches which aredescribed in the following in detail to the specific topo-graphic conditions of mountain regions to quantify theecosystem services on a landscape scale Raster mapswere created for historical dates and future scenarios andrescaled to values ranging from 0 to 100 For reporting wecalculated mean values of the total study area
Aesthetic value
The aesthetic value was assessed by a photo survey (seesupplementary online material httpinformahealthcarecomdoisuppl[101080215137322012751936]) Thestandardized questionnaire was composed of five photo-graphic series each consisting of four photographs relatedto (1) different management types of alpine grassland(pasture meadow and abandoned land) (2) differentmanagement intensities of meadows (number of mowingsand fertilization) (3) different successional stages ofabandoned land (4) different management types of alpinegrassland at flowering season (meadow of lowhigh land-use intensity pasture and abandoned land) and (5) differentmanagement types of alpine grassland after cutting orgrazing A total of 78 persons locals and tourists wereinterviewed at the alpine hut which is located at 1900 masl on our study site lsquoKaserstattalmrsquo and asked to givescores to the pictures of each series according to theirpreferences (1 for least preferred and 4 for most pre-ferred) To map the aesthetic value we linked the resultingpreference values to the different land-use categories
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 5
Carbon sequestration
Carbon density (Mg C haminus1) assigned to each vegetationtype was derived from above-ground and below-groundphytomass (Mg haminus1) and C-stocks (g gminus1) resulted fromproject-area-relevant literature and own measurementsAbove-ground phytomass was measured by harvestingor cutting the vegetation of defined plots Below-groundphytomass was determined by taking soil cores and manualexcavation of roots For further details refer to Tappeineret al (2008) Phytomass and C-content were multiplied andan area-weighted mean value for each land-use categorywas obtained by overlaying the vegetation and the land-usemaps
Forage quality
Each vegetation type was assigned a forage quality valueaccording to Klapp et al (1953) By overlaying the veg-etation and the land-use maps an area-weighted meanvalue for each land-use category was obtained To accountfor changing climate conditions within land-use typeseach raster cell was corrected by the elevation accord-ing to Egger (1999) where forage quality increases below1800 m asl (10 per 100 m) and decreases above 2200 masl (10 per 200 m) This leads to a differentiationof our community-weighted mean for climatic and soildifferences
Forage quantity
Forage quantity is a function of topography and land-usepattern and was estimated on the basis of productivity typeof grassland determined by plant species and the growingseason (Egger et al 2005) Using the DEM the days withvegetation growth were determined according to Harflingerand Knees (1999) for the climate zone inner-alpine westHigher mean temperatures of the scenarios are consideredby lowering the DEM with the temperature lapse rate of6C per km of elevation (Koumlrner 2003) The forage quan-tity was corrected by topography ie slope and aspectwhich can accelerate or diminish vegetation growthAs precipitation requirements for forage are 100 mm pre-cipitation per 1000 kg forage (Egger et al 2005) themaximum possible forage quantity is limited by the totalamount of summer precipitation (AprilndashSeptember)
Natural hazard regulation
Natural hazards in mountain regions are mainly massmovements ie rock fall and landslides debris flows andavalanches As rock fall is no major issue in our studyarea natural hazard regulation was modelled on the basisof (1) snow gliding (2) surface water run-off and (3) rootdensity Avalanches are often caused by snow gliding(Clarke and McClung 1999) To predict snow gliding sixkey drivers (forest stand slope angle winter precipita-tion surface roughness slope aspect west and slope aspect
east) were used (Leitinger et al 2008) Snow gliding alsoincreases the probability of landslides (Tasser et al 2003)Surface water run-off contributing to landslides mud-flows and floods is a function of above-ground phytomassskeleton fraction-soil stone content in 0ndash01 m soil depthannual precipitation and elevation (Leitinger et al 2010)Root density is related to slope stability (Reubens et al2007) We mapped root mass associated to each vegetationtype (Tappeiner et al 2008) and obtained an area-weightedmean value for each land-use category by overlaying thevegetation and the land-use maps To determine naturalhazard regulation the three input factors snow gliding sur-face water run-off and root density were added for eachraster cell
Soil stability
To predict the soil stability we used the universal soil lossequation (USLE Wischmeier and Smith 1978) The rate ofsoil erosion is a function of land-use pattern soil type pre-cipitation and topography The erosivity factor ndash the greaterthe intensity and duration of the rain storm the higher theerosion potential ndash was assumed to be equal throughout thestudy area and therefore excluded from calculation as wefound no significant differences in rainfall intensity (mmper time unit) between our climate stations at 970 17501850 and 2000 m asl Slope characteristics were derivedfrom the DEM As no data about soil characteristics wereavailable we used root density which is related to soil sta-bility (Reubens et al 2007) Root mass associated witheach vegetation type (Tappeiner et al 2008) was overlaidon the land-use map and an area-weighted mean value foreach land-use category calculated
Multiple ecosystem services analysis
A multiple ecosystem services map was obtained by thesum of all ecosystem services using 0ndash100 scaled valuesImpacts of land-use change were visualized by creatingmaps of ecosystem service change To understand trade-offs and synergies between different ecosystem servicesa principal component analysis (PCA) was performed inArcGISTM (Version 931 Spatial Analyst ESRI) for his-torical dates and future scenarios Using the six differentecosystem services maps as input raster layers eigenvec-tors eigenvalues a covariance matrix and a correlationmatrix were calculated and maps of the components weregenerated
Results
Scenario workshop
During the workshop the farmers specified that their deci-sions about intensity and type of agricultural use aredriven by different key factors agricultural policies cli-mate conditions nature protection topography and eco-nomic motivations The general strategies for responding
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
6 U Schirpke et al
to the different socio-economic and climate scenarios arerepresentative for the whole region Spatial distributionof land-use patterns was mapped only for the study arealsquoKaserstattalmrsquo
In the globalized scenarios the farmers shift theiractivities towards tourism (in which most of them arealready engaged part-time) and continue managing alpinegrasslands and pastures for landscape conservation Largemeadows are managed as long as they can be mown bymachinery otherwise they are transformed into pasturesThe farmers react to global pressure and decreasingmarket-prices with a shift in livestock ie from cattleto sheep and goats Higher temperatures due to climatechange allow a diversification of products ie vegetablesor wine-growing and animals can stay longer on pasturesIrrigation might become necessary for agricultural useon the valley floor but the farmers were convinced thatthe glacier will continue to provide the required amountof irrigation water even in times of drought For theglobalized worst-case scenario GW(20) farmers assumea global financial crisis In times of economic crisis withscarce employment opportunities farming becomes moreimportant Hence almost any available area is used foragriculture to cover the subsistence food requirements ofthe region
During the workshop on the localized scenarios farm-ers rated the market opportunities of this scenario as goodand considered new crops like pumpkins on the valley floorand new production niches like dairy sheep farming onthe slope The farmers considered water scarcity due to cli-mate change as the biggest problem Irrigation howeverwas seen as a solution only for some farmers in the val-ley on areas of high land-use intensity Farmers on dryslopes would not benefit from irrigation as pumping upwater for irrigation was not thought feasible The use offavourable areas is intensified and diversified for productsneeded on local markets (eg wine fruits and vegetables)Less favourable areas especially on hill sites are largelyabandoned or used for grazing with sheep Livestock farm-ing remains more important than arable farming even ifthe proportion of arable land grows The farmers continuemanaging their agricultural land as long as it is profitable(also due to payments for landscape preservation) and com-bine agricultural activities with other occupations whichstill allow part-time farming Continued transfer paymentswere thought necessary but the restrictions imposed by thecompulsory 5-year period of the contracts were severelycriticized With the prospect of weather conditions pos-sibly varying more frequently from year to year farmersrequested more freedom in their management decisionsAs tourism is likely to increase especially during sum-mer some areas might be adapted for touristic use egwith golf courses and small artificial lakes There is nojoint strategy for facing possible future socio-economicand climate changes but rather individual solutions thatneed to be developed and for each farm to find its ownniche The localized worst-case scenario is dominated byan abandonment of farms due to prolonged drought periods
and overregulation Farmers complained that the existingregulations of contractual commitments for transfer pay-ments in the agri-environmental programme (no land-usechange within the 5-year period) already hinder innova-tions This leads to critical situations especially in thecourse of farm succession
Land-use change
Historical changes
From 1954 to 2011 agricultural use generally decreased(Table 2) The main period of abandonment occurred inthe 1960s and 1970s Larch meadows in particular werealmost completely abandoned until 2011 leading to anincrease of dense forest after several decades Alpine pas-tures and meadows were reduced to 38 of the area in1954 meadows decreasing more rapidly than pasturesOn the valley floor arable land disappeared completely in1970 and changed to grassland of high land-use intensity
Future changes
Land-use changes for the scenarios GN(5) and LN(5) coin-cide and land-use distribution is similar to the SQ (Table 2)This is not astonishing as farmers depend on the trans-fer payments from agri-environmental programmes with a5-year contractual period Half of the abandoned land isused again as alpine pastures and the land-use intensityof meadows has increased The change from abandonedland to alpine pastures continues with a lower transfor-mation rate for the 20-year scenarios Future changes areexpected to result from either a collapse of the worldeconomy (scenario GW(20)) or over-regulation in times ofincreased climatic variation The results of both the sce-narios are entirely different In GW the post-World War IIlandscape is re-established while in scenario LW(20) largeparts are expected to be reforested and abandoned TheGW scenario forecasts massive intensification of use and areversal of almost the entire area to agricultural use Higherareas are dominated by pastures and meadows of low land-use intensity On favourable areas land-use intensity ofmeadows is high Even large areas of previously aban-doned larch meadows are used again especially in areasof higher elevation where forest regeneration occurs moreslowly On the valley floor 30 of the grassland is trans-formed to arable land The farmers considered LN(20) asthe maximum likely reduction of land use as long as thelocal conditions allow farming However future gener-ations might change occupation and abandon all alpinegrassland leading to an increase of forest and abandonedland The valley floor is still managed by big farmers
Ecosystem services
Landscape pattern
Spatial distribution of ecosystem services is related to land-use pattern and topography (Figures 2 and 3) The aesthetic
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 7
Table 2 Land-use distribution of the study area lsquoKaserstattalmrsquo for historical dates the status quo and the scenarios
Total changed area 226 208 161 98 95 57 minus 42 55 46 221 119
Notes The total changed area refers to the status quoaMowing every 3ndash5 yearsbMowing every 2 yearsc1ndash2 mowings per yeard3ndash4 mowings per year
value is highest for meadows of low land-use intensity fol-lowed by abandoned larch meadows Alpine pastures andmeadows are preferred to abandoned land Least attractiveare meadows of high land-use intensity and forest Carbonsequestration is highest in forests and reaches good valuesin larch meadows Meadows of very low land-use inten-sity and abandoned land store more carbon than alpinepastures whereas meadows of high land-use intensity andarable land store the least carbon Meadows of high land-use intensity on the valley floor produce highest foragequantities and have the best forage quality Productionrates and quality diminish with decreasing managementintensity and increasing elevation Pastures have lower for-age quality than meadows Natural hazard regulation islower for alpine pastures than for meadows of low land-useintensity or abandoned land due to higher soil compactionand higher surface run-off Forest and larch meadowshave highest natural hazard regulation values Soil stabilitydepends highly on the slope gradient and the vegetationcover Abandoned land has higher root densities than man-aged grasslands Lowest erosion risk arises on the flatvalley floor and in forests followed by larch meadows andabandoned land on moderate slopes
Historical impacts
Historical land-use changes have led to an increase of thetotal ecosystem service value but have influenced the anal-ysed ecosystem services to different degrees (Figure 3)The aesthetic value increased between 1954 and 1990 pri-marily due to the abandonment of larch meadows whereasthe subsequent decrease was caused by forest regenera-tion An increase in carbon sequestration occurred after1990 because of forest growth Mean values of forage
quality and quantity have risen continuously particularlybetween 1970 and 1980 Large areas of alpine pasturesand meadows were abandoned and only areas with higherproduction rates and better forage quality continued to bemanaged The total forage amount of the entire study sitehas decreased by 47 since 1954 Natural hazard regu-lation and soil stability increased after 1990 when forestreplaced larch meadows and managed grasslands weremore and more abandoned
Future impacts
The total ecosystem service value for all scenarios is lowerthan the SQ except LW(20) and decreases with time forthe globalized scenarios while decelerating for the local-ized scenarios (Figure 3) In the 5-year scenarios onlysmall changes are predicted for carbon sequestration andsoil stability Less precipitation and higher temperaturesgenerally lower the risk of natural hazards because of lesssnow cover and reduced surface run-off Areas for forageproduction are extended but mean forage quality and quan-tity decrease because pastures are lower in forage qualityand quantity than meadows Higher impacts are estimatedfor the 20-year scenarios Carbon sequestration naturalhazard regulation and soil stability increase while meanforage quality and quantity continue to decrease Highestimpacts occur in GW(20) where all ecosystem servicevalues decrease except aesthetic value and natural hazardregulation Forage production is limited due to signifi-cantly lower precipitation Loss of areas with high land-useintensity for forage production is compensated for by anenormous increase of used areas especially pastures Meanforage quantity and quality are therefore lower but the totalforage amount produced by the entire study site reaches
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
8 U Schirpke et al
Figure 2 Ecosystem services of different land-use types for the status quo Values are re-scaled to 0ndash100
more than double that of SQ Impacts in LW(20) arecontrary to GW(20) with a decrease in the aesthetic valueand improved regulating services Agricultural activitiescontinue only on the valley floor Although provisioningservices improve significantly the total forage amount ofthe entire study site is only about 17 of that in SQ
Trade-offs
We applied a PCA for all time steps to assess trade-offsand synergies between multiple ecosystem services Thefirst two components explain 85ndash89 of the variance (for
SQ see Table 3) The relationships between the differ-ent ecosystem services indicate only little changes acrosstime but differ between different land-usecover categories(Figure 4) Thus we concentrate on the SQ The first axis isdriven by contrasts between regulating ecosystem servicesdominated by carbon sequestration and the aesthetic valueand forage provision (Table 3 Figure 5) Regarding dif-ferent land-use types the first component has high valuesfor forest while pastures and meadows have low val-ues (Figure 4) The second axis is driven by contrastsbetween the aesthetic value and forage provision (Table 3Figure 5) High aesthetic values are associated to extensive
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 9
Figure 3 Landscape pattern of ecosystem services for the status quo Values are re-scaled to 0ndash100 Historical development and futuretrends in normalized ecosystem services All scores are normalized by their status quo levels
Table 3 Correlation matrix of PCA for the status quo
Figure 4 Maps of contrasts of (a) the first component and (b)the second component for the status quo
use and lower values with intensive use whereas foragequantity and quality show contrary dependencies Highestvalues of the second component emerge for abandonedlarch meadows with high values for aesthetics and carbonsequestration (Figure 4) Synergies occur between forage
Figure 5 PCA plot of eigenvectors (component 1 times compo-nent 2) for the status quo
quality and forage quantity (r gt 05) (Table 4) Carbonsequestration natural hazard regulation and soil stabilityare also positively correlated (r gt 05) For forests carbonsequestration natural hazard regulation and soil stabilityare negatively correlated with the aesthetic value while forother land-use categories the variables are independent
Discussion
Scenario analysis has often been linked with participatoryapproaches to understand socio-economic administrativecultural political and environmental dynamics within aparticular region (Kok et al 2006 Walz et al 2007)We asked local farmers of the Stubai Valley to specifythe management implications arising in different socio-economic conditions under climate change As key driversfor land-use change the farmers identified agriculturalfunding policies market prices and dryer climate condi-tions While the farmers keep managing agricultural landin the globalized scenarios and respond to global pressureby diversification of products and livestock agriculturalland is partly abandoned in the localized scenarios (espe-cially on the slopes and on alpine pastures) or transformedinto touristic areas During the next 20 years about 11 ofthe area will be subject to land-use changes in GN(20) and9 in LN(20) GW(20) predicts even changes for 43of the total area The farmers considered LW(20) whichaffects 23 of the area not very likely to occur sincethey keep managing agricultural land as long as the localeconomy allows However future generations might decidedifferently During the last decade agriculturally usedareas have been widely abandoned in the European Alpsespecially in southern Italian and French Alps (Houmlchtl et al2005 Giupponi et al 2006 Zimmermann et al 2010)The resulting land-use changes for our study site corre-spond generally to Europe-wide land-usecover scenarios(Rounsevell et al 2006 Bayfield et al 2008) Since theStubai Valley was identified by Tappeiner et al (2003) asan Alpine lsquostandard regionrsquo characterized by agriculturaluse with a specialization in livestock farming which isrepresentative for 22 of the European Alps the studyresults are likely to correspond to the development of othercomparable 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-basedmodelling approaches to quantify the provision of mul-tiple ecosystem services for historical dates and futurescenarios on a landscape scale In mountain regionsecosystem services are influenced by topographic char-acteristics For provisioning services we found strongdependencies to topography As confirmed by Chen et al(2007) forage quantity decreases with increasing eleva-tion Many regulating services are also determined bytopography eg natural hazard regulation and slope stabil-ity are better for smaller slope gradients Consistent withother studies different ecosystem services correspond tolandscape pattern (Gimona and van der Horst 2007 Naidoo
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 11
et al 2008 Egoh et al 2009) The aesthetic value is higherfor alpine pastures and meadows of low land-use inten-sity than for forest or meadows of high land-use intensityCarbon sequestration is higher for forest than for grasslandService hotspots are larch meadows which have howeveralmost completely disappeared in recent decades Impactson multiple ecosystem services can be related to land-usecover change Previous land-use changes have led toan increase of all ecosystem service values except the aes-thetic value The scenarios predict a trend reversion formost ecosystem services apart from natural hazard regula-tion and the aesthetic value For modelling future scenarioswe assumed that plant species distribution is only influ-enced by land use However species distribution shifts andeven extinction of alpine plants can be expected due toclimate change (Thuiller et al 2005 Grabherr 2009)
We found trade-offs between provisioning ecosystemservices and both regulating and cultural ecosystem ser-vices also confirmed by other studies (Bennett et al 2009Raudsepp-Hearne et al 2010) Forested areas cannot beused for forage production but are very valuable for carbonsequestration The aesthetic value is negatively correlatedto forage quantity and forage quality ie increasing man-agement intensity leads to higher forage production butreduces the aesthetic value Comparable to Badgley et al(2007) who found that trade-offs between agricultural pro-duction and many ecosystem services can be avoided byusing sustainable management practices our research find-ings indicate that extensive use has a positive influence onregulating and cultural ecosystem services We also foundtrade-offs between regulating and cultural ecosystem ser-vices While the aesthetic value of dense forest is lowerthan for grasslands carbon sequestration and natural haz-ard regulation are higher Since managed landscapes areareas of cultural importance the local population is crit-ical of any shift from rural landscapes to forests (Houmlchtlet al 2005 Bauer et al 2009) but people living outside theAlps perceive forest regeneration less negatively (Hunzikeret al 2008) The results of the survey indicate that touristsappreciate abandoned land and forest better than the localpopulation We found the highest aesthetic values relatedto extensively managed grassland or larch meadows andlower values for meadows of high land-use intensity orabandoned land
In our study we focused on a selection of ecosystemservices to which local stakeholders and farmers attached
importance (Lamarque et al 2011) Several ecosystemservices related to agriculture have been neglected includ-ing pollination water quantity and quality and recreationMoreover management practices control disservices fromagriculture eg habitat loss nutrient run-off pesticidepoisoning of non-target species (Zhang et al 2007) andfuture efforts will be concentrated on modelling additionalservices and disservices to agriculture
Conclusions
Ecosystem services related to agriculture contribute tohuman well-being Provisioning services are directlyrelated to land use but also regulating and cultural servicesdepend on management practices Future land-use policiesshould take into account that ecosystem services in moun-tain regions are closely linked to topographic and climaticconditions and a more flexible system for financial supportcould improve the farmersrsquo options for reacting to climaticvariations Trade-offs are related to land use and occurbetween provisioning regulating and cultural servicesService hotspots and multiple ecosystem service provisioncan be enhanced by sustainable agricultural managementTourism is likely to be strengthened under both the global-ized and the localized scenario and is positively influencedby extensive agricultural management enhancing the aes-thetic value With regard to economic benefits derivingfrom tourism landscape preferences linked to agriculturalpractices should be integrated into land-use policies andagricultural incentives for a sustainable development ofmountain regions
AcknowledgementsWe thank the farmers of the Stubai Valley for participating inthe scenario workshop and for their valuable inputs We wishto thank Michael Heinl for assistance during the workshop andfor data analyses and Christian Newesely Stefanie Rauscher andDagmar Rubatscher for providing data Three anonymous review-ers are acknowledged for their helpful comments We also thankBrigitte Scott for language editing This research was fundedby the ERA-Net BiodivERsA with the national funder FWFpart of the 2008 BiodivERsA call for research proposals Thisstudy was conducted on the LTER site lsquoStubai Valleyrsquo a memberof the Austrian LTSER Platform lsquoTyrolean Alpsrsquo The institu-tions involved are part of the interdisciplinary research centreslsquoEcology of the Alpine Regionrsquo and lsquoMountain Agriculturersquowithin the research area lsquoAlpine Space ndash Man and Environmentrsquoat the University of Innsbruck
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
12 U Schirpke et al
ReferencesAbegg B 1996 Klimaaumlnderung und Tourismus Klimafol-
genforschung am Beispiel des Wintertourismus in denSchweizer Alpen Zuumlrich (Switzerland) vdf Hochschul-verlag AG
Badgley C Moghtader J Quintero E Zakem E Chappell MJAvileacutes-Vaacutezquez K Samulon A Perfecto I 2007 Organicagriculture and the global food supply Renew Agr Food Sys22(2)86ndash108
Bauer N Wallner A Hunziker M 2009 The change ofEuropean landscapes human-nature relationships publicattitudes towards rewilding and the implications for land-scape management in Switzerland J Environ Manage90(9)2910ndash2920
Bayfield N Barancok P Furger M Sebastiagrave MT Domiacutenguez GLapka M Cudlinova E Vescovo L Ganielle D Cernusca Aet al 2008 Stakeholder perceptions of the impacts of ruralfunding scenarios on mountain landscapes across EuropeEcosystems 11(8)1368ndash1382
Beniston M 2006 Mountain weather and climate a generaloverview and a focus on climatic change in the AlpsHydrobiologia 562(1)3ndash16
Bennett EM Peterson GD Gordon LJ 2009 Understandingrelationships among multiple ecosystem services Ecol Lett12(12)1394ndash1404
Bouwman AF Beusen AHW Billen G 2009 Human alterationof the global nitrogen and phosphorus soil balances for theperiod 1970ndash2050 Global Biogeochem Cycles 23GB0A04
Chan KMA Shaw MR Cameron DR Underwood EC Daily GC2006 Conservation planning for ecosystem services PLoSBiol 4(11)e379
Chen XF Chen JM An SQ Ju WM 2007 Effects of topogra-phy on simulated net primary productivity at landscape scaleJ Environ Manage 85(3)585ndash596
Clarke J McClung DM 1999 Full-depth avalanche occur-rences caused by snow gliding Coquihalla British ColumbiaCanada Canada J Glaciol 45(151)539ndash546
de Groot RS Alkemade R Braat L Hein L Willemen L 2010Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem servicesand values in landscape planning management and decisionmaking Ecol Complex 7(3)260ndash272
de la Vega-Leinert A Schroumlter D Leemans R Fritsch UPluimers J 2008 A stakeholder dialogue on European vul-nerability Reg Environ Change 8(3)109ndash124
Dorner B Lertzman K Fall J 2002 Landscape pattern in topo-graphically complex landscapes issues and techniques foranalysis Landscape Ecol 17(8)729ndash743
Egger G 1999 Biotopkartierung Nationalpark Hohe TauernErhebung Bewertung und Maszlignahmenentwicklung aus-gewaumlhlter Biotope der Auszligenzone des Nationalparks HoheTauern (Tirol) Studie im Auftrag von Bundesministerium fuumlrUmwelt Jugend und Familie Klagenfurt
Egger G Angermann K Aigner S Buchgraber K 2005GIS-Gestuumltzte Ertragsmodellierung zur Optimierung desWeidemanagements auf Almweiden Gumpenstein BAL ndashBundesanst fuumlr Alpenlaumlnd Landwirtschaft
Egoh B Reyers B Rouget M Bode M Richardson D 2009Spatial congruence between biodiversity and ecosystem ser-vices in South Africa Biol Conserv 142(3)553ndash562
Egoh B Reyers B Rouget M Richardson DM Le MaitreDC van Jaarsveld AS 2008 Mapping ecosystem servicesfor planning and management Agric Ecosyst Environ127(1ndash2)135ndash140
Eigenbrod F Armsworth PR Anderson BJ Heinemeyer AGillings S Roy DB Thomas CD Gaston KJ 2010Error propagation associated with benefits transfer-basedmapping of ecosystem services Biol Conserv 143(11)2487ndash2493
European Commission 2010 Brussels (Belgium) the CAPtowards 2020 meeting the food natural resources and terri-torial challenges of the future [Internet] [cited 2012 Aug 16]Available from httpeur-lexeuropaeuLexUriServLexUriServdouri=COM20100672FINenPDF
Foley JA DeFries R Asner GP Barford C Bonan GCarpenter SR Chapin FS Coe MT Daily GC Gibbs HKet al 2005 Global consequences of land use Science309(5734)570ndash574
Gellrich M Zimmermann NE 2007 Investigating the regional-scale pattern of agricultural land abandonment in theSwiss mountains a spatial statistical modelling approachLandscape Urban Plan 79(1)65ndash76
Gimona A van der Horst D 2007 Mapping hotspots of multiplelandscape functions a case study on farmland afforestationin Scotland Landscape Ecol 22(8)1255ndash1264
Giupponi C Ramanzin M Sturaro E Fuser S 2006 Climateand land use changes biodiversity and agri-environmentalmeasures in the Belluno province Italy Environ Sci Policy9(2)163ndash173
Gordon LJ Finlayson CM Falkenmark M 2010 Managingwater in agriculture for food production and other ecosystemservices Agric Water Manage 97(4)512ndash519
Grabherr G 2009 Biodiversity in the high ranges of theAlps ethnobotanical and climate change perspectives GlobalEnviron Change 19(2)167ndash172
Grecirct-Regamey A Bebi P Bishop ID Schmid WA 2008 LinkingGIS-based models to value ecosystem services in an Alpineregion J Environ Manage 89(3)197ndash208
Harlinger O Knees G 1999 Klimahandbuch DerOumlsterreichischen Bodenschaumltzung Klimatographie 1Teil 1st ed Innsbruck (Austria) Universitaumltsverlag Wagner
Houmlchtl F Lehringer S Konold W 2005 ldquoWildernessrdquo what itmeans when it becomes a realitymdasha case study from thesouthwestern Alps Landscape Urban Plan 70(1ndash2)85ndash95
Hunziker M Felber P Gehring K Buchecker M Bauer NKienast F 2008 Evaluation of landscape change by differentsocial groups Mt Res Dev 28(2)140ndash147
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2000 Emissionsscenarios A special report of working group III of the inter-governmental panel on climate change Cambridge (UK)Cambridge University Press
Kienast F Bolliger J Potschin M de Groot R Verburg PHeller I Wascher D Haines-Young R 2009 Assessing land-scape functions with broad-scale environmental data insightsgained from a prototype development for Europe EnvironManage 44(6)1099ndash1120
Klapp E Boeker P Koumlnig F Staumlhlin A 1953 Das GruumlnlandHannover Schaper Wertzahlen der Gruumlnlandpflanzenp 38ndash40
Kok K Rothman DS Patel M 2006 Multi-scale narrativesfrom an IA perspective part I European and Mediterraneanscenario development Futures 38(3)261ndash284
Koumlrner C 2003 Alpine plant life functional plant ecology ofhigh mountain ecosystems 2nd ed Heidelberg (Germany)Springer
Lamarque P Tappeiner U Turner C Steinbacher M Bardgett RSzukics U Schermer M Lavorel S 2011 Stakeholder per-ceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowl-edge on soil fertility and biodiversity Reg Environ Change11(4)791ndash804
Lavorel S Grigulis K Lamarque P Colace M Garden D Girel JPellet G Douzet R 2011 Using plant functional traits tounderstand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystemservices J Ecol 99(1)135ndash147
Leitinger G Houmlller P Tasser E Walde J Tappeiner U 2008Development and validation of a spatial snow-glide modelEcol Model 211(3ndash4)363ndash374
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 13
Leitinger G Tasser E Newesely C Obojes N Tappeiner U 2010Seasonal dynamics of surface runoff in mountain grass-land ecosystems differing in land use J Hydrol 385(1ndash4)95ndash104
Mayring P 2002 Einfuumlhrung in die Qualitative Sozialforschung5th revised ed Weinheim (Germany) Beltz Verlag
Metzger MJ Rounsevell M Michlik A Leemans R Schroumlter D2006 The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land usechange Agric Ecosyst Environ 114(1)69ndash86
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 Ecosystems andhuman well-being synthesis Washington (DC) Island Press
Mottet A Ladet S Coqueacute N Gibon A 2006 Agriculturalland-use change and its drivers in mountain landscapesa case study in the Pyrenees Agric Ecosyst Environ114(2ndash4)296ndash310
Naidoo R Balmford A Costanza R Fisher B Green RE LehnerB Malcolm TR Ricketts TH 2008 Global mapping ofecosystem services and conservation priorities Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 105(28)9495ndash9500
Nelson E Mendoza G Regetz J Polasky S Tallis H CameronDR Chan KMA Daily GC Goldstein J Kareiva PM et al2009 Modeling multiple ecosystem services biodiversityconservation commodity production and tradeoffs at land-scape scales Front Ecol Environ 7(1)4ndash11
Pitesky ME Stackhouse KR Mitloehner FM 2009 Clearing theair livestockrsquos contribution to climate change In Sparks Deditor Advances in agronomy Burligton (MA) AcademicPress p 1ndash40
Rabbinge R van Diepen CA 2000 Changes in agriculture andland use in Europe Eur J Agron 13(2ndash3)85ndash99
Raudsepp-Hearne C Peterson GD Bennett EM 2010 Ecosystemservice bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapesProc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(11)5242ndash5247
Reubens B Poesen J Danjon F Geudens G Muys B 2007 Therole of fine and coarse roots in shallow slope stability andsoil erosion control with a focus on root system architecturea review Trees Struct Funct 21(4)385ndash402
Rodriguez JP Beard TD Bennett E Cumming GS Cork SAgard J Dobson A Peterson G 2006 Trade-offs acrossspace time and ecosystem services Ecol Soc 11(1)28
Rounsevell MDA Reginster I Arauacutejo MB Carter TRDendoncker N Ewert F House JI Kankaanpaumlauml SLeemans R Metzger MJ et al 2006 A coherent set of futureland use change scenarios for Europe Agric Ecosyst Environ114(1)57ndash68
Rudel TK Coomes OT Moran E Achard F Angelsen AXu J Lambin E 2005 Forest transitions towards a globalunderstanding of land use change Global Environ Change15(1)23ndash31
Rutherford GN Bebi P Edwards PJ Zimmermann NE 2008Assessing land-use statistics to model land cover change ina mountainous landscape in the European Alps Ecol Model212(3ndash4)460ndash471
Schallberger P 1999 Wovon handeln baumluerliche Zukunfts-vorstellungen Determinanten Dimensionen und Typen(German manuscript of the paper De quel avenir parlent lespaysans) In Droz Y Mieville-Ott V editors On achegravevebien les paysans Reconstruire une identiteacute paysanne dansun monde incertain Genegraveve (Switzerland) Edition Georg p103ndash126
Schneeberger N Buumlrgi M Kienast F 2007 Rates of landscapechange at the northern fringe of the Swiss Alps historical andrecent tendencies Landscape Urban Plan 80(1ndash2)127ndash136
Schroumlter D Cramer W Leemans R Prentice IC Arauacutejo MBArnell NW Bondeau A Bugmann H Carter TR Gracia CAet al 2005 Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability toglobal change in Europe Science 310(5752)1333ndash1337
Stallman HR 2011 Ecosystem services in agriculture determin-ing suitability for provision by collective management EcolEcon 71131ndash139
Steiger R 2010 The impact of climate change on ski seasonlength and snowmaking requirements in Tyrol Austria ClimRes 43(3)251ndash262
Strauss F Formayer H Schmid E 2012 High resolution climatedata for Austria in the period 2008ndash2040 from a statistical cli-mate change model Int J Climatol DOI 101002joc3434
Strauss F Schmid E Moltchanova E Formayer H Wang X2011 Modeling climate change and biophysical impacts ofcrop production in the Austrian Marchfeld region ClimaticChange 111(3) 641ndash664
Swetnam RD Fisher B Mbilinyi BP Munishi PKT Willcock SRicketts T Mwakalila S Balmford A Burgess ND MarshallAR et al 2011 Mapping socio-economic scenarios of landcover change a GIS method to enable ecosystem servicemodeling J Environ Manage 92(3)563ndash574
Swift MJ Izac AN van Noordwijk M 2004 Biodiversity andecosystem services in agricultural landscapesmdashare we askingthe right questions Agric Ecosyst Environ 104(1)113ndash134
Swinton SM Lupi F Robertson GP Hamilton SK 2007Ecosystem services and agriculture cultivating agriculturalecosystems for diverse benefits Ecol Econ 64(2)245ndash252
Tappeiner U Tappeiner G Hilbert A Mattanovich E 2003 TheEU agricultural policy and the environment evaluation of thealpine region Oxford (UK) Blackwell
Tappeiner U Tasser E Leitinger G Cernusca A Tappeiner G2008 Effects of historical and likely future scenarios of landuse on above- and belowground vegetation carbon stocks ofan alpine valley Ecosystems 11(8)1383ndash1400
Tasser E Mader M Tappeiner U 2003 Effects of land use inalpine grasslands on the probability of landslides Basic ApplEcol 4(3)271ndash280
Tasser E Ruffini F Tappeiner U 2009 An integrative approachfor analysing landscape dynamics in diverse cultivated andnatural mountain areas Landscape Ecol 24(5)611ndash628
Tasser E Tappeiner U 2002 Impact of land use changes onmountain vegetation Appl Veg Sci 5(2)173ndash184
Tasser E Walde J Tappeiner U Teutsch A Noggler W 2007Land-use changes and natural reforestation in the EasternCentral Alps Agric Ecosyst Environ 118(1ndash4)115ndash129
Theurillat J Guisan A 2001 Potential impact of climate changeon vegetation in the European Alps a review ClimaticChange 50(1)77ndash109
Thuiller W Lavorel S Arauacutejo MB Sykes MT Prentice IC 2005Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 102(23)8245ndash8250
Tilman D Fargione J Wolff B DrsquoAntonio C Dobson A HowarthR Schindler D Schlesinger WH Simberloff D SwackhamerD 2001 Forecasting agriculturally driven global environ-mental change Science 292(5515)281ndash284
Troy A Wilson MA 2006 Mapping ecosystem services prac-tical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and valuetransfer Ecol Econ 60(2)435ndash449
Van der Ploeg JD Long A 1994 Born from within practice andperspectives of endogenous rural development Van GorcumAssen Styles of farming an introductory note on conceptsand methodology p 7ndash30
Walz A Lardelli C Behrendt H Grecirct-Regamey A Lundstroumlm CKytzia S Bebi P 2007 Participatory scenario analysisfor integrated regional modeling Landscape Urban Plan81(1ndash2)114ndash131
Wischmeier WH Smith DD 1978 Predicting rainfall erosionlosses ndash a guide to conservation planning Washington (DC)US Department of Agriculture
Zhang W Ricketts TH Kremen C Carney K Swinton SM2007 Ecosystem services and dis-services to agricultureEcol Econ 64(2)253ndash260
Zimmermann P Tasser E Leitinger G Tappeiner U 2010Effects of land-use and land-cover pattern on landscape-scalebiodiversity in the European Alps Agric Ecosyst Environ139(1ndash2)13ndash22
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp ManagementiFirst 2012 1ndash13
Multiple ecosystem services of a changing Alpine landscape past present and future
Uta Schirpkea Georg Leitingerb Erich Tassera Markus Schermerc Melanie Steinbacherc and Ulrike Tappeinerab
aInstitute for Alpine Environment EURAC research Bolzano 39100 Italy bInstitute of Ecology University of Innsbruck Innsbruck6020 Austria cDepartment 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 canbe expected under global change For our study site in the Austrian Alps we examined the relationship between agriculturalactivities and multiple ecosystem services on landscape scale from past to future Modelling of future land-use patterns wasbased on stakeholder workshops considering different socio-economic and climate scenarios In the past land-use intensitywas 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 globaleconomic 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 valuablefor regulating services it reduces the aesthetic value Both regulating and cultural services decrease when forage provision isoptimized To ensure multiple ecosystem service provision agricultural management should be related to ecosystem servicesand included into land-use policies and agricultural incentives
The management of agricultural ecosystems (1) ensuresthe provision of food fibre and fuel (2) regulates thewater and carbon balance (3) guards against natural haz-ards and (4) preserves the aesthetic value of the land-scape (Walz et al 2007 de la Vega-Leinert et al 2008Leitinger et al 2008 Tappeiner et al 2008 Lavorelet al 2011) Agricultural modernization with specializa-tion rationalization and mechanization and other moreprofitable sources of income (Rudel et al 2005) have led toa decrease of the used agricultural area in Europe since themid-twentieth century (Rabbinge and van Diepen 2000)The European Alps are particularly affected by dramaticland-use changes with more intensive use of favourableareas (good climate conditions for agriculture and accessi-bility with machinery) and a reduction of less favourableareas remaining in use especially on alpine pastures(Rutherford et al 2008) Abandonment of agriculturalareas results in forest re-growth leading to more homo-geneous landscape patterns (Tasser et al 2007) By the endof the twentieth century change rates seem to decelerate(Schneeberger et al 2007) and Tilman et al (2001) evenpredicted an increase of arable land and pastures
Agricultural productivity relies on a range of support-ing and regulating services (Swinton et al 2007 Zhanget al 2007) At the same time agricultural ecosystemson their part influence ecological functions (Swift et al2004 Stallman 2011) and management activities canlead to altered ecosystem services (Lavorel et al 2011)
Corresponding author Email utaschirpkeeuraceduUta Schirpke and Georg Leitinger are joint first authors
eg downstream water quality (Gordon et al 2010) nitro-gen and phosphorus soil balances (Bouwman et al 2009)CH4 and N2O emissions (Pitesky et al 2009) Land-usechanges related to an intensification of agricultural pro-duction are considered a major threat for the capacity ofecosystems to provide multiple ecosystem services (Foleyet al 2005 Metzger et al 2006) While the increasingdemand for food energy and water leads to changes inland-use pattern climate change causes water stress andvegetation shifts (Theurillat and Guisan 2001 Schroumlteret al 2005) To analyse future impacts of human activ-ities on ecosystem services management scenarios fordecision-making are used (de Groot et al 2010 Swetnamet al 2011)
An increasing number of studies have examinedecosystem services on a global or continental scale(Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 Metzger et al2006 Naidoo et al 2008 Kienast et al 2009) as wellas on a regional scale (Chan et al 2006 Egoh et al2009 Eigenbrod et al 2010) While several studies haveaddressed the spatial distribution of multiple ecosystemservices at the level of a landscape (Troy and Wilson 2006Gimona and van der Horst 2007 Egoh et al 2008 Naidooet al 2008 Nelson et al 2009) few studies were car-ried out in mountain regions (Grecirct-Regamey et al 2008Lavorel et al 2011) Moreover there is the need to exam-ine the interdependence of multiple ecosystem services interms of their synergies and trade-offs (Bennett et al 2009Nelson et al 2009 Raudsepp-Hearne et al 2010)
ISSN 2151-3732 printISSN 2151-3740 onlinecopy 2012 Taylor amp Francishttpdxdoiorg101080215137322012751936httpwwwtandfonlinecom
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
2 U Schirpke et al
In the current study we aimed our efforts at examininghistorical and future impacts of altered agricultural activi-ties on multiple ecosystem services of mountain regionsSince ecological functions rely greatly on topographyclimatic conditions and vegetation patterns (Dorner et al2002 Mottet et al 2006 Gellrich and Zimmermann 2007)we adapted existing modelling approaches and developednew methods to quantify ecosystem services to the specificcharacteristics of mountain regions based on a geographicinformation system (GIS) Future multiple ecosystem ser-vices provision was projected based on socio-economicand climate scenarios The specific objectives were asfollows (1) assessment of socio-economic and climatescenarios by a participatory approach (2) GIS-based quan-tification and spatial modelling of multiple ecosystemservices (3) impact analysis of ecosystem services basedon historical and future land-use pattern and (4) trade-offanalysis of multiple ecosystem services
Materials and methods
Study area and data collection
The Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) SiteKaserstattalm (1115primendash1120prime E 475primendash4710prime N) is loca-ted in the Stubai Valley in Austria on moderate to steepslopes facing south and southeast (Figure 1) It extendsover an area of 51 km2 and altitude ranges from 970 to2535 m The average annual air temperature and precipita-tion are 24C and 1100 mm at 1750 m asl respectivelyAgricultural use has shaped the landscape for centuriesThe upper part is covered by alpine meadows and pastures
managed with different intensities More than half of thesegrasslands have been abandoned in recent decades Theyare bounded below by open larch forest that changes todense forest further down The lower slopes and the valleyfloor are intensively used and covered mainly by grasslandfor forage production
Ecosystem services were modelled based on histori-cal and future land-use pattern vegetation distribution andtopography Historical land-use maps (1954 1960 19701980 1990 2001 and 2011) were determined on the basisof orthophotos and historical maps as well as of interviewswith farmers Interpretation and mapping of land-use dis-tribution was done by on-screen digitizing Missing timeperiods were integrated using historical data (agriculturalcensus and village chronicles) and free response inter-views with all 43 landowners and farmers to get detailedinformation about land use ie differentiation betweenmeadows and pastures number of mowings and grazingperiod All information was included in the maps thatwere then checked by the farmers for accuracy (geometryand attributes) For more details on the mapping methodused see Tasser et al (2009) The vegetation was mappedin the field at a scale of 15000 based on orthophotoswith a minimum plot-size of 25 m2 for herbaceous plantcommunities and sim250 m2 for forests For more detailson the mapping method used see Tasser and Tappeiner(2002) To derive topographical characteristics (elevationslope and aspect) which were important for modelling bio-physical and climate-dependent factors a digital elevationmodel (DEM) with a spatial resolution of 5 m times 5 m wasused provided by the Tyrolean Information System (tiriscopy)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 sitelsquoKaserstattalmrsquo (c)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 3
Scenarios
To assess future trends we used different scenarios for(1) socio-economic conditions and (2) climate change
Socio-economic scenarios
Based on current trends of dynamics in the local develop-ment of settlements and job opportunities described by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) thelocal demand for touristic services and the regional andinternational market opportunities for agricultural prod-ucts (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2000)we defined two contrasting socio-economic scenarios (1a)localized scenario and (1b) globalized scenario The termslsquolocalizedrsquo and lsquoglobalizedrsquo do not refer to any spatialscale but to the direction of socio-economic developmentIn the localized scenario the economic development pathassumes rather closed local and regional economic cyclesand is largely independent of global economic changes(IPCC storyline B2) In contrast for a globalized scenarioglobal competition on mass markets is more important thanlocal and regional economic relations (IPCC storyline A1)Based on stakeholder consultations through expert inter-views and group discussions (Lamarque et al 2011) theIPCC scenarios were adapted to the specific conditions ofthe study area
To present the scenarios to stakeholders the followingstorylines were designed
The lsquolocalizedrsquo socio-economic scenario (1a)suggests a development that focuses on thelocalregional economy and proposes an increasein the number of commuters to the regional capital(within a distance of 20 km) in the lower partof the valley and a focus on sustainable tourismactivities (farm holidays hiking tobogganing andbackcountry skiing in winter) Locally producedfood is increasingly in demand and regional andorganic products fetch high prices Farmers receivepayments out of the second pillar of the CommonAgricultural Policy (CAP) for rural development andagri-environmental measures National and regionalsubsidies complement the CAP and also addressregionally targeted environmental specificationsThe regional and the local administrations contributefinancial support for infrastructure (road mainte-nance joint processing and marketing facilities) andjoin use of special agricultural equipment
The lsquoglobalizedrsquo socio-economic scenario (1b) isbased on the assumption that the study area willaim for competitiveness on a world market It alsoforecasts an increasing number of commuters to theregional capital In the upper part of the valleytourism is based on an increasing number of ski runsfor winter activities glacier skiing all year roundand outdoor adventure activities in summer Thisresults in mass tourism and new hotel complexesThe farmers are only paid to manage agricultural
land according to the recreational demands in spe-cially designated locations As both residents andtourists are assumed to be price-conscious in theirpurchasing behaviour for food products local ori-gin and quality become rather irrelevant Thereforelocal food production is assumed to be not com-petitive because of declining producer prices on theglobal market Agricultural produce as far as it canbe competitive on the world market is processedin highly centralized facilities outside the valleyAgricultural transfer payments are assumed to havefallen on average by about 20 for mountain farms(European Commission 2010) Out of the compen-sation payments of the second pillar of the CAPfor farmers in mountain areas every farmer stillreceives a small basic income that increases withthe provision of global ecosystem services such aspreservation and enhancement of biodiversity waterquality and plants for CO2 sequestration Theseassumptions were based on lsquopolicy option 3rsquo as pre-sented in the Communication from the EuropeanCommission (European Commission 2010)
Climate scenarios
Climate change scenarios of both General CirculationModels (GCMs) and Regional Climate Models (RCMs)suffer from uncertainties especially in mountain regions(Beniston 2006) To account for regional climate patternswe used a daily climate change dataset for Austriawith a spatial resolution of 1 km2 provided by Strausset al (2012) The datasets were projected for the period2008ndash2040 with ACLiReM (Austrian Climate changeModel using Linear Regression Strauss et al 2011) basedon historical daily weather station data from 1975 to2007 and linear regression with repeated bootstrappingStarting from the status quo (SQ) we defined three dif-ferent climate scenarios for our study site (2a) 5-year sce-nario (2b) 20-year scenario and (2c) worst-case scenarioStrauss et al (2012) calculated three different temperaturescenarios We selected the lsquohighrsquo temperature scenario (iemaximum mean temperature for the period 2008ndash2040)For changing precipitation rates there is no clear sig-nal for the next three decades and Strauss et al (2012)provide 17 different scenarios for precipitation In linewith Beniston (2006) we selected increasing daily winterprecipitation (SeptemberndashFebruary) by 10 and decreas-ing daily summer precipitation (MarchndashAugust) by 10for the 5-year and 20-year scenarios For the worst-casescenario we used decreasing daily precipitation by 20
To present the scenarios to stakeholders the followingstorylines were designed
In the 5-year scenario (2a) dry years are alternat-ing with normally wet years and occur in three outof 5 years For dry years spring-time conditions aredry with very little run-off due to missing meltingwater from the tops The summers are characterized
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
4 U Schirpke et al
Table 1 Mean annual temperature annual precipitation andsummer precipitation (AprilndashSeptember) of the status quo andscenarios for normal and dry years
Status quo5-year
normal year
5-yeardry
yeara
20-yearnormalyearb
20-yeardry
yearb
Mean annualtemperature (C)
24 69 58 77
Annual precipitation(mm)
1100 549 845 416
Summerprecipitation (mm)
687 283 535 207
Note aCorresponds conditions in the dry year 2003bStrauss et al (2012)
by little rainfall and high temperatures (Table 1)Precipitation in winter falls almost exclusively asrain and leads to a shorter period of solid snow coverIn dry years vegetation below sim1300 m experiencesextreme drought stress and hay yield is only 50 ofthe usual amount (Egger et al 2005)
For the 20-year scenario (2b) the trend withincreased temperatures and variable precipitationpatterns continues and leads to warm winter monthswith very little snow (Table 1) We assume that dryyears occur in 7 out of 10 years (Abegg 1996 Steiger2010) Mainly on alpine meadows and pasturesaverage years produce little loss of yield (simndash10)while dry years reduce agricultural yields by about50 (Egger et al 2005 Pfurtscheller 2012 personalcommunication) Snow cover becomes unreliablebelow 1500 m asl and the conditions for artificialsnow-making are getting poorer Ski tourism is onlyprofitable above 1800 m asl (Steiger 2010)
In the worst-case scenario (2c) most years are verydry with climatic conditions similar to the dry yearsof the 20-year scenario As snow reliability fails(Abegg 1996 Steiger 2010) and springs are drywinter tourism collapses and hay yields are rarelygood enough to make farming feasible
Workshops
The two socio-economic scenarios (termed lsquolocalizedrsquo andlsquoglobalizedrsquo see above) were combined with the climatescenarios resulting in six different overall scenarios(1) localized 5-year LN(5) (2) localized 20-year LN(20)(3) localized worst-case LW(20) (4) globalized 5-yearGN(5) (5) globalized 20-year GN(20) and (6) glob-alized worst-case GW(20) To assess the managementimplications of the different scenarios two workshopsone for the localized scenarios and another one for theglobalized scenarios were organized with 4ndash6 farmersfrom the Stubai Valley in each session A qualitativeapproach was used to select farmers that represent typicalsituations to get a lsquopublic opinion collective attitudesand ideologiesrsquo (Mayring 2002) in the context of futureland-use management
To capture various opinions and solutions the farm-ers were selected by their socio-economic profilescharacterized by their modern or traditional habitus(Schallberger 1999) and their approach towards marketand nature This was reflected in different farming styles(Van der Ploeg and Long 1994) combining production pat-terns (organic or conventional high or low mechanization)with market approaches (directindirect marketing chan-nels) and different employment situation (ie part-time orfull-time employed or self-employed) During the work-shops the farmers were asked to develop a joint strategyto react to the specific scenarios In addition they were toexplain related land-use changes For the study area spatialmapping of the scenarios was done on orthophotos by thefarmers and later digitalized
Modelling ecosystem services
Lamarque et al (2011) identified a common set of ecosys-tem services of mountain grasslands that were consid-ered important by local stakeholders and farmers for theStubai Valley (aesthetic value carbon sequestration foragequality forage quantity natural hazard regulation pollina-tion recreation soil stability water quality and water quan-tity) Accordingly we modelled a selection of ecosystemservices for our study site lsquoKaserstattalmrsquo based on land-use pattern vegetation distribution and topographic char-acteristics using 5 m times 5 m resolution data We adaptedthe different GIS-based modelling approaches which aredescribed in the following in detail to the specific topo-graphic conditions of mountain regions to quantify theecosystem services on a landscape scale Raster mapswere created for historical dates and future scenarios andrescaled to values ranging from 0 to 100 For reporting wecalculated mean values of the total study area
Aesthetic value
The aesthetic value was assessed by a photo survey (seesupplementary online material httpinformahealthcarecomdoisuppl[101080215137322012751936]) Thestandardized questionnaire was composed of five photo-graphic series each consisting of four photographs relatedto (1) different management types of alpine grassland(pasture meadow and abandoned land) (2) differentmanagement intensities of meadows (number of mowingsand fertilization) (3) different successional stages ofabandoned land (4) different management types of alpinegrassland at flowering season (meadow of lowhigh land-use intensity pasture and abandoned land) and (5) differentmanagement types of alpine grassland after cutting orgrazing A total of 78 persons locals and tourists wereinterviewed at the alpine hut which is located at 1900 masl on our study site lsquoKaserstattalmrsquo and asked to givescores to the pictures of each series according to theirpreferences (1 for least preferred and 4 for most pre-ferred) To map the aesthetic value we linked the resultingpreference values to the different land-use categories
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 5
Carbon sequestration
Carbon density (Mg C haminus1) assigned to each vegetationtype was derived from above-ground and below-groundphytomass (Mg haminus1) and C-stocks (g gminus1) resulted fromproject-area-relevant literature and own measurementsAbove-ground phytomass was measured by harvestingor cutting the vegetation of defined plots Below-groundphytomass was determined by taking soil cores and manualexcavation of roots For further details refer to Tappeineret al (2008) Phytomass and C-content were multiplied andan area-weighted mean value for each land-use categorywas obtained by overlaying the vegetation and the land-usemaps
Forage quality
Each vegetation type was assigned a forage quality valueaccording to Klapp et al (1953) By overlaying the veg-etation and the land-use maps an area-weighted meanvalue for each land-use category was obtained To accountfor changing climate conditions within land-use typeseach raster cell was corrected by the elevation accord-ing to Egger (1999) where forage quality increases below1800 m asl (10 per 100 m) and decreases above 2200 masl (10 per 200 m) This leads to a differentiationof our community-weighted mean for climatic and soildifferences
Forage quantity
Forage quantity is a function of topography and land-usepattern and was estimated on the basis of productivity typeof grassland determined by plant species and the growingseason (Egger et al 2005) Using the DEM the days withvegetation growth were determined according to Harflingerand Knees (1999) for the climate zone inner-alpine westHigher mean temperatures of the scenarios are consideredby lowering the DEM with the temperature lapse rate of6C per km of elevation (Koumlrner 2003) The forage quan-tity was corrected by topography ie slope and aspectwhich can accelerate or diminish vegetation growthAs precipitation requirements for forage are 100 mm pre-cipitation per 1000 kg forage (Egger et al 2005) themaximum possible forage quantity is limited by the totalamount of summer precipitation (AprilndashSeptember)
Natural hazard regulation
Natural hazards in mountain regions are mainly massmovements ie rock fall and landslides debris flows andavalanches As rock fall is no major issue in our studyarea natural hazard regulation was modelled on the basisof (1) snow gliding (2) surface water run-off and (3) rootdensity Avalanches are often caused by snow gliding(Clarke and McClung 1999) To predict snow gliding sixkey drivers (forest stand slope angle winter precipita-tion surface roughness slope aspect west and slope aspect
east) were used (Leitinger et al 2008) Snow gliding alsoincreases the probability of landslides (Tasser et al 2003)Surface water run-off contributing to landslides mud-flows and floods is a function of above-ground phytomassskeleton fraction-soil stone content in 0ndash01 m soil depthannual precipitation and elevation (Leitinger et al 2010)Root density is related to slope stability (Reubens et al2007) We mapped root mass associated to each vegetationtype (Tappeiner et al 2008) and obtained an area-weightedmean value for each land-use category by overlaying thevegetation and the land-use maps To determine naturalhazard regulation the three input factors snow gliding sur-face water run-off and root density were added for eachraster cell
Soil stability
To predict the soil stability we used the universal soil lossequation (USLE Wischmeier and Smith 1978) The rate ofsoil erosion is a function of land-use pattern soil type pre-cipitation and topography The erosivity factor ndash the greaterthe intensity and duration of the rain storm the higher theerosion potential ndash was assumed to be equal throughout thestudy area and therefore excluded from calculation as wefound no significant differences in rainfall intensity (mmper time unit) between our climate stations at 970 17501850 and 2000 m asl Slope characteristics were derivedfrom the DEM As no data about soil characteristics wereavailable we used root density which is related to soil sta-bility (Reubens et al 2007) Root mass associated witheach vegetation type (Tappeiner et al 2008) was overlaidon the land-use map and an area-weighted mean value foreach land-use category calculated
Multiple ecosystem services analysis
A multiple ecosystem services map was obtained by thesum of all ecosystem services using 0ndash100 scaled valuesImpacts of land-use change were visualized by creatingmaps of ecosystem service change To understand trade-offs and synergies between different ecosystem servicesa principal component analysis (PCA) was performed inArcGISTM (Version 931 Spatial Analyst ESRI) for his-torical dates and future scenarios Using the six differentecosystem services maps as input raster layers eigenvec-tors eigenvalues a covariance matrix and a correlationmatrix were calculated and maps of the components weregenerated
Results
Scenario workshop
During the workshop the farmers specified that their deci-sions about intensity and type of agricultural use aredriven by different key factors agricultural policies cli-mate conditions nature protection topography and eco-nomic motivations The general strategies for responding
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
6 U Schirpke et al
to the different socio-economic and climate scenarios arerepresentative for the whole region Spatial distributionof land-use patterns was mapped only for the study arealsquoKaserstattalmrsquo
In the globalized scenarios the farmers shift theiractivities towards tourism (in which most of them arealready engaged part-time) and continue managing alpinegrasslands and pastures for landscape conservation Largemeadows are managed as long as they can be mown bymachinery otherwise they are transformed into pasturesThe farmers react to global pressure and decreasingmarket-prices with a shift in livestock ie from cattleto sheep and goats Higher temperatures due to climatechange allow a diversification of products ie vegetablesor wine-growing and animals can stay longer on pasturesIrrigation might become necessary for agricultural useon the valley floor but the farmers were convinced thatthe glacier will continue to provide the required amountof irrigation water even in times of drought For theglobalized worst-case scenario GW(20) farmers assumea global financial crisis In times of economic crisis withscarce employment opportunities farming becomes moreimportant Hence almost any available area is used foragriculture to cover the subsistence food requirements ofthe region
During the workshop on the localized scenarios farm-ers rated the market opportunities of this scenario as goodand considered new crops like pumpkins on the valley floorand new production niches like dairy sheep farming onthe slope The farmers considered water scarcity due to cli-mate change as the biggest problem Irrigation howeverwas seen as a solution only for some farmers in the val-ley on areas of high land-use intensity Farmers on dryslopes would not benefit from irrigation as pumping upwater for irrigation was not thought feasible The use offavourable areas is intensified and diversified for productsneeded on local markets (eg wine fruits and vegetables)Less favourable areas especially on hill sites are largelyabandoned or used for grazing with sheep Livestock farm-ing remains more important than arable farming even ifthe proportion of arable land grows The farmers continuemanaging their agricultural land as long as it is profitable(also due to payments for landscape preservation) and com-bine agricultural activities with other occupations whichstill allow part-time farming Continued transfer paymentswere thought necessary but the restrictions imposed by thecompulsory 5-year period of the contracts were severelycriticized With the prospect of weather conditions pos-sibly varying more frequently from year to year farmersrequested more freedom in their management decisionsAs tourism is likely to increase especially during sum-mer some areas might be adapted for touristic use egwith golf courses and small artificial lakes There is nojoint strategy for facing possible future socio-economicand climate changes but rather individual solutions thatneed to be developed and for each farm to find its ownniche The localized worst-case scenario is dominated byan abandonment of farms due to prolonged drought periods
and overregulation Farmers complained that the existingregulations of contractual commitments for transfer pay-ments in the agri-environmental programme (no land-usechange within the 5-year period) already hinder innova-tions This leads to critical situations especially in thecourse of farm succession
Land-use change
Historical changes
From 1954 to 2011 agricultural use generally decreased(Table 2) The main period of abandonment occurred inthe 1960s and 1970s Larch meadows in particular werealmost completely abandoned until 2011 leading to anincrease of dense forest after several decades Alpine pas-tures and meadows were reduced to 38 of the area in1954 meadows decreasing more rapidly than pasturesOn the valley floor arable land disappeared completely in1970 and changed to grassland of high land-use intensity
Future changes
Land-use changes for the scenarios GN(5) and LN(5) coin-cide and land-use distribution is similar to the SQ (Table 2)This is not astonishing as farmers depend on the trans-fer payments from agri-environmental programmes with a5-year contractual period Half of the abandoned land isused again as alpine pastures and the land-use intensityof meadows has increased The change from abandonedland to alpine pastures continues with a lower transfor-mation rate for the 20-year scenarios Future changes areexpected to result from either a collapse of the worldeconomy (scenario GW(20)) or over-regulation in times ofincreased climatic variation The results of both the sce-narios are entirely different In GW the post-World War IIlandscape is re-established while in scenario LW(20) largeparts are expected to be reforested and abandoned TheGW scenario forecasts massive intensification of use and areversal of almost the entire area to agricultural use Higherareas are dominated by pastures and meadows of low land-use intensity On favourable areas land-use intensity ofmeadows is high Even large areas of previously aban-doned larch meadows are used again especially in areasof higher elevation where forest regeneration occurs moreslowly On the valley floor 30 of the grassland is trans-formed to arable land The farmers considered LN(20) asthe maximum likely reduction of land use as long as thelocal conditions allow farming However future gener-ations might change occupation and abandon all alpinegrassland leading to an increase of forest and abandonedland The valley floor is still managed by big farmers
Ecosystem services
Landscape pattern
Spatial distribution of ecosystem services is related to land-use pattern and topography (Figures 2 and 3) The aesthetic
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 7
Table 2 Land-use distribution of the study area lsquoKaserstattalmrsquo for historical dates the status quo and the scenarios
Total changed area 226 208 161 98 95 57 minus 42 55 46 221 119
Notes The total changed area refers to the status quoaMowing every 3ndash5 yearsbMowing every 2 yearsc1ndash2 mowings per yeard3ndash4 mowings per year
value is highest for meadows of low land-use intensity fol-lowed by abandoned larch meadows Alpine pastures andmeadows are preferred to abandoned land Least attractiveare meadows of high land-use intensity and forest Carbonsequestration is highest in forests and reaches good valuesin larch meadows Meadows of very low land-use inten-sity and abandoned land store more carbon than alpinepastures whereas meadows of high land-use intensity andarable land store the least carbon Meadows of high land-use intensity on the valley floor produce highest foragequantities and have the best forage quality Productionrates and quality diminish with decreasing managementintensity and increasing elevation Pastures have lower for-age quality than meadows Natural hazard regulation islower for alpine pastures than for meadows of low land-useintensity or abandoned land due to higher soil compactionand higher surface run-off Forest and larch meadowshave highest natural hazard regulation values Soil stabilitydepends highly on the slope gradient and the vegetationcover Abandoned land has higher root densities than man-aged grasslands Lowest erosion risk arises on the flatvalley floor and in forests followed by larch meadows andabandoned land on moderate slopes
Historical impacts
Historical land-use changes have led to an increase of thetotal ecosystem service value but have influenced the anal-ysed ecosystem services to different degrees (Figure 3)The aesthetic value increased between 1954 and 1990 pri-marily due to the abandonment of larch meadows whereasthe subsequent decrease was caused by forest regenera-tion An increase in carbon sequestration occurred after1990 because of forest growth Mean values of forage
quality and quantity have risen continuously particularlybetween 1970 and 1980 Large areas of alpine pasturesand meadows were abandoned and only areas with higherproduction rates and better forage quality continued to bemanaged The total forage amount of the entire study sitehas decreased by 47 since 1954 Natural hazard regu-lation and soil stability increased after 1990 when forestreplaced larch meadows and managed grasslands weremore and more abandoned
Future impacts
The total ecosystem service value for all scenarios is lowerthan the SQ except LW(20) and decreases with time forthe globalized scenarios while decelerating for the local-ized scenarios (Figure 3) In the 5-year scenarios onlysmall changes are predicted for carbon sequestration andsoil stability Less precipitation and higher temperaturesgenerally lower the risk of natural hazards because of lesssnow cover and reduced surface run-off Areas for forageproduction are extended but mean forage quality and quan-tity decrease because pastures are lower in forage qualityand quantity than meadows Higher impacts are estimatedfor the 20-year scenarios Carbon sequestration naturalhazard regulation and soil stability increase while meanforage quality and quantity continue to decrease Highestimpacts occur in GW(20) where all ecosystem servicevalues decrease except aesthetic value and natural hazardregulation Forage production is limited due to signifi-cantly lower precipitation Loss of areas with high land-useintensity for forage production is compensated for by anenormous increase of used areas especially pastures Meanforage quantity and quality are therefore lower but the totalforage amount produced by the entire study site reaches
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
8 U Schirpke et al
Figure 2 Ecosystem services of different land-use types for the status quo Values are re-scaled to 0ndash100
more than double that of SQ Impacts in LW(20) arecontrary to GW(20) with a decrease in the aesthetic valueand improved regulating services Agricultural activitiescontinue only on the valley floor Although provisioningservices improve significantly the total forage amount ofthe entire study site is only about 17 of that in SQ
Trade-offs
We applied a PCA for all time steps to assess trade-offsand synergies between multiple ecosystem services Thefirst two components explain 85ndash89 of the variance (for
SQ see Table 3) The relationships between the differ-ent ecosystem services indicate only little changes acrosstime but differ between different land-usecover categories(Figure 4) Thus we concentrate on the SQ The first axis isdriven by contrasts between regulating ecosystem servicesdominated by carbon sequestration and the aesthetic valueand forage provision (Table 3 Figure 5) Regarding dif-ferent land-use types the first component has high valuesfor forest while pastures and meadows have low val-ues (Figure 4) The second axis is driven by contrastsbetween the aesthetic value and forage provision (Table 3Figure 5) High aesthetic values are associated to extensive
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 9
Figure 3 Landscape pattern of ecosystem services for the status quo Values are re-scaled to 0ndash100 Historical development and futuretrends in normalized ecosystem services All scores are normalized by their status quo levels
Table 3 Correlation matrix of PCA for the status quo
Figure 4 Maps of contrasts of (a) the first component and (b)the second component for the status quo
use and lower values with intensive use whereas foragequantity and quality show contrary dependencies Highestvalues of the second component emerge for abandonedlarch meadows with high values for aesthetics and carbonsequestration (Figure 4) Synergies occur between forage
Figure 5 PCA plot of eigenvectors (component 1 times compo-nent 2) for the status quo
quality and forage quantity (r gt 05) (Table 4) Carbonsequestration natural hazard regulation and soil stabilityare also positively correlated (r gt 05) For forests carbonsequestration natural hazard regulation and soil stabilityare negatively correlated with the aesthetic value while forother land-use categories the variables are independent
Discussion
Scenario analysis has often been linked with participatoryapproaches to understand socio-economic administrativecultural political and environmental dynamics within aparticular region (Kok et al 2006 Walz et al 2007)We asked local farmers of the Stubai Valley to specifythe management implications arising in different socio-economic conditions under climate change As key driversfor land-use change the farmers identified agriculturalfunding policies market prices and dryer climate condi-tions While the farmers keep managing agricultural landin the globalized scenarios and respond to global pressureby diversification of products and livestock agriculturalland is partly abandoned in the localized scenarios (espe-cially on the slopes and on alpine pastures) or transformedinto touristic areas During the next 20 years about 11 ofthe area will be subject to land-use changes in GN(20) and9 in LN(20) GW(20) predicts even changes for 43of the total area The farmers considered LW(20) whichaffects 23 of the area not very likely to occur sincethey keep managing agricultural land as long as the localeconomy allows However future generations might decidedifferently During the last decade agriculturally usedareas have been widely abandoned in the European Alpsespecially in southern Italian and French Alps (Houmlchtl et al2005 Giupponi et al 2006 Zimmermann et al 2010)The resulting land-use changes for our study site corre-spond generally to Europe-wide land-usecover scenarios(Rounsevell et al 2006 Bayfield et al 2008) Since theStubai Valley was identified by Tappeiner et al (2003) asan Alpine lsquostandard regionrsquo characterized by agriculturaluse with a specialization in livestock farming which isrepresentative for 22 of the European Alps the studyresults are likely to correspond to the development of othercomparable 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-basedmodelling approaches to quantify the provision of mul-tiple ecosystem services for historical dates and futurescenarios on a landscape scale In mountain regionsecosystem services are influenced by topographic char-acteristics For provisioning services we found strongdependencies to topography As confirmed by Chen et al(2007) forage quantity decreases with increasing eleva-tion Many regulating services are also determined bytopography eg natural hazard regulation and slope stabil-ity are better for smaller slope gradients Consistent withother studies different ecosystem services correspond tolandscape pattern (Gimona and van der Horst 2007 Naidoo
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 11
et al 2008 Egoh et al 2009) The aesthetic value is higherfor alpine pastures and meadows of low land-use inten-sity than for forest or meadows of high land-use intensityCarbon sequestration is higher for forest than for grasslandService hotspots are larch meadows which have howeveralmost completely disappeared in recent decades Impactson multiple ecosystem services can be related to land-usecover change Previous land-use changes have led toan increase of all ecosystem service values except the aes-thetic value The scenarios predict a trend reversion formost ecosystem services apart from natural hazard regula-tion and the aesthetic value For modelling future scenarioswe assumed that plant species distribution is only influ-enced by land use However species distribution shifts andeven extinction of alpine plants can be expected due toclimate change (Thuiller et al 2005 Grabherr 2009)
We found trade-offs between provisioning ecosystemservices and both regulating and cultural ecosystem ser-vices also confirmed by other studies (Bennett et al 2009Raudsepp-Hearne et al 2010) Forested areas cannot beused for forage production but are very valuable for carbonsequestration The aesthetic value is negatively correlatedto forage quantity and forage quality ie increasing man-agement intensity leads to higher forage production butreduces the aesthetic value Comparable to Badgley et al(2007) who found that trade-offs between agricultural pro-duction and many ecosystem services can be avoided byusing sustainable management practices our research find-ings indicate that extensive use has a positive influence onregulating and cultural ecosystem services We also foundtrade-offs between regulating and cultural ecosystem ser-vices While the aesthetic value of dense forest is lowerthan for grasslands carbon sequestration and natural haz-ard regulation are higher Since managed landscapes areareas of cultural importance the local population is crit-ical of any shift from rural landscapes to forests (Houmlchtlet al 2005 Bauer et al 2009) but people living outside theAlps perceive forest regeneration less negatively (Hunzikeret al 2008) The results of the survey indicate that touristsappreciate abandoned land and forest better than the localpopulation We found the highest aesthetic values relatedto extensively managed grassland or larch meadows andlower values for meadows of high land-use intensity orabandoned land
In our study we focused on a selection of ecosystemservices to which local stakeholders and farmers attached
importance (Lamarque et al 2011) Several ecosystemservices related to agriculture have been neglected includ-ing pollination water quantity and quality and recreationMoreover management practices control disservices fromagriculture eg habitat loss nutrient run-off pesticidepoisoning of non-target species (Zhang et al 2007) andfuture efforts will be concentrated on modelling additionalservices and disservices to agriculture
Conclusions
Ecosystem services related to agriculture contribute tohuman well-being Provisioning services are directlyrelated to land use but also regulating and cultural servicesdepend on management practices Future land-use policiesshould take into account that ecosystem services in moun-tain regions are closely linked to topographic and climaticconditions and a more flexible system for financial supportcould improve the farmersrsquo options for reacting to climaticvariations Trade-offs are related to land use and occurbetween provisioning regulating and cultural servicesService hotspots and multiple ecosystem service provisioncan be enhanced by sustainable agricultural managementTourism is likely to be strengthened under both the global-ized and the localized scenario and is positively influencedby extensive agricultural management enhancing the aes-thetic value With regard to economic benefits derivingfrom tourism landscape preferences linked to agriculturalpractices should be integrated into land-use policies andagricultural incentives for a sustainable development ofmountain regions
AcknowledgementsWe thank the farmers of the Stubai Valley for participating inthe scenario workshop and for their valuable inputs We wishto thank Michael Heinl for assistance during the workshop andfor data analyses and Christian Newesely Stefanie Rauscher andDagmar Rubatscher for providing data Three anonymous review-ers are acknowledged for their helpful comments We also thankBrigitte Scott for language editing This research was fundedby the ERA-Net BiodivERsA with the national funder FWFpart of the 2008 BiodivERsA call for research proposals Thisstudy was conducted on the LTER site lsquoStubai Valleyrsquo a memberof the Austrian LTSER Platform lsquoTyrolean Alpsrsquo The institu-tions involved are part of the interdisciplinary research centreslsquoEcology of the Alpine Regionrsquo and lsquoMountain Agriculturersquowithin the research area lsquoAlpine Space ndash Man and Environmentrsquoat the University of Innsbruck
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
12 U Schirpke et al
ReferencesAbegg B 1996 Klimaaumlnderung und Tourismus Klimafol-
genforschung am Beispiel des Wintertourismus in denSchweizer Alpen Zuumlrich (Switzerland) vdf Hochschul-verlag AG
Badgley C Moghtader J Quintero E Zakem E Chappell MJAvileacutes-Vaacutezquez K Samulon A Perfecto I 2007 Organicagriculture and the global food supply Renew Agr Food Sys22(2)86ndash108
Bauer N Wallner A Hunziker M 2009 The change ofEuropean landscapes human-nature relationships publicattitudes towards rewilding and the implications for land-scape management in Switzerland J Environ Manage90(9)2910ndash2920
Bayfield N Barancok P Furger M Sebastiagrave MT Domiacutenguez GLapka M Cudlinova E Vescovo L Ganielle D Cernusca Aet al 2008 Stakeholder perceptions of the impacts of ruralfunding scenarios on mountain landscapes across EuropeEcosystems 11(8)1368ndash1382
Beniston M 2006 Mountain weather and climate a generaloverview and a focus on climatic change in the AlpsHydrobiologia 562(1)3ndash16
Bennett EM Peterson GD Gordon LJ 2009 Understandingrelationships among multiple ecosystem services Ecol Lett12(12)1394ndash1404
Bouwman AF Beusen AHW Billen G 2009 Human alterationof the global nitrogen and phosphorus soil balances for theperiod 1970ndash2050 Global Biogeochem Cycles 23GB0A04
Chan KMA Shaw MR Cameron DR Underwood EC Daily GC2006 Conservation planning for ecosystem services PLoSBiol 4(11)e379
Chen XF Chen JM An SQ Ju WM 2007 Effects of topogra-phy on simulated net primary productivity at landscape scaleJ Environ Manage 85(3)585ndash596
Clarke J McClung DM 1999 Full-depth avalanche occur-rences caused by snow gliding Coquihalla British ColumbiaCanada Canada J Glaciol 45(151)539ndash546
de Groot RS Alkemade R Braat L Hein L Willemen L 2010Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem servicesand values in landscape planning management and decisionmaking Ecol Complex 7(3)260ndash272
de la Vega-Leinert A Schroumlter D Leemans R Fritsch UPluimers J 2008 A stakeholder dialogue on European vul-nerability Reg Environ Change 8(3)109ndash124
Dorner B Lertzman K Fall J 2002 Landscape pattern in topo-graphically complex landscapes issues and techniques foranalysis Landscape Ecol 17(8)729ndash743
Egger G 1999 Biotopkartierung Nationalpark Hohe TauernErhebung Bewertung und Maszlignahmenentwicklung aus-gewaumlhlter Biotope der Auszligenzone des Nationalparks HoheTauern (Tirol) Studie im Auftrag von Bundesministerium fuumlrUmwelt Jugend und Familie Klagenfurt
Egger G Angermann K Aigner S Buchgraber K 2005GIS-Gestuumltzte Ertragsmodellierung zur Optimierung desWeidemanagements auf Almweiden Gumpenstein BAL ndashBundesanst fuumlr Alpenlaumlnd Landwirtschaft
Egoh B Reyers B Rouget M Bode M Richardson D 2009Spatial congruence between biodiversity and ecosystem ser-vices in South Africa Biol Conserv 142(3)553ndash562
Egoh B Reyers B Rouget M Richardson DM Le MaitreDC van Jaarsveld AS 2008 Mapping ecosystem servicesfor planning and management Agric Ecosyst Environ127(1ndash2)135ndash140
Eigenbrod F Armsworth PR Anderson BJ Heinemeyer AGillings S Roy DB Thomas CD Gaston KJ 2010Error propagation associated with benefits transfer-basedmapping of ecosystem services Biol Conserv 143(11)2487ndash2493
European Commission 2010 Brussels (Belgium) the CAPtowards 2020 meeting the food natural resources and terri-torial challenges of the future [Internet] [cited 2012 Aug 16]Available from httpeur-lexeuropaeuLexUriServLexUriServdouri=COM20100672FINenPDF
Foley JA DeFries R Asner GP Barford C Bonan GCarpenter SR Chapin FS Coe MT Daily GC Gibbs HKet al 2005 Global consequences of land use Science309(5734)570ndash574
Gellrich M Zimmermann NE 2007 Investigating the regional-scale pattern of agricultural land abandonment in theSwiss mountains a spatial statistical modelling approachLandscape Urban Plan 79(1)65ndash76
Gimona A van der Horst D 2007 Mapping hotspots of multiplelandscape functions a case study on farmland afforestationin Scotland Landscape Ecol 22(8)1255ndash1264
Giupponi C Ramanzin M Sturaro E Fuser S 2006 Climateand land use changes biodiversity and agri-environmentalmeasures in the Belluno province Italy Environ Sci Policy9(2)163ndash173
Gordon LJ Finlayson CM Falkenmark M 2010 Managingwater in agriculture for food production and other ecosystemservices Agric Water Manage 97(4)512ndash519
Grabherr G 2009 Biodiversity in the high ranges of theAlps ethnobotanical and climate change perspectives GlobalEnviron Change 19(2)167ndash172
Grecirct-Regamey A Bebi P Bishop ID Schmid WA 2008 LinkingGIS-based models to value ecosystem services in an Alpineregion J Environ Manage 89(3)197ndash208
Harlinger O Knees G 1999 Klimahandbuch DerOumlsterreichischen Bodenschaumltzung Klimatographie 1Teil 1st ed Innsbruck (Austria) Universitaumltsverlag Wagner
Houmlchtl F Lehringer S Konold W 2005 ldquoWildernessrdquo what itmeans when it becomes a realitymdasha case study from thesouthwestern Alps Landscape Urban Plan 70(1ndash2)85ndash95
Hunziker M Felber P Gehring K Buchecker M Bauer NKienast F 2008 Evaluation of landscape change by differentsocial groups Mt Res Dev 28(2)140ndash147
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2000 Emissionsscenarios A special report of working group III of the inter-governmental panel on climate change Cambridge (UK)Cambridge University Press
Kienast F Bolliger J Potschin M de Groot R Verburg PHeller I Wascher D Haines-Young R 2009 Assessing land-scape functions with broad-scale environmental data insightsgained from a prototype development for Europe EnvironManage 44(6)1099ndash1120
Klapp E Boeker P Koumlnig F Staumlhlin A 1953 Das GruumlnlandHannover Schaper Wertzahlen der Gruumlnlandpflanzenp 38ndash40
Kok K Rothman DS Patel M 2006 Multi-scale narrativesfrom an IA perspective part I European and Mediterraneanscenario development Futures 38(3)261ndash284
Koumlrner C 2003 Alpine plant life functional plant ecology ofhigh mountain ecosystems 2nd ed Heidelberg (Germany)Springer
Lamarque P Tappeiner U Turner C Steinbacher M Bardgett RSzukics U Schermer M Lavorel S 2011 Stakeholder per-ceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowl-edge on soil fertility and biodiversity Reg Environ Change11(4)791ndash804
Lavorel S Grigulis K Lamarque P Colace M Garden D Girel JPellet G Douzet R 2011 Using plant functional traits tounderstand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystemservices J Ecol 99(1)135ndash147
Leitinger G Houmlller P Tasser E Walde J Tappeiner U 2008Development and validation of a spatial snow-glide modelEcol Model 211(3ndash4)363ndash374
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 13
Leitinger G Tasser E Newesely C Obojes N Tappeiner U 2010Seasonal dynamics of surface runoff in mountain grass-land ecosystems differing in land use J Hydrol 385(1ndash4)95ndash104
Mayring P 2002 Einfuumlhrung in die Qualitative Sozialforschung5th revised ed Weinheim (Germany) Beltz Verlag
Metzger MJ Rounsevell M Michlik A Leemans R Schroumlter D2006 The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land usechange Agric Ecosyst Environ 114(1)69ndash86
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 Ecosystems andhuman well-being synthesis Washington (DC) Island Press
Mottet A Ladet S Coqueacute N Gibon A 2006 Agriculturalland-use change and its drivers in mountain landscapesa case study in the Pyrenees Agric Ecosyst Environ114(2ndash4)296ndash310
Naidoo R Balmford A Costanza R Fisher B Green RE LehnerB Malcolm TR Ricketts TH 2008 Global mapping ofecosystem services and conservation priorities Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 105(28)9495ndash9500
Nelson E Mendoza G Regetz J Polasky S Tallis H CameronDR Chan KMA Daily GC Goldstein J Kareiva PM et al2009 Modeling multiple ecosystem services biodiversityconservation commodity production and tradeoffs at land-scape scales Front Ecol Environ 7(1)4ndash11
Pitesky ME Stackhouse KR Mitloehner FM 2009 Clearing theair livestockrsquos contribution to climate change In Sparks Deditor Advances in agronomy Burligton (MA) AcademicPress p 1ndash40
Rabbinge R van Diepen CA 2000 Changes in agriculture andland use in Europe Eur J Agron 13(2ndash3)85ndash99
Raudsepp-Hearne C Peterson GD Bennett EM 2010 Ecosystemservice bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapesProc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(11)5242ndash5247
Reubens B Poesen J Danjon F Geudens G Muys B 2007 Therole of fine and coarse roots in shallow slope stability andsoil erosion control with a focus on root system architecturea review Trees Struct Funct 21(4)385ndash402
Rodriguez JP Beard TD Bennett E Cumming GS Cork SAgard J Dobson A Peterson G 2006 Trade-offs acrossspace time and ecosystem services Ecol Soc 11(1)28
Rounsevell MDA Reginster I Arauacutejo MB Carter TRDendoncker N Ewert F House JI Kankaanpaumlauml SLeemans R Metzger MJ et al 2006 A coherent set of futureland use change scenarios for Europe Agric Ecosyst Environ114(1)57ndash68
Rudel TK Coomes OT Moran E Achard F Angelsen AXu J Lambin E 2005 Forest transitions towards a globalunderstanding of land use change Global Environ Change15(1)23ndash31
Rutherford GN Bebi P Edwards PJ Zimmermann NE 2008Assessing land-use statistics to model land cover change ina mountainous landscape in the European Alps Ecol Model212(3ndash4)460ndash471
Schallberger P 1999 Wovon handeln baumluerliche Zukunfts-vorstellungen Determinanten Dimensionen und Typen(German manuscript of the paper De quel avenir parlent lespaysans) In Droz Y Mieville-Ott V editors On achegravevebien les paysans Reconstruire une identiteacute paysanne dansun monde incertain Genegraveve (Switzerland) Edition Georg p103ndash126
Schneeberger N Buumlrgi M Kienast F 2007 Rates of landscapechange at the northern fringe of the Swiss Alps historical andrecent tendencies Landscape Urban Plan 80(1ndash2)127ndash136
Schroumlter D Cramer W Leemans R Prentice IC Arauacutejo MBArnell NW Bondeau A Bugmann H Carter TR Gracia CAet al 2005 Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability toglobal change in Europe Science 310(5752)1333ndash1337
Stallman HR 2011 Ecosystem services in agriculture determin-ing suitability for provision by collective management EcolEcon 71131ndash139
Steiger R 2010 The impact of climate change on ski seasonlength and snowmaking requirements in Tyrol Austria ClimRes 43(3)251ndash262
Strauss F Formayer H Schmid E 2012 High resolution climatedata for Austria in the period 2008ndash2040 from a statistical cli-mate change model Int J Climatol DOI 101002joc3434
Strauss F Schmid E Moltchanova E Formayer H Wang X2011 Modeling climate change and biophysical impacts ofcrop production in the Austrian Marchfeld region ClimaticChange 111(3) 641ndash664
Swetnam RD Fisher B Mbilinyi BP Munishi PKT Willcock SRicketts T Mwakalila S Balmford A Burgess ND MarshallAR et al 2011 Mapping socio-economic scenarios of landcover change a GIS method to enable ecosystem servicemodeling J Environ Manage 92(3)563ndash574
Swift MJ Izac AN van Noordwijk M 2004 Biodiversity andecosystem services in agricultural landscapesmdashare we askingthe right questions Agric Ecosyst Environ 104(1)113ndash134
Swinton SM Lupi F Robertson GP Hamilton SK 2007Ecosystem services and agriculture cultivating agriculturalecosystems for diverse benefits Ecol Econ 64(2)245ndash252
Tappeiner U Tappeiner G Hilbert A Mattanovich E 2003 TheEU agricultural policy and the environment evaluation of thealpine region Oxford (UK) Blackwell
Tappeiner U Tasser E Leitinger G Cernusca A Tappeiner G2008 Effects of historical and likely future scenarios of landuse on above- and belowground vegetation carbon stocks ofan alpine valley Ecosystems 11(8)1383ndash1400
Tasser E Mader M Tappeiner U 2003 Effects of land use inalpine grasslands on the probability of landslides Basic ApplEcol 4(3)271ndash280
Tasser E Ruffini F Tappeiner U 2009 An integrative approachfor analysing landscape dynamics in diverse cultivated andnatural mountain areas Landscape Ecol 24(5)611ndash628
Tasser E Tappeiner U 2002 Impact of land use changes onmountain vegetation Appl Veg Sci 5(2)173ndash184
Tasser E Walde J Tappeiner U Teutsch A Noggler W 2007Land-use changes and natural reforestation in the EasternCentral Alps Agric Ecosyst Environ 118(1ndash4)115ndash129
Theurillat J Guisan A 2001 Potential impact of climate changeon vegetation in the European Alps a review ClimaticChange 50(1)77ndash109
Thuiller W Lavorel S Arauacutejo MB Sykes MT Prentice IC 2005Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 102(23)8245ndash8250
Tilman D Fargione J Wolff B DrsquoAntonio C Dobson A HowarthR Schindler D Schlesinger WH Simberloff D SwackhamerD 2001 Forecasting agriculturally driven global environ-mental change Science 292(5515)281ndash284
Troy A Wilson MA 2006 Mapping ecosystem services prac-tical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and valuetransfer Ecol Econ 60(2)435ndash449
Van der Ploeg JD Long A 1994 Born from within practice andperspectives of endogenous rural development Van GorcumAssen Styles of farming an introductory note on conceptsand methodology p 7ndash30
Walz A Lardelli C Behrendt H Grecirct-Regamey A Lundstroumlm CKytzia S Bebi P 2007 Participatory scenario analysisfor integrated regional modeling Landscape Urban Plan81(1ndash2)114ndash131
Wischmeier WH Smith DD 1978 Predicting rainfall erosionlosses ndash a guide to conservation planning Washington (DC)US Department of Agriculture
Zhang W Ricketts TH Kremen C Carney K Swinton SM2007 Ecosystem services and dis-services to agricultureEcol Econ 64(2)253ndash260
Zimmermann P Tasser E Leitinger G Tappeiner U 2010Effects of land-use and land-cover pattern on landscape-scalebiodiversity in the European Alps Agric Ecosyst Environ139(1ndash2)13ndash22
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
2 U Schirpke et al
In the current study we aimed our efforts at examininghistorical and future impacts of altered agricultural activi-ties on multiple ecosystem services of mountain regionsSince ecological functions rely greatly on topographyclimatic conditions and vegetation patterns (Dorner et al2002 Mottet et al 2006 Gellrich and Zimmermann 2007)we adapted existing modelling approaches and developednew methods to quantify ecosystem services to the specificcharacteristics of mountain regions based on a geographicinformation system (GIS) Future multiple ecosystem ser-vices provision was projected based on socio-economicand climate scenarios The specific objectives were asfollows (1) assessment of socio-economic and climatescenarios by a participatory approach (2) GIS-based quan-tification and spatial modelling of multiple ecosystemservices (3) impact analysis of ecosystem services basedon historical and future land-use pattern and (4) trade-offanalysis of multiple ecosystem services
Materials and methods
Study area and data collection
The Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) SiteKaserstattalm (1115primendash1120prime E 475primendash4710prime N) is loca-ted in the Stubai Valley in Austria on moderate to steepslopes facing south and southeast (Figure 1) It extendsover an area of 51 km2 and altitude ranges from 970 to2535 m The average annual air temperature and precipita-tion are 24C and 1100 mm at 1750 m asl respectivelyAgricultural use has shaped the landscape for centuriesThe upper part is covered by alpine meadows and pastures
managed with different intensities More than half of thesegrasslands have been abandoned in recent decades Theyare bounded below by open larch forest that changes todense forest further down The lower slopes and the valleyfloor are intensively used and covered mainly by grasslandfor forage production
Ecosystem services were modelled based on histori-cal and future land-use pattern vegetation distribution andtopography Historical land-use maps (1954 1960 19701980 1990 2001 and 2011) were determined on the basisof orthophotos and historical maps as well as of interviewswith farmers Interpretation and mapping of land-use dis-tribution was done by on-screen digitizing Missing timeperiods were integrated using historical data (agriculturalcensus and village chronicles) and free response inter-views with all 43 landowners and farmers to get detailedinformation about land use ie differentiation betweenmeadows and pastures number of mowings and grazingperiod All information was included in the maps thatwere then checked by the farmers for accuracy (geometryand attributes) For more details on the mapping methodused see Tasser et al (2009) The vegetation was mappedin the field at a scale of 15000 based on orthophotoswith a minimum plot-size of 25 m2 for herbaceous plantcommunities and sim250 m2 for forests For more detailson the mapping method used see Tasser and Tappeiner(2002) To derive topographical characteristics (elevationslope and aspect) which were important for modelling bio-physical and climate-dependent factors a digital elevationmodel (DEM) with a spatial resolution of 5 m times 5 m wasused provided by the Tyrolean Information System (tiriscopy)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 sitelsquoKaserstattalmrsquo (c)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 3
Scenarios
To assess future trends we used different scenarios for(1) socio-economic conditions and (2) climate change
Socio-economic scenarios
Based on current trends of dynamics in the local develop-ment of settlements and job opportunities described by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) thelocal demand for touristic services and the regional andinternational market opportunities for agricultural prod-ucts (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2000)we defined two contrasting socio-economic scenarios (1a)localized scenario and (1b) globalized scenario The termslsquolocalizedrsquo and lsquoglobalizedrsquo do not refer to any spatialscale but to the direction of socio-economic developmentIn the localized scenario the economic development pathassumes rather closed local and regional economic cyclesand is largely independent of global economic changes(IPCC storyline B2) In contrast for a globalized scenarioglobal competition on mass markets is more important thanlocal and regional economic relations (IPCC storyline A1)Based on stakeholder consultations through expert inter-views and group discussions (Lamarque et al 2011) theIPCC scenarios were adapted to the specific conditions ofthe study area
To present the scenarios to stakeholders the followingstorylines were designed
The lsquolocalizedrsquo socio-economic scenario (1a)suggests a development that focuses on thelocalregional economy and proposes an increasein the number of commuters to the regional capital(within a distance of 20 km) in the lower partof the valley and a focus on sustainable tourismactivities (farm holidays hiking tobogganing andbackcountry skiing in winter) Locally producedfood is increasingly in demand and regional andorganic products fetch high prices Farmers receivepayments out of the second pillar of the CommonAgricultural Policy (CAP) for rural development andagri-environmental measures National and regionalsubsidies complement the CAP and also addressregionally targeted environmental specificationsThe regional and the local administrations contributefinancial support for infrastructure (road mainte-nance joint processing and marketing facilities) andjoin use of special agricultural equipment
The lsquoglobalizedrsquo socio-economic scenario (1b) isbased on the assumption that the study area willaim for competitiveness on a world market It alsoforecasts an increasing number of commuters to theregional capital In the upper part of the valleytourism is based on an increasing number of ski runsfor winter activities glacier skiing all year roundand outdoor adventure activities in summer Thisresults in mass tourism and new hotel complexesThe farmers are only paid to manage agricultural
land according to the recreational demands in spe-cially designated locations As both residents andtourists are assumed to be price-conscious in theirpurchasing behaviour for food products local ori-gin and quality become rather irrelevant Thereforelocal food production is assumed to be not com-petitive because of declining producer prices on theglobal market Agricultural produce as far as it canbe competitive on the world market is processedin highly centralized facilities outside the valleyAgricultural transfer payments are assumed to havefallen on average by about 20 for mountain farms(European Commission 2010) Out of the compen-sation payments of the second pillar of the CAPfor farmers in mountain areas every farmer stillreceives a small basic income that increases withthe provision of global ecosystem services such aspreservation and enhancement of biodiversity waterquality and plants for CO2 sequestration Theseassumptions were based on lsquopolicy option 3rsquo as pre-sented in the Communication from the EuropeanCommission (European Commission 2010)
Climate scenarios
Climate change scenarios of both General CirculationModels (GCMs) and Regional Climate Models (RCMs)suffer from uncertainties especially in mountain regions(Beniston 2006) To account for regional climate patternswe used a daily climate change dataset for Austriawith a spatial resolution of 1 km2 provided by Strausset al (2012) The datasets were projected for the period2008ndash2040 with ACLiReM (Austrian Climate changeModel using Linear Regression Strauss et al 2011) basedon historical daily weather station data from 1975 to2007 and linear regression with repeated bootstrappingStarting from the status quo (SQ) we defined three dif-ferent climate scenarios for our study site (2a) 5-year sce-nario (2b) 20-year scenario and (2c) worst-case scenarioStrauss et al (2012) calculated three different temperaturescenarios We selected the lsquohighrsquo temperature scenario (iemaximum mean temperature for the period 2008ndash2040)For changing precipitation rates there is no clear sig-nal for the next three decades and Strauss et al (2012)provide 17 different scenarios for precipitation In linewith Beniston (2006) we selected increasing daily winterprecipitation (SeptemberndashFebruary) by 10 and decreas-ing daily summer precipitation (MarchndashAugust) by 10for the 5-year and 20-year scenarios For the worst-casescenario we used decreasing daily precipitation by 20
To present the scenarios to stakeholders the followingstorylines were designed
In the 5-year scenario (2a) dry years are alternat-ing with normally wet years and occur in three outof 5 years For dry years spring-time conditions aredry with very little run-off due to missing meltingwater from the tops The summers are characterized
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
4 U Schirpke et al
Table 1 Mean annual temperature annual precipitation andsummer precipitation (AprilndashSeptember) of the status quo andscenarios for normal and dry years
Status quo5-year
normal year
5-yeardry
yeara
20-yearnormalyearb
20-yeardry
yearb
Mean annualtemperature (C)
24 69 58 77
Annual precipitation(mm)
1100 549 845 416
Summerprecipitation (mm)
687 283 535 207
Note aCorresponds conditions in the dry year 2003bStrauss et al (2012)
by little rainfall and high temperatures (Table 1)Precipitation in winter falls almost exclusively asrain and leads to a shorter period of solid snow coverIn dry years vegetation below sim1300 m experiencesextreme drought stress and hay yield is only 50 ofthe usual amount (Egger et al 2005)
For the 20-year scenario (2b) the trend withincreased temperatures and variable precipitationpatterns continues and leads to warm winter monthswith very little snow (Table 1) We assume that dryyears occur in 7 out of 10 years (Abegg 1996 Steiger2010) Mainly on alpine meadows and pasturesaverage years produce little loss of yield (simndash10)while dry years reduce agricultural yields by about50 (Egger et al 2005 Pfurtscheller 2012 personalcommunication) Snow cover becomes unreliablebelow 1500 m asl and the conditions for artificialsnow-making are getting poorer Ski tourism is onlyprofitable above 1800 m asl (Steiger 2010)
In the worst-case scenario (2c) most years are verydry with climatic conditions similar to the dry yearsof the 20-year scenario As snow reliability fails(Abegg 1996 Steiger 2010) and springs are drywinter tourism collapses and hay yields are rarelygood enough to make farming feasible
Workshops
The two socio-economic scenarios (termed lsquolocalizedrsquo andlsquoglobalizedrsquo see above) were combined with the climatescenarios resulting in six different overall scenarios(1) localized 5-year LN(5) (2) localized 20-year LN(20)(3) localized worst-case LW(20) (4) globalized 5-yearGN(5) (5) globalized 20-year GN(20) and (6) glob-alized worst-case GW(20) To assess the managementimplications of the different scenarios two workshopsone for the localized scenarios and another one for theglobalized scenarios were organized with 4ndash6 farmersfrom the Stubai Valley in each session A qualitativeapproach was used to select farmers that represent typicalsituations to get a lsquopublic opinion collective attitudesand ideologiesrsquo (Mayring 2002) in the context of futureland-use management
To capture various opinions and solutions the farm-ers were selected by their socio-economic profilescharacterized by their modern or traditional habitus(Schallberger 1999) and their approach towards marketand nature This was reflected in different farming styles(Van der Ploeg and Long 1994) combining production pat-terns (organic or conventional high or low mechanization)with market approaches (directindirect marketing chan-nels) and different employment situation (ie part-time orfull-time employed or self-employed) During the work-shops the farmers were asked to develop a joint strategyto react to the specific scenarios In addition they were toexplain related land-use changes For the study area spatialmapping of the scenarios was done on orthophotos by thefarmers and later digitalized
Modelling ecosystem services
Lamarque et al (2011) identified a common set of ecosys-tem services of mountain grasslands that were consid-ered important by local stakeholders and farmers for theStubai Valley (aesthetic value carbon sequestration foragequality forage quantity natural hazard regulation pollina-tion recreation soil stability water quality and water quan-tity) Accordingly we modelled a selection of ecosystemservices for our study site lsquoKaserstattalmrsquo based on land-use pattern vegetation distribution and topographic char-acteristics using 5 m times 5 m resolution data We adaptedthe different GIS-based modelling approaches which aredescribed in the following in detail to the specific topo-graphic conditions of mountain regions to quantify theecosystem services on a landscape scale Raster mapswere created for historical dates and future scenarios andrescaled to values ranging from 0 to 100 For reporting wecalculated mean values of the total study area
Aesthetic value
The aesthetic value was assessed by a photo survey (seesupplementary online material httpinformahealthcarecomdoisuppl[101080215137322012751936]) Thestandardized questionnaire was composed of five photo-graphic series each consisting of four photographs relatedto (1) different management types of alpine grassland(pasture meadow and abandoned land) (2) differentmanagement intensities of meadows (number of mowingsand fertilization) (3) different successional stages ofabandoned land (4) different management types of alpinegrassland at flowering season (meadow of lowhigh land-use intensity pasture and abandoned land) and (5) differentmanagement types of alpine grassland after cutting orgrazing A total of 78 persons locals and tourists wereinterviewed at the alpine hut which is located at 1900 masl on our study site lsquoKaserstattalmrsquo and asked to givescores to the pictures of each series according to theirpreferences (1 for least preferred and 4 for most pre-ferred) To map the aesthetic value we linked the resultingpreference values to the different land-use categories
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 5
Carbon sequestration
Carbon density (Mg C haminus1) assigned to each vegetationtype was derived from above-ground and below-groundphytomass (Mg haminus1) and C-stocks (g gminus1) resulted fromproject-area-relevant literature and own measurementsAbove-ground phytomass was measured by harvestingor cutting the vegetation of defined plots Below-groundphytomass was determined by taking soil cores and manualexcavation of roots For further details refer to Tappeineret al (2008) Phytomass and C-content were multiplied andan area-weighted mean value for each land-use categorywas obtained by overlaying the vegetation and the land-usemaps
Forage quality
Each vegetation type was assigned a forage quality valueaccording to Klapp et al (1953) By overlaying the veg-etation and the land-use maps an area-weighted meanvalue for each land-use category was obtained To accountfor changing climate conditions within land-use typeseach raster cell was corrected by the elevation accord-ing to Egger (1999) where forage quality increases below1800 m asl (10 per 100 m) and decreases above 2200 masl (10 per 200 m) This leads to a differentiationof our community-weighted mean for climatic and soildifferences
Forage quantity
Forage quantity is a function of topography and land-usepattern and was estimated on the basis of productivity typeof grassland determined by plant species and the growingseason (Egger et al 2005) Using the DEM the days withvegetation growth were determined according to Harflingerand Knees (1999) for the climate zone inner-alpine westHigher mean temperatures of the scenarios are consideredby lowering the DEM with the temperature lapse rate of6C per km of elevation (Koumlrner 2003) The forage quan-tity was corrected by topography ie slope and aspectwhich can accelerate or diminish vegetation growthAs precipitation requirements for forage are 100 mm pre-cipitation per 1000 kg forage (Egger et al 2005) themaximum possible forage quantity is limited by the totalamount of summer precipitation (AprilndashSeptember)
Natural hazard regulation
Natural hazards in mountain regions are mainly massmovements ie rock fall and landslides debris flows andavalanches As rock fall is no major issue in our studyarea natural hazard regulation was modelled on the basisof (1) snow gliding (2) surface water run-off and (3) rootdensity Avalanches are often caused by snow gliding(Clarke and McClung 1999) To predict snow gliding sixkey drivers (forest stand slope angle winter precipita-tion surface roughness slope aspect west and slope aspect
east) were used (Leitinger et al 2008) Snow gliding alsoincreases the probability of landslides (Tasser et al 2003)Surface water run-off contributing to landslides mud-flows and floods is a function of above-ground phytomassskeleton fraction-soil stone content in 0ndash01 m soil depthannual precipitation and elevation (Leitinger et al 2010)Root density is related to slope stability (Reubens et al2007) We mapped root mass associated to each vegetationtype (Tappeiner et al 2008) and obtained an area-weightedmean value for each land-use category by overlaying thevegetation and the land-use maps To determine naturalhazard regulation the three input factors snow gliding sur-face water run-off and root density were added for eachraster cell
Soil stability
To predict the soil stability we used the universal soil lossequation (USLE Wischmeier and Smith 1978) The rate ofsoil erosion is a function of land-use pattern soil type pre-cipitation and topography The erosivity factor ndash the greaterthe intensity and duration of the rain storm the higher theerosion potential ndash was assumed to be equal throughout thestudy area and therefore excluded from calculation as wefound no significant differences in rainfall intensity (mmper time unit) between our climate stations at 970 17501850 and 2000 m asl Slope characteristics were derivedfrom the DEM As no data about soil characteristics wereavailable we used root density which is related to soil sta-bility (Reubens et al 2007) Root mass associated witheach vegetation type (Tappeiner et al 2008) was overlaidon the land-use map and an area-weighted mean value foreach land-use category calculated
Multiple ecosystem services analysis
A multiple ecosystem services map was obtained by thesum of all ecosystem services using 0ndash100 scaled valuesImpacts of land-use change were visualized by creatingmaps of ecosystem service change To understand trade-offs and synergies between different ecosystem servicesa principal component analysis (PCA) was performed inArcGISTM (Version 931 Spatial Analyst ESRI) for his-torical dates and future scenarios Using the six differentecosystem services maps as input raster layers eigenvec-tors eigenvalues a covariance matrix and a correlationmatrix were calculated and maps of the components weregenerated
Results
Scenario workshop
During the workshop the farmers specified that their deci-sions about intensity and type of agricultural use aredriven by different key factors agricultural policies cli-mate conditions nature protection topography and eco-nomic motivations The general strategies for responding
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
6 U Schirpke et al
to the different socio-economic and climate scenarios arerepresentative for the whole region Spatial distributionof land-use patterns was mapped only for the study arealsquoKaserstattalmrsquo
In the globalized scenarios the farmers shift theiractivities towards tourism (in which most of them arealready engaged part-time) and continue managing alpinegrasslands and pastures for landscape conservation Largemeadows are managed as long as they can be mown bymachinery otherwise they are transformed into pasturesThe farmers react to global pressure and decreasingmarket-prices with a shift in livestock ie from cattleto sheep and goats Higher temperatures due to climatechange allow a diversification of products ie vegetablesor wine-growing and animals can stay longer on pasturesIrrigation might become necessary for agricultural useon the valley floor but the farmers were convinced thatthe glacier will continue to provide the required amountof irrigation water even in times of drought For theglobalized worst-case scenario GW(20) farmers assumea global financial crisis In times of economic crisis withscarce employment opportunities farming becomes moreimportant Hence almost any available area is used foragriculture to cover the subsistence food requirements ofthe region
During the workshop on the localized scenarios farm-ers rated the market opportunities of this scenario as goodand considered new crops like pumpkins on the valley floorand new production niches like dairy sheep farming onthe slope The farmers considered water scarcity due to cli-mate change as the biggest problem Irrigation howeverwas seen as a solution only for some farmers in the val-ley on areas of high land-use intensity Farmers on dryslopes would not benefit from irrigation as pumping upwater for irrigation was not thought feasible The use offavourable areas is intensified and diversified for productsneeded on local markets (eg wine fruits and vegetables)Less favourable areas especially on hill sites are largelyabandoned or used for grazing with sheep Livestock farm-ing remains more important than arable farming even ifthe proportion of arable land grows The farmers continuemanaging their agricultural land as long as it is profitable(also due to payments for landscape preservation) and com-bine agricultural activities with other occupations whichstill allow part-time farming Continued transfer paymentswere thought necessary but the restrictions imposed by thecompulsory 5-year period of the contracts were severelycriticized With the prospect of weather conditions pos-sibly varying more frequently from year to year farmersrequested more freedom in their management decisionsAs tourism is likely to increase especially during sum-mer some areas might be adapted for touristic use egwith golf courses and small artificial lakes There is nojoint strategy for facing possible future socio-economicand climate changes but rather individual solutions thatneed to be developed and for each farm to find its ownniche The localized worst-case scenario is dominated byan abandonment of farms due to prolonged drought periods
and overregulation Farmers complained that the existingregulations of contractual commitments for transfer pay-ments in the agri-environmental programme (no land-usechange within the 5-year period) already hinder innova-tions This leads to critical situations especially in thecourse of farm succession
Land-use change
Historical changes
From 1954 to 2011 agricultural use generally decreased(Table 2) The main period of abandonment occurred inthe 1960s and 1970s Larch meadows in particular werealmost completely abandoned until 2011 leading to anincrease of dense forest after several decades Alpine pas-tures and meadows were reduced to 38 of the area in1954 meadows decreasing more rapidly than pasturesOn the valley floor arable land disappeared completely in1970 and changed to grassland of high land-use intensity
Future changes
Land-use changes for the scenarios GN(5) and LN(5) coin-cide and land-use distribution is similar to the SQ (Table 2)This is not astonishing as farmers depend on the trans-fer payments from agri-environmental programmes with a5-year contractual period Half of the abandoned land isused again as alpine pastures and the land-use intensityof meadows has increased The change from abandonedland to alpine pastures continues with a lower transfor-mation rate for the 20-year scenarios Future changes areexpected to result from either a collapse of the worldeconomy (scenario GW(20)) or over-regulation in times ofincreased climatic variation The results of both the sce-narios are entirely different In GW the post-World War IIlandscape is re-established while in scenario LW(20) largeparts are expected to be reforested and abandoned TheGW scenario forecasts massive intensification of use and areversal of almost the entire area to agricultural use Higherareas are dominated by pastures and meadows of low land-use intensity On favourable areas land-use intensity ofmeadows is high Even large areas of previously aban-doned larch meadows are used again especially in areasof higher elevation where forest regeneration occurs moreslowly On the valley floor 30 of the grassland is trans-formed to arable land The farmers considered LN(20) asthe maximum likely reduction of land use as long as thelocal conditions allow farming However future gener-ations might change occupation and abandon all alpinegrassland leading to an increase of forest and abandonedland The valley floor is still managed by big farmers
Ecosystem services
Landscape pattern
Spatial distribution of ecosystem services is related to land-use pattern and topography (Figures 2 and 3) The aesthetic
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 7
Table 2 Land-use distribution of the study area lsquoKaserstattalmrsquo for historical dates the status quo and the scenarios
Total changed area 226 208 161 98 95 57 minus 42 55 46 221 119
Notes The total changed area refers to the status quoaMowing every 3ndash5 yearsbMowing every 2 yearsc1ndash2 mowings per yeard3ndash4 mowings per year
value is highest for meadows of low land-use intensity fol-lowed by abandoned larch meadows Alpine pastures andmeadows are preferred to abandoned land Least attractiveare meadows of high land-use intensity and forest Carbonsequestration is highest in forests and reaches good valuesin larch meadows Meadows of very low land-use inten-sity and abandoned land store more carbon than alpinepastures whereas meadows of high land-use intensity andarable land store the least carbon Meadows of high land-use intensity on the valley floor produce highest foragequantities and have the best forage quality Productionrates and quality diminish with decreasing managementintensity and increasing elevation Pastures have lower for-age quality than meadows Natural hazard regulation islower for alpine pastures than for meadows of low land-useintensity or abandoned land due to higher soil compactionand higher surface run-off Forest and larch meadowshave highest natural hazard regulation values Soil stabilitydepends highly on the slope gradient and the vegetationcover Abandoned land has higher root densities than man-aged grasslands Lowest erosion risk arises on the flatvalley floor and in forests followed by larch meadows andabandoned land on moderate slopes
Historical impacts
Historical land-use changes have led to an increase of thetotal ecosystem service value but have influenced the anal-ysed ecosystem services to different degrees (Figure 3)The aesthetic value increased between 1954 and 1990 pri-marily due to the abandonment of larch meadows whereasthe subsequent decrease was caused by forest regenera-tion An increase in carbon sequestration occurred after1990 because of forest growth Mean values of forage
quality and quantity have risen continuously particularlybetween 1970 and 1980 Large areas of alpine pasturesand meadows were abandoned and only areas with higherproduction rates and better forage quality continued to bemanaged The total forage amount of the entire study sitehas decreased by 47 since 1954 Natural hazard regu-lation and soil stability increased after 1990 when forestreplaced larch meadows and managed grasslands weremore and more abandoned
Future impacts
The total ecosystem service value for all scenarios is lowerthan the SQ except LW(20) and decreases with time forthe globalized scenarios while decelerating for the local-ized scenarios (Figure 3) In the 5-year scenarios onlysmall changes are predicted for carbon sequestration andsoil stability Less precipitation and higher temperaturesgenerally lower the risk of natural hazards because of lesssnow cover and reduced surface run-off Areas for forageproduction are extended but mean forage quality and quan-tity decrease because pastures are lower in forage qualityand quantity than meadows Higher impacts are estimatedfor the 20-year scenarios Carbon sequestration naturalhazard regulation and soil stability increase while meanforage quality and quantity continue to decrease Highestimpacts occur in GW(20) where all ecosystem servicevalues decrease except aesthetic value and natural hazardregulation Forage production is limited due to signifi-cantly lower precipitation Loss of areas with high land-useintensity for forage production is compensated for by anenormous increase of used areas especially pastures Meanforage quantity and quality are therefore lower but the totalforage amount produced by the entire study site reaches
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
8 U Schirpke et al
Figure 2 Ecosystem services of different land-use types for the status quo Values are re-scaled to 0ndash100
more than double that of SQ Impacts in LW(20) arecontrary to GW(20) with a decrease in the aesthetic valueand improved regulating services Agricultural activitiescontinue only on the valley floor Although provisioningservices improve significantly the total forage amount ofthe entire study site is only about 17 of that in SQ
Trade-offs
We applied a PCA for all time steps to assess trade-offsand synergies between multiple ecosystem services Thefirst two components explain 85ndash89 of the variance (for
SQ see Table 3) The relationships between the differ-ent ecosystem services indicate only little changes acrosstime but differ between different land-usecover categories(Figure 4) Thus we concentrate on the SQ The first axis isdriven by contrasts between regulating ecosystem servicesdominated by carbon sequestration and the aesthetic valueand forage provision (Table 3 Figure 5) Regarding dif-ferent land-use types the first component has high valuesfor forest while pastures and meadows have low val-ues (Figure 4) The second axis is driven by contrastsbetween the aesthetic value and forage provision (Table 3Figure 5) High aesthetic values are associated to extensive
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 9
Figure 3 Landscape pattern of ecosystem services for the status quo Values are re-scaled to 0ndash100 Historical development and futuretrends in normalized ecosystem services All scores are normalized by their status quo levels
Table 3 Correlation matrix of PCA for the status quo
Figure 4 Maps of contrasts of (a) the first component and (b)the second component for the status quo
use and lower values with intensive use whereas foragequantity and quality show contrary dependencies Highestvalues of the second component emerge for abandonedlarch meadows with high values for aesthetics and carbonsequestration (Figure 4) Synergies occur between forage
Figure 5 PCA plot of eigenvectors (component 1 times compo-nent 2) for the status quo
quality and forage quantity (r gt 05) (Table 4) Carbonsequestration natural hazard regulation and soil stabilityare also positively correlated (r gt 05) For forests carbonsequestration natural hazard regulation and soil stabilityare negatively correlated with the aesthetic value while forother land-use categories the variables are independent
Discussion
Scenario analysis has often been linked with participatoryapproaches to understand socio-economic administrativecultural political and environmental dynamics within aparticular region (Kok et al 2006 Walz et al 2007)We asked local farmers of the Stubai Valley to specifythe management implications arising in different socio-economic conditions under climate change As key driversfor land-use change the farmers identified agriculturalfunding policies market prices and dryer climate condi-tions While the farmers keep managing agricultural landin the globalized scenarios and respond to global pressureby diversification of products and livestock agriculturalland is partly abandoned in the localized scenarios (espe-cially on the slopes and on alpine pastures) or transformedinto touristic areas During the next 20 years about 11 ofthe area will be subject to land-use changes in GN(20) and9 in LN(20) GW(20) predicts even changes for 43of the total area The farmers considered LW(20) whichaffects 23 of the area not very likely to occur sincethey keep managing agricultural land as long as the localeconomy allows However future generations might decidedifferently During the last decade agriculturally usedareas have been widely abandoned in the European Alpsespecially in southern Italian and French Alps (Houmlchtl et al2005 Giupponi et al 2006 Zimmermann et al 2010)The resulting land-use changes for our study site corre-spond generally to Europe-wide land-usecover scenarios(Rounsevell et al 2006 Bayfield et al 2008) Since theStubai Valley was identified by Tappeiner et al (2003) asan Alpine lsquostandard regionrsquo characterized by agriculturaluse with a specialization in livestock farming which isrepresentative for 22 of the European Alps the studyresults are likely to correspond to the development of othercomparable 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-basedmodelling approaches to quantify the provision of mul-tiple ecosystem services for historical dates and futurescenarios on a landscape scale In mountain regionsecosystem services are influenced by topographic char-acteristics For provisioning services we found strongdependencies to topography As confirmed by Chen et al(2007) forage quantity decreases with increasing eleva-tion Many regulating services are also determined bytopography eg natural hazard regulation and slope stabil-ity are better for smaller slope gradients Consistent withother studies different ecosystem services correspond tolandscape pattern (Gimona and van der Horst 2007 Naidoo
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 11
et al 2008 Egoh et al 2009) The aesthetic value is higherfor alpine pastures and meadows of low land-use inten-sity than for forest or meadows of high land-use intensityCarbon sequestration is higher for forest than for grasslandService hotspots are larch meadows which have howeveralmost completely disappeared in recent decades Impactson multiple ecosystem services can be related to land-usecover change Previous land-use changes have led toan increase of all ecosystem service values except the aes-thetic value The scenarios predict a trend reversion formost ecosystem services apart from natural hazard regula-tion and the aesthetic value For modelling future scenarioswe assumed that plant species distribution is only influ-enced by land use However species distribution shifts andeven extinction of alpine plants can be expected due toclimate change (Thuiller et al 2005 Grabherr 2009)
We found trade-offs between provisioning ecosystemservices and both regulating and cultural ecosystem ser-vices also confirmed by other studies (Bennett et al 2009Raudsepp-Hearne et al 2010) Forested areas cannot beused for forage production but are very valuable for carbonsequestration The aesthetic value is negatively correlatedto forage quantity and forage quality ie increasing man-agement intensity leads to higher forage production butreduces the aesthetic value Comparable to Badgley et al(2007) who found that trade-offs between agricultural pro-duction and many ecosystem services can be avoided byusing sustainable management practices our research find-ings indicate that extensive use has a positive influence onregulating and cultural ecosystem services We also foundtrade-offs between regulating and cultural ecosystem ser-vices While the aesthetic value of dense forest is lowerthan for grasslands carbon sequestration and natural haz-ard regulation are higher Since managed landscapes areareas of cultural importance the local population is crit-ical of any shift from rural landscapes to forests (Houmlchtlet al 2005 Bauer et al 2009) but people living outside theAlps perceive forest regeneration less negatively (Hunzikeret al 2008) The results of the survey indicate that touristsappreciate abandoned land and forest better than the localpopulation We found the highest aesthetic values relatedto extensively managed grassland or larch meadows andlower values for meadows of high land-use intensity orabandoned land
In our study we focused on a selection of ecosystemservices to which local stakeholders and farmers attached
importance (Lamarque et al 2011) Several ecosystemservices related to agriculture have been neglected includ-ing pollination water quantity and quality and recreationMoreover management practices control disservices fromagriculture eg habitat loss nutrient run-off pesticidepoisoning of non-target species (Zhang et al 2007) andfuture efforts will be concentrated on modelling additionalservices and disservices to agriculture
Conclusions
Ecosystem services related to agriculture contribute tohuman well-being Provisioning services are directlyrelated to land use but also regulating and cultural servicesdepend on management practices Future land-use policiesshould take into account that ecosystem services in moun-tain regions are closely linked to topographic and climaticconditions and a more flexible system for financial supportcould improve the farmersrsquo options for reacting to climaticvariations Trade-offs are related to land use and occurbetween provisioning regulating and cultural servicesService hotspots and multiple ecosystem service provisioncan be enhanced by sustainable agricultural managementTourism is likely to be strengthened under both the global-ized and the localized scenario and is positively influencedby extensive agricultural management enhancing the aes-thetic value With regard to economic benefits derivingfrom tourism landscape preferences linked to agriculturalpractices should be integrated into land-use policies andagricultural incentives for a sustainable development ofmountain regions
AcknowledgementsWe thank the farmers of the Stubai Valley for participating inthe scenario workshop and for their valuable inputs We wishto thank Michael Heinl for assistance during the workshop andfor data analyses and Christian Newesely Stefanie Rauscher andDagmar Rubatscher for providing data Three anonymous review-ers are acknowledged for their helpful comments We also thankBrigitte Scott for language editing This research was fundedby the ERA-Net BiodivERsA with the national funder FWFpart of the 2008 BiodivERsA call for research proposals Thisstudy was conducted on the LTER site lsquoStubai Valleyrsquo a memberof the Austrian LTSER Platform lsquoTyrolean Alpsrsquo The institu-tions involved are part of the interdisciplinary research centreslsquoEcology of the Alpine Regionrsquo and lsquoMountain Agriculturersquowithin the research area lsquoAlpine Space ndash Man and Environmentrsquoat the University of Innsbruck
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
12 U Schirpke et al
ReferencesAbegg B 1996 Klimaaumlnderung und Tourismus Klimafol-
genforschung am Beispiel des Wintertourismus in denSchweizer Alpen Zuumlrich (Switzerland) vdf Hochschul-verlag AG
Badgley C Moghtader J Quintero E Zakem E Chappell MJAvileacutes-Vaacutezquez K Samulon A Perfecto I 2007 Organicagriculture and the global food supply Renew Agr Food Sys22(2)86ndash108
Bauer N Wallner A Hunziker M 2009 The change ofEuropean landscapes human-nature relationships publicattitudes towards rewilding and the implications for land-scape management in Switzerland J Environ Manage90(9)2910ndash2920
Bayfield N Barancok P Furger M Sebastiagrave MT Domiacutenguez GLapka M Cudlinova E Vescovo L Ganielle D Cernusca Aet al 2008 Stakeholder perceptions of the impacts of ruralfunding scenarios on mountain landscapes across EuropeEcosystems 11(8)1368ndash1382
Beniston M 2006 Mountain weather and climate a generaloverview and a focus on climatic change in the AlpsHydrobiologia 562(1)3ndash16
Bennett EM Peterson GD Gordon LJ 2009 Understandingrelationships among multiple ecosystem services Ecol Lett12(12)1394ndash1404
Bouwman AF Beusen AHW Billen G 2009 Human alterationof the global nitrogen and phosphorus soil balances for theperiod 1970ndash2050 Global Biogeochem Cycles 23GB0A04
Chan KMA Shaw MR Cameron DR Underwood EC Daily GC2006 Conservation planning for ecosystem services PLoSBiol 4(11)e379
Chen XF Chen JM An SQ Ju WM 2007 Effects of topogra-phy on simulated net primary productivity at landscape scaleJ Environ Manage 85(3)585ndash596
Clarke J McClung DM 1999 Full-depth avalanche occur-rences caused by snow gliding Coquihalla British ColumbiaCanada Canada J Glaciol 45(151)539ndash546
de Groot RS Alkemade R Braat L Hein L Willemen L 2010Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem servicesand values in landscape planning management and decisionmaking Ecol Complex 7(3)260ndash272
de la Vega-Leinert A Schroumlter D Leemans R Fritsch UPluimers J 2008 A stakeholder dialogue on European vul-nerability Reg Environ Change 8(3)109ndash124
Dorner B Lertzman K Fall J 2002 Landscape pattern in topo-graphically complex landscapes issues and techniques foranalysis Landscape Ecol 17(8)729ndash743
Egger G 1999 Biotopkartierung Nationalpark Hohe TauernErhebung Bewertung und Maszlignahmenentwicklung aus-gewaumlhlter Biotope der Auszligenzone des Nationalparks HoheTauern (Tirol) Studie im Auftrag von Bundesministerium fuumlrUmwelt Jugend und Familie Klagenfurt
Egger G Angermann K Aigner S Buchgraber K 2005GIS-Gestuumltzte Ertragsmodellierung zur Optimierung desWeidemanagements auf Almweiden Gumpenstein BAL ndashBundesanst fuumlr Alpenlaumlnd Landwirtschaft
Egoh B Reyers B Rouget M Bode M Richardson D 2009Spatial congruence between biodiversity and ecosystem ser-vices in South Africa Biol Conserv 142(3)553ndash562
Egoh B Reyers B Rouget M Richardson DM Le MaitreDC van Jaarsveld AS 2008 Mapping ecosystem servicesfor planning and management Agric Ecosyst Environ127(1ndash2)135ndash140
Eigenbrod F Armsworth PR Anderson BJ Heinemeyer AGillings S Roy DB Thomas CD Gaston KJ 2010Error propagation associated with benefits transfer-basedmapping of ecosystem services Biol Conserv 143(11)2487ndash2493
European Commission 2010 Brussels (Belgium) the CAPtowards 2020 meeting the food natural resources and terri-torial challenges of the future [Internet] [cited 2012 Aug 16]Available from httpeur-lexeuropaeuLexUriServLexUriServdouri=COM20100672FINenPDF
Foley JA DeFries R Asner GP Barford C Bonan GCarpenter SR Chapin FS Coe MT Daily GC Gibbs HKet al 2005 Global consequences of land use Science309(5734)570ndash574
Gellrich M Zimmermann NE 2007 Investigating the regional-scale pattern of agricultural land abandonment in theSwiss mountains a spatial statistical modelling approachLandscape Urban Plan 79(1)65ndash76
Gimona A van der Horst D 2007 Mapping hotspots of multiplelandscape functions a case study on farmland afforestationin Scotland Landscape Ecol 22(8)1255ndash1264
Giupponi C Ramanzin M Sturaro E Fuser S 2006 Climateand land use changes biodiversity and agri-environmentalmeasures in the Belluno province Italy Environ Sci Policy9(2)163ndash173
Gordon LJ Finlayson CM Falkenmark M 2010 Managingwater in agriculture for food production and other ecosystemservices Agric Water Manage 97(4)512ndash519
Grabherr G 2009 Biodiversity in the high ranges of theAlps ethnobotanical and climate change perspectives GlobalEnviron Change 19(2)167ndash172
Grecirct-Regamey A Bebi P Bishop ID Schmid WA 2008 LinkingGIS-based models to value ecosystem services in an Alpineregion J Environ Manage 89(3)197ndash208
Harlinger O Knees G 1999 Klimahandbuch DerOumlsterreichischen Bodenschaumltzung Klimatographie 1Teil 1st ed Innsbruck (Austria) Universitaumltsverlag Wagner
Houmlchtl F Lehringer S Konold W 2005 ldquoWildernessrdquo what itmeans when it becomes a realitymdasha case study from thesouthwestern Alps Landscape Urban Plan 70(1ndash2)85ndash95
Hunziker M Felber P Gehring K Buchecker M Bauer NKienast F 2008 Evaluation of landscape change by differentsocial groups Mt Res Dev 28(2)140ndash147
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2000 Emissionsscenarios A special report of working group III of the inter-governmental panel on climate change Cambridge (UK)Cambridge University Press
Kienast F Bolliger J Potschin M de Groot R Verburg PHeller I Wascher D Haines-Young R 2009 Assessing land-scape functions with broad-scale environmental data insightsgained from a prototype development for Europe EnvironManage 44(6)1099ndash1120
Klapp E Boeker P Koumlnig F Staumlhlin A 1953 Das GruumlnlandHannover Schaper Wertzahlen der Gruumlnlandpflanzenp 38ndash40
Kok K Rothman DS Patel M 2006 Multi-scale narrativesfrom an IA perspective part I European and Mediterraneanscenario development Futures 38(3)261ndash284
Koumlrner C 2003 Alpine plant life functional plant ecology ofhigh mountain ecosystems 2nd ed Heidelberg (Germany)Springer
Lamarque P Tappeiner U Turner C Steinbacher M Bardgett RSzukics U Schermer M Lavorel S 2011 Stakeholder per-ceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowl-edge on soil fertility and biodiversity Reg Environ Change11(4)791ndash804
Lavorel S Grigulis K Lamarque P Colace M Garden D Girel JPellet G Douzet R 2011 Using plant functional traits tounderstand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystemservices J Ecol 99(1)135ndash147
Leitinger G Houmlller P Tasser E Walde J Tappeiner U 2008Development and validation of a spatial snow-glide modelEcol Model 211(3ndash4)363ndash374
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 13
Leitinger G Tasser E Newesely C Obojes N Tappeiner U 2010Seasonal dynamics of surface runoff in mountain grass-land ecosystems differing in land use J Hydrol 385(1ndash4)95ndash104
Mayring P 2002 Einfuumlhrung in die Qualitative Sozialforschung5th revised ed Weinheim (Germany) Beltz Verlag
Metzger MJ Rounsevell M Michlik A Leemans R Schroumlter D2006 The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land usechange Agric Ecosyst Environ 114(1)69ndash86
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 Ecosystems andhuman well-being synthesis Washington (DC) Island Press
Mottet A Ladet S Coqueacute N Gibon A 2006 Agriculturalland-use change and its drivers in mountain landscapesa case study in the Pyrenees Agric Ecosyst Environ114(2ndash4)296ndash310
Naidoo R Balmford A Costanza R Fisher B Green RE LehnerB Malcolm TR Ricketts TH 2008 Global mapping ofecosystem services and conservation priorities Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 105(28)9495ndash9500
Nelson E Mendoza G Regetz J Polasky S Tallis H CameronDR Chan KMA Daily GC Goldstein J Kareiva PM et al2009 Modeling multiple ecosystem services biodiversityconservation commodity production and tradeoffs at land-scape scales Front Ecol Environ 7(1)4ndash11
Pitesky ME Stackhouse KR Mitloehner FM 2009 Clearing theair livestockrsquos contribution to climate change In Sparks Deditor Advances in agronomy Burligton (MA) AcademicPress p 1ndash40
Rabbinge R van Diepen CA 2000 Changes in agriculture andland use in Europe Eur J Agron 13(2ndash3)85ndash99
Raudsepp-Hearne C Peterson GD Bennett EM 2010 Ecosystemservice bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapesProc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(11)5242ndash5247
Reubens B Poesen J Danjon F Geudens G Muys B 2007 Therole of fine and coarse roots in shallow slope stability andsoil erosion control with a focus on root system architecturea review Trees Struct Funct 21(4)385ndash402
Rodriguez JP Beard TD Bennett E Cumming GS Cork SAgard J Dobson A Peterson G 2006 Trade-offs acrossspace time and ecosystem services Ecol Soc 11(1)28
Rounsevell MDA Reginster I Arauacutejo MB Carter TRDendoncker N Ewert F House JI Kankaanpaumlauml SLeemans R Metzger MJ et al 2006 A coherent set of futureland use change scenarios for Europe Agric Ecosyst Environ114(1)57ndash68
Rudel TK Coomes OT Moran E Achard F Angelsen AXu J Lambin E 2005 Forest transitions towards a globalunderstanding of land use change Global Environ Change15(1)23ndash31
Rutherford GN Bebi P Edwards PJ Zimmermann NE 2008Assessing land-use statistics to model land cover change ina mountainous landscape in the European Alps Ecol Model212(3ndash4)460ndash471
Schallberger P 1999 Wovon handeln baumluerliche Zukunfts-vorstellungen Determinanten Dimensionen und Typen(German manuscript of the paper De quel avenir parlent lespaysans) In Droz Y Mieville-Ott V editors On achegravevebien les paysans Reconstruire une identiteacute paysanne dansun monde incertain Genegraveve (Switzerland) Edition Georg p103ndash126
Schneeberger N Buumlrgi M Kienast F 2007 Rates of landscapechange at the northern fringe of the Swiss Alps historical andrecent tendencies Landscape Urban Plan 80(1ndash2)127ndash136
Schroumlter D Cramer W Leemans R Prentice IC Arauacutejo MBArnell NW Bondeau A Bugmann H Carter TR Gracia CAet al 2005 Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability toglobal change in Europe Science 310(5752)1333ndash1337
Stallman HR 2011 Ecosystem services in agriculture determin-ing suitability for provision by collective management EcolEcon 71131ndash139
Steiger R 2010 The impact of climate change on ski seasonlength and snowmaking requirements in Tyrol Austria ClimRes 43(3)251ndash262
Strauss F Formayer H Schmid E 2012 High resolution climatedata for Austria in the period 2008ndash2040 from a statistical cli-mate change model Int J Climatol DOI 101002joc3434
Strauss F Schmid E Moltchanova E Formayer H Wang X2011 Modeling climate change and biophysical impacts ofcrop production in the Austrian Marchfeld region ClimaticChange 111(3) 641ndash664
Swetnam RD Fisher B Mbilinyi BP Munishi PKT Willcock SRicketts T Mwakalila S Balmford A Burgess ND MarshallAR et al 2011 Mapping socio-economic scenarios of landcover change a GIS method to enable ecosystem servicemodeling J Environ Manage 92(3)563ndash574
Swift MJ Izac AN van Noordwijk M 2004 Biodiversity andecosystem services in agricultural landscapesmdashare we askingthe right questions Agric Ecosyst Environ 104(1)113ndash134
Swinton SM Lupi F Robertson GP Hamilton SK 2007Ecosystem services and agriculture cultivating agriculturalecosystems for diverse benefits Ecol Econ 64(2)245ndash252
Tappeiner U Tappeiner G Hilbert A Mattanovich E 2003 TheEU agricultural policy and the environment evaluation of thealpine region Oxford (UK) Blackwell
Tappeiner U Tasser E Leitinger G Cernusca A Tappeiner G2008 Effects of historical and likely future scenarios of landuse on above- and belowground vegetation carbon stocks ofan alpine valley Ecosystems 11(8)1383ndash1400
Tasser E Mader M Tappeiner U 2003 Effects of land use inalpine grasslands on the probability of landslides Basic ApplEcol 4(3)271ndash280
Tasser E Ruffini F Tappeiner U 2009 An integrative approachfor analysing landscape dynamics in diverse cultivated andnatural mountain areas Landscape Ecol 24(5)611ndash628
Tasser E Tappeiner U 2002 Impact of land use changes onmountain vegetation Appl Veg Sci 5(2)173ndash184
Tasser E Walde J Tappeiner U Teutsch A Noggler W 2007Land-use changes and natural reforestation in the EasternCentral Alps Agric Ecosyst Environ 118(1ndash4)115ndash129
Theurillat J Guisan A 2001 Potential impact of climate changeon vegetation in the European Alps a review ClimaticChange 50(1)77ndash109
Thuiller W Lavorel S Arauacutejo MB Sykes MT Prentice IC 2005Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 102(23)8245ndash8250
Tilman D Fargione J Wolff B DrsquoAntonio C Dobson A HowarthR Schindler D Schlesinger WH Simberloff D SwackhamerD 2001 Forecasting agriculturally driven global environ-mental change Science 292(5515)281ndash284
Troy A Wilson MA 2006 Mapping ecosystem services prac-tical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and valuetransfer Ecol Econ 60(2)435ndash449
Van der Ploeg JD Long A 1994 Born from within practice andperspectives of endogenous rural development Van GorcumAssen Styles of farming an introductory note on conceptsand methodology p 7ndash30
Walz A Lardelli C Behrendt H Grecirct-Regamey A Lundstroumlm CKytzia S Bebi P 2007 Participatory scenario analysisfor integrated regional modeling Landscape Urban Plan81(1ndash2)114ndash131
Wischmeier WH Smith DD 1978 Predicting rainfall erosionlosses ndash a guide to conservation planning Washington (DC)US Department of Agriculture
Zhang W Ricketts TH Kremen C Carney K Swinton SM2007 Ecosystem services and dis-services to agricultureEcol Econ 64(2)253ndash260
Zimmermann P Tasser E Leitinger G Tappeiner U 2010Effects of land-use and land-cover pattern on landscape-scalebiodiversity in the European Alps Agric Ecosyst Environ139(1ndash2)13ndash22
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 3
Scenarios
To assess future trends we used different scenarios for(1) socio-economic conditions and (2) climate change
Socio-economic scenarios
Based on current trends of dynamics in the local develop-ment of settlements and job opportunities described by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) thelocal demand for touristic services and the regional andinternational market opportunities for agricultural prod-ucts (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2000)we defined two contrasting socio-economic scenarios (1a)localized scenario and (1b) globalized scenario The termslsquolocalizedrsquo and lsquoglobalizedrsquo do not refer to any spatialscale but to the direction of socio-economic developmentIn the localized scenario the economic development pathassumes rather closed local and regional economic cyclesand is largely independent of global economic changes(IPCC storyline B2) In contrast for a globalized scenarioglobal competition on mass markets is more important thanlocal and regional economic relations (IPCC storyline A1)Based on stakeholder consultations through expert inter-views and group discussions (Lamarque et al 2011) theIPCC scenarios were adapted to the specific conditions ofthe study area
To present the scenarios to stakeholders the followingstorylines were designed
The lsquolocalizedrsquo socio-economic scenario (1a)suggests a development that focuses on thelocalregional economy and proposes an increasein the number of commuters to the regional capital(within a distance of 20 km) in the lower partof the valley and a focus on sustainable tourismactivities (farm holidays hiking tobogganing andbackcountry skiing in winter) Locally producedfood is increasingly in demand and regional andorganic products fetch high prices Farmers receivepayments out of the second pillar of the CommonAgricultural Policy (CAP) for rural development andagri-environmental measures National and regionalsubsidies complement the CAP and also addressregionally targeted environmental specificationsThe regional and the local administrations contributefinancial support for infrastructure (road mainte-nance joint processing and marketing facilities) andjoin use of special agricultural equipment
The lsquoglobalizedrsquo socio-economic scenario (1b) isbased on the assumption that the study area willaim for competitiveness on a world market It alsoforecasts an increasing number of commuters to theregional capital In the upper part of the valleytourism is based on an increasing number of ski runsfor winter activities glacier skiing all year roundand outdoor adventure activities in summer Thisresults in mass tourism and new hotel complexesThe farmers are only paid to manage agricultural
land according to the recreational demands in spe-cially designated locations As both residents andtourists are assumed to be price-conscious in theirpurchasing behaviour for food products local ori-gin and quality become rather irrelevant Thereforelocal food production is assumed to be not com-petitive because of declining producer prices on theglobal market Agricultural produce as far as it canbe competitive on the world market is processedin highly centralized facilities outside the valleyAgricultural transfer payments are assumed to havefallen on average by about 20 for mountain farms(European Commission 2010) Out of the compen-sation payments of the second pillar of the CAPfor farmers in mountain areas every farmer stillreceives a small basic income that increases withthe provision of global ecosystem services such aspreservation and enhancement of biodiversity waterquality and plants for CO2 sequestration Theseassumptions were based on lsquopolicy option 3rsquo as pre-sented in the Communication from the EuropeanCommission (European Commission 2010)
Climate scenarios
Climate change scenarios of both General CirculationModels (GCMs) and Regional Climate Models (RCMs)suffer from uncertainties especially in mountain regions(Beniston 2006) To account for regional climate patternswe used a daily climate change dataset for Austriawith a spatial resolution of 1 km2 provided by Strausset al (2012) The datasets were projected for the period2008ndash2040 with ACLiReM (Austrian Climate changeModel using Linear Regression Strauss et al 2011) basedon historical daily weather station data from 1975 to2007 and linear regression with repeated bootstrappingStarting from the status quo (SQ) we defined three dif-ferent climate scenarios for our study site (2a) 5-year sce-nario (2b) 20-year scenario and (2c) worst-case scenarioStrauss et al (2012) calculated three different temperaturescenarios We selected the lsquohighrsquo temperature scenario (iemaximum mean temperature for the period 2008ndash2040)For changing precipitation rates there is no clear sig-nal for the next three decades and Strauss et al (2012)provide 17 different scenarios for precipitation In linewith Beniston (2006) we selected increasing daily winterprecipitation (SeptemberndashFebruary) by 10 and decreas-ing daily summer precipitation (MarchndashAugust) by 10for the 5-year and 20-year scenarios For the worst-casescenario we used decreasing daily precipitation by 20
To present the scenarios to stakeholders the followingstorylines were designed
In the 5-year scenario (2a) dry years are alternat-ing with normally wet years and occur in three outof 5 years For dry years spring-time conditions aredry with very little run-off due to missing meltingwater from the tops The summers are characterized
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
4 U Schirpke et al
Table 1 Mean annual temperature annual precipitation andsummer precipitation (AprilndashSeptember) of the status quo andscenarios for normal and dry years
Status quo5-year
normal year
5-yeardry
yeara
20-yearnormalyearb
20-yeardry
yearb
Mean annualtemperature (C)
24 69 58 77
Annual precipitation(mm)
1100 549 845 416
Summerprecipitation (mm)
687 283 535 207
Note aCorresponds conditions in the dry year 2003bStrauss et al (2012)
by little rainfall and high temperatures (Table 1)Precipitation in winter falls almost exclusively asrain and leads to a shorter period of solid snow coverIn dry years vegetation below sim1300 m experiencesextreme drought stress and hay yield is only 50 ofthe usual amount (Egger et al 2005)
For the 20-year scenario (2b) the trend withincreased temperatures and variable precipitationpatterns continues and leads to warm winter monthswith very little snow (Table 1) We assume that dryyears occur in 7 out of 10 years (Abegg 1996 Steiger2010) Mainly on alpine meadows and pasturesaverage years produce little loss of yield (simndash10)while dry years reduce agricultural yields by about50 (Egger et al 2005 Pfurtscheller 2012 personalcommunication) Snow cover becomes unreliablebelow 1500 m asl and the conditions for artificialsnow-making are getting poorer Ski tourism is onlyprofitable above 1800 m asl (Steiger 2010)
In the worst-case scenario (2c) most years are verydry with climatic conditions similar to the dry yearsof the 20-year scenario As snow reliability fails(Abegg 1996 Steiger 2010) and springs are drywinter tourism collapses and hay yields are rarelygood enough to make farming feasible
Workshops
The two socio-economic scenarios (termed lsquolocalizedrsquo andlsquoglobalizedrsquo see above) were combined with the climatescenarios resulting in six different overall scenarios(1) localized 5-year LN(5) (2) localized 20-year LN(20)(3) localized worst-case LW(20) (4) globalized 5-yearGN(5) (5) globalized 20-year GN(20) and (6) glob-alized worst-case GW(20) To assess the managementimplications of the different scenarios two workshopsone for the localized scenarios and another one for theglobalized scenarios were organized with 4ndash6 farmersfrom the Stubai Valley in each session A qualitativeapproach was used to select farmers that represent typicalsituations to get a lsquopublic opinion collective attitudesand ideologiesrsquo (Mayring 2002) in the context of futureland-use management
To capture various opinions and solutions the farm-ers were selected by their socio-economic profilescharacterized by their modern or traditional habitus(Schallberger 1999) and their approach towards marketand nature This was reflected in different farming styles(Van der Ploeg and Long 1994) combining production pat-terns (organic or conventional high or low mechanization)with market approaches (directindirect marketing chan-nels) and different employment situation (ie part-time orfull-time employed or self-employed) During the work-shops the farmers were asked to develop a joint strategyto react to the specific scenarios In addition they were toexplain related land-use changes For the study area spatialmapping of the scenarios was done on orthophotos by thefarmers and later digitalized
Modelling ecosystem services
Lamarque et al (2011) identified a common set of ecosys-tem services of mountain grasslands that were consid-ered important by local stakeholders and farmers for theStubai Valley (aesthetic value carbon sequestration foragequality forage quantity natural hazard regulation pollina-tion recreation soil stability water quality and water quan-tity) Accordingly we modelled a selection of ecosystemservices for our study site lsquoKaserstattalmrsquo based on land-use pattern vegetation distribution and topographic char-acteristics using 5 m times 5 m resolution data We adaptedthe different GIS-based modelling approaches which aredescribed in the following in detail to the specific topo-graphic conditions of mountain regions to quantify theecosystem services on a landscape scale Raster mapswere created for historical dates and future scenarios andrescaled to values ranging from 0 to 100 For reporting wecalculated mean values of the total study area
Aesthetic value
The aesthetic value was assessed by a photo survey (seesupplementary online material httpinformahealthcarecomdoisuppl[101080215137322012751936]) Thestandardized questionnaire was composed of five photo-graphic series each consisting of four photographs relatedto (1) different management types of alpine grassland(pasture meadow and abandoned land) (2) differentmanagement intensities of meadows (number of mowingsand fertilization) (3) different successional stages ofabandoned land (4) different management types of alpinegrassland at flowering season (meadow of lowhigh land-use intensity pasture and abandoned land) and (5) differentmanagement types of alpine grassland after cutting orgrazing A total of 78 persons locals and tourists wereinterviewed at the alpine hut which is located at 1900 masl on our study site lsquoKaserstattalmrsquo and asked to givescores to the pictures of each series according to theirpreferences (1 for least preferred and 4 for most pre-ferred) To map the aesthetic value we linked the resultingpreference values to the different land-use categories
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 5
Carbon sequestration
Carbon density (Mg C haminus1) assigned to each vegetationtype was derived from above-ground and below-groundphytomass (Mg haminus1) and C-stocks (g gminus1) resulted fromproject-area-relevant literature and own measurementsAbove-ground phytomass was measured by harvestingor cutting the vegetation of defined plots Below-groundphytomass was determined by taking soil cores and manualexcavation of roots For further details refer to Tappeineret al (2008) Phytomass and C-content were multiplied andan area-weighted mean value for each land-use categorywas obtained by overlaying the vegetation and the land-usemaps
Forage quality
Each vegetation type was assigned a forage quality valueaccording to Klapp et al (1953) By overlaying the veg-etation and the land-use maps an area-weighted meanvalue for each land-use category was obtained To accountfor changing climate conditions within land-use typeseach raster cell was corrected by the elevation accord-ing to Egger (1999) where forage quality increases below1800 m asl (10 per 100 m) and decreases above 2200 masl (10 per 200 m) This leads to a differentiationof our community-weighted mean for climatic and soildifferences
Forage quantity
Forage quantity is a function of topography and land-usepattern and was estimated on the basis of productivity typeof grassland determined by plant species and the growingseason (Egger et al 2005) Using the DEM the days withvegetation growth were determined according to Harflingerand Knees (1999) for the climate zone inner-alpine westHigher mean temperatures of the scenarios are consideredby lowering the DEM with the temperature lapse rate of6C per km of elevation (Koumlrner 2003) The forage quan-tity was corrected by topography ie slope and aspectwhich can accelerate or diminish vegetation growthAs precipitation requirements for forage are 100 mm pre-cipitation per 1000 kg forage (Egger et al 2005) themaximum possible forage quantity is limited by the totalamount of summer precipitation (AprilndashSeptember)
Natural hazard regulation
Natural hazards in mountain regions are mainly massmovements ie rock fall and landslides debris flows andavalanches As rock fall is no major issue in our studyarea natural hazard regulation was modelled on the basisof (1) snow gliding (2) surface water run-off and (3) rootdensity Avalanches are often caused by snow gliding(Clarke and McClung 1999) To predict snow gliding sixkey drivers (forest stand slope angle winter precipita-tion surface roughness slope aspect west and slope aspect
east) were used (Leitinger et al 2008) Snow gliding alsoincreases the probability of landslides (Tasser et al 2003)Surface water run-off contributing to landslides mud-flows and floods is a function of above-ground phytomassskeleton fraction-soil stone content in 0ndash01 m soil depthannual precipitation and elevation (Leitinger et al 2010)Root density is related to slope stability (Reubens et al2007) We mapped root mass associated to each vegetationtype (Tappeiner et al 2008) and obtained an area-weightedmean value for each land-use category by overlaying thevegetation and the land-use maps To determine naturalhazard regulation the three input factors snow gliding sur-face water run-off and root density were added for eachraster cell
Soil stability
To predict the soil stability we used the universal soil lossequation (USLE Wischmeier and Smith 1978) The rate ofsoil erosion is a function of land-use pattern soil type pre-cipitation and topography The erosivity factor ndash the greaterthe intensity and duration of the rain storm the higher theerosion potential ndash was assumed to be equal throughout thestudy area and therefore excluded from calculation as wefound no significant differences in rainfall intensity (mmper time unit) between our climate stations at 970 17501850 and 2000 m asl Slope characteristics were derivedfrom the DEM As no data about soil characteristics wereavailable we used root density which is related to soil sta-bility (Reubens et al 2007) Root mass associated witheach vegetation type (Tappeiner et al 2008) was overlaidon the land-use map and an area-weighted mean value foreach land-use category calculated
Multiple ecosystem services analysis
A multiple ecosystem services map was obtained by thesum of all ecosystem services using 0ndash100 scaled valuesImpacts of land-use change were visualized by creatingmaps of ecosystem service change To understand trade-offs and synergies between different ecosystem servicesa principal component analysis (PCA) was performed inArcGISTM (Version 931 Spatial Analyst ESRI) for his-torical dates and future scenarios Using the six differentecosystem services maps as input raster layers eigenvec-tors eigenvalues a covariance matrix and a correlationmatrix were calculated and maps of the components weregenerated
Results
Scenario workshop
During the workshop the farmers specified that their deci-sions about intensity and type of agricultural use aredriven by different key factors agricultural policies cli-mate conditions nature protection topography and eco-nomic motivations The general strategies for responding
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
6 U Schirpke et al
to the different socio-economic and climate scenarios arerepresentative for the whole region Spatial distributionof land-use patterns was mapped only for the study arealsquoKaserstattalmrsquo
In the globalized scenarios the farmers shift theiractivities towards tourism (in which most of them arealready engaged part-time) and continue managing alpinegrasslands and pastures for landscape conservation Largemeadows are managed as long as they can be mown bymachinery otherwise they are transformed into pasturesThe farmers react to global pressure and decreasingmarket-prices with a shift in livestock ie from cattleto sheep and goats Higher temperatures due to climatechange allow a diversification of products ie vegetablesor wine-growing and animals can stay longer on pasturesIrrigation might become necessary for agricultural useon the valley floor but the farmers were convinced thatthe glacier will continue to provide the required amountof irrigation water even in times of drought For theglobalized worst-case scenario GW(20) farmers assumea global financial crisis In times of economic crisis withscarce employment opportunities farming becomes moreimportant Hence almost any available area is used foragriculture to cover the subsistence food requirements ofthe region
During the workshop on the localized scenarios farm-ers rated the market opportunities of this scenario as goodand considered new crops like pumpkins on the valley floorand new production niches like dairy sheep farming onthe slope The farmers considered water scarcity due to cli-mate change as the biggest problem Irrigation howeverwas seen as a solution only for some farmers in the val-ley on areas of high land-use intensity Farmers on dryslopes would not benefit from irrigation as pumping upwater for irrigation was not thought feasible The use offavourable areas is intensified and diversified for productsneeded on local markets (eg wine fruits and vegetables)Less favourable areas especially on hill sites are largelyabandoned or used for grazing with sheep Livestock farm-ing remains more important than arable farming even ifthe proportion of arable land grows The farmers continuemanaging their agricultural land as long as it is profitable(also due to payments for landscape preservation) and com-bine agricultural activities with other occupations whichstill allow part-time farming Continued transfer paymentswere thought necessary but the restrictions imposed by thecompulsory 5-year period of the contracts were severelycriticized With the prospect of weather conditions pos-sibly varying more frequently from year to year farmersrequested more freedom in their management decisionsAs tourism is likely to increase especially during sum-mer some areas might be adapted for touristic use egwith golf courses and small artificial lakes There is nojoint strategy for facing possible future socio-economicand climate changes but rather individual solutions thatneed to be developed and for each farm to find its ownniche The localized worst-case scenario is dominated byan abandonment of farms due to prolonged drought periods
and overregulation Farmers complained that the existingregulations of contractual commitments for transfer pay-ments in the agri-environmental programme (no land-usechange within the 5-year period) already hinder innova-tions This leads to critical situations especially in thecourse of farm succession
Land-use change
Historical changes
From 1954 to 2011 agricultural use generally decreased(Table 2) The main period of abandonment occurred inthe 1960s and 1970s Larch meadows in particular werealmost completely abandoned until 2011 leading to anincrease of dense forest after several decades Alpine pas-tures and meadows were reduced to 38 of the area in1954 meadows decreasing more rapidly than pasturesOn the valley floor arable land disappeared completely in1970 and changed to grassland of high land-use intensity
Future changes
Land-use changes for the scenarios GN(5) and LN(5) coin-cide and land-use distribution is similar to the SQ (Table 2)This is not astonishing as farmers depend on the trans-fer payments from agri-environmental programmes with a5-year contractual period Half of the abandoned land isused again as alpine pastures and the land-use intensityof meadows has increased The change from abandonedland to alpine pastures continues with a lower transfor-mation rate for the 20-year scenarios Future changes areexpected to result from either a collapse of the worldeconomy (scenario GW(20)) or over-regulation in times ofincreased climatic variation The results of both the sce-narios are entirely different In GW the post-World War IIlandscape is re-established while in scenario LW(20) largeparts are expected to be reforested and abandoned TheGW scenario forecasts massive intensification of use and areversal of almost the entire area to agricultural use Higherareas are dominated by pastures and meadows of low land-use intensity On favourable areas land-use intensity ofmeadows is high Even large areas of previously aban-doned larch meadows are used again especially in areasof higher elevation where forest regeneration occurs moreslowly On the valley floor 30 of the grassland is trans-formed to arable land The farmers considered LN(20) asthe maximum likely reduction of land use as long as thelocal conditions allow farming However future gener-ations might change occupation and abandon all alpinegrassland leading to an increase of forest and abandonedland The valley floor is still managed by big farmers
Ecosystem services
Landscape pattern
Spatial distribution of ecosystem services is related to land-use pattern and topography (Figures 2 and 3) The aesthetic
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 7
Table 2 Land-use distribution of the study area lsquoKaserstattalmrsquo for historical dates the status quo and the scenarios
Total changed area 226 208 161 98 95 57 minus 42 55 46 221 119
Notes The total changed area refers to the status quoaMowing every 3ndash5 yearsbMowing every 2 yearsc1ndash2 mowings per yeard3ndash4 mowings per year
value is highest for meadows of low land-use intensity fol-lowed by abandoned larch meadows Alpine pastures andmeadows are preferred to abandoned land Least attractiveare meadows of high land-use intensity and forest Carbonsequestration is highest in forests and reaches good valuesin larch meadows Meadows of very low land-use inten-sity and abandoned land store more carbon than alpinepastures whereas meadows of high land-use intensity andarable land store the least carbon Meadows of high land-use intensity on the valley floor produce highest foragequantities and have the best forage quality Productionrates and quality diminish with decreasing managementintensity and increasing elevation Pastures have lower for-age quality than meadows Natural hazard regulation islower for alpine pastures than for meadows of low land-useintensity or abandoned land due to higher soil compactionand higher surface run-off Forest and larch meadowshave highest natural hazard regulation values Soil stabilitydepends highly on the slope gradient and the vegetationcover Abandoned land has higher root densities than man-aged grasslands Lowest erosion risk arises on the flatvalley floor and in forests followed by larch meadows andabandoned land on moderate slopes
Historical impacts
Historical land-use changes have led to an increase of thetotal ecosystem service value but have influenced the anal-ysed ecosystem services to different degrees (Figure 3)The aesthetic value increased between 1954 and 1990 pri-marily due to the abandonment of larch meadows whereasthe subsequent decrease was caused by forest regenera-tion An increase in carbon sequestration occurred after1990 because of forest growth Mean values of forage
quality and quantity have risen continuously particularlybetween 1970 and 1980 Large areas of alpine pasturesand meadows were abandoned and only areas with higherproduction rates and better forage quality continued to bemanaged The total forage amount of the entire study sitehas decreased by 47 since 1954 Natural hazard regu-lation and soil stability increased after 1990 when forestreplaced larch meadows and managed grasslands weremore and more abandoned
Future impacts
The total ecosystem service value for all scenarios is lowerthan the SQ except LW(20) and decreases with time forthe globalized scenarios while decelerating for the local-ized scenarios (Figure 3) In the 5-year scenarios onlysmall changes are predicted for carbon sequestration andsoil stability Less precipitation and higher temperaturesgenerally lower the risk of natural hazards because of lesssnow cover and reduced surface run-off Areas for forageproduction are extended but mean forage quality and quan-tity decrease because pastures are lower in forage qualityand quantity than meadows Higher impacts are estimatedfor the 20-year scenarios Carbon sequestration naturalhazard regulation and soil stability increase while meanforage quality and quantity continue to decrease Highestimpacts occur in GW(20) where all ecosystem servicevalues decrease except aesthetic value and natural hazardregulation Forage production is limited due to signifi-cantly lower precipitation Loss of areas with high land-useintensity for forage production is compensated for by anenormous increase of used areas especially pastures Meanforage quantity and quality are therefore lower but the totalforage amount produced by the entire study site reaches
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
8 U Schirpke et al
Figure 2 Ecosystem services of different land-use types for the status quo Values are re-scaled to 0ndash100
more than double that of SQ Impacts in LW(20) arecontrary to GW(20) with a decrease in the aesthetic valueand improved regulating services Agricultural activitiescontinue only on the valley floor Although provisioningservices improve significantly the total forage amount ofthe entire study site is only about 17 of that in SQ
Trade-offs
We applied a PCA for all time steps to assess trade-offsand synergies between multiple ecosystem services Thefirst two components explain 85ndash89 of the variance (for
SQ see Table 3) The relationships between the differ-ent ecosystem services indicate only little changes acrosstime but differ between different land-usecover categories(Figure 4) Thus we concentrate on the SQ The first axis isdriven by contrasts between regulating ecosystem servicesdominated by carbon sequestration and the aesthetic valueand forage provision (Table 3 Figure 5) Regarding dif-ferent land-use types the first component has high valuesfor forest while pastures and meadows have low val-ues (Figure 4) The second axis is driven by contrastsbetween the aesthetic value and forage provision (Table 3Figure 5) High aesthetic values are associated to extensive
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 9
Figure 3 Landscape pattern of ecosystem services for the status quo Values are re-scaled to 0ndash100 Historical development and futuretrends in normalized ecosystem services All scores are normalized by their status quo levels
Table 3 Correlation matrix of PCA for the status quo
Figure 4 Maps of contrasts of (a) the first component and (b)the second component for the status quo
use and lower values with intensive use whereas foragequantity and quality show contrary dependencies Highestvalues of the second component emerge for abandonedlarch meadows with high values for aesthetics and carbonsequestration (Figure 4) Synergies occur between forage
Figure 5 PCA plot of eigenvectors (component 1 times compo-nent 2) for the status quo
quality and forage quantity (r gt 05) (Table 4) Carbonsequestration natural hazard regulation and soil stabilityare also positively correlated (r gt 05) For forests carbonsequestration natural hazard regulation and soil stabilityare negatively correlated with the aesthetic value while forother land-use categories the variables are independent
Discussion
Scenario analysis has often been linked with participatoryapproaches to understand socio-economic administrativecultural political and environmental dynamics within aparticular region (Kok et al 2006 Walz et al 2007)We asked local farmers of the Stubai Valley to specifythe management implications arising in different socio-economic conditions under climate change As key driversfor land-use change the farmers identified agriculturalfunding policies market prices and dryer climate condi-tions While the farmers keep managing agricultural landin the globalized scenarios and respond to global pressureby diversification of products and livestock agriculturalland is partly abandoned in the localized scenarios (espe-cially on the slopes and on alpine pastures) or transformedinto touristic areas During the next 20 years about 11 ofthe area will be subject to land-use changes in GN(20) and9 in LN(20) GW(20) predicts even changes for 43of the total area The farmers considered LW(20) whichaffects 23 of the area not very likely to occur sincethey keep managing agricultural land as long as the localeconomy allows However future generations might decidedifferently During the last decade agriculturally usedareas have been widely abandoned in the European Alpsespecially in southern Italian and French Alps (Houmlchtl et al2005 Giupponi et al 2006 Zimmermann et al 2010)The resulting land-use changes for our study site corre-spond generally to Europe-wide land-usecover scenarios(Rounsevell et al 2006 Bayfield et al 2008) Since theStubai Valley was identified by Tappeiner et al (2003) asan Alpine lsquostandard regionrsquo characterized by agriculturaluse with a specialization in livestock farming which isrepresentative for 22 of the European Alps the studyresults are likely to correspond to the development of othercomparable 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-basedmodelling approaches to quantify the provision of mul-tiple ecosystem services for historical dates and futurescenarios on a landscape scale In mountain regionsecosystem services are influenced by topographic char-acteristics For provisioning services we found strongdependencies to topography As confirmed by Chen et al(2007) forage quantity decreases with increasing eleva-tion Many regulating services are also determined bytopography eg natural hazard regulation and slope stabil-ity are better for smaller slope gradients Consistent withother studies different ecosystem services correspond tolandscape pattern (Gimona and van der Horst 2007 Naidoo
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 11
et al 2008 Egoh et al 2009) The aesthetic value is higherfor alpine pastures and meadows of low land-use inten-sity than for forest or meadows of high land-use intensityCarbon sequestration is higher for forest than for grasslandService hotspots are larch meadows which have howeveralmost completely disappeared in recent decades Impactson multiple ecosystem services can be related to land-usecover change Previous land-use changes have led toan increase of all ecosystem service values except the aes-thetic value The scenarios predict a trend reversion formost ecosystem services apart from natural hazard regula-tion and the aesthetic value For modelling future scenarioswe assumed that plant species distribution is only influ-enced by land use However species distribution shifts andeven extinction of alpine plants can be expected due toclimate change (Thuiller et al 2005 Grabherr 2009)
We found trade-offs between provisioning ecosystemservices and both regulating and cultural ecosystem ser-vices also confirmed by other studies (Bennett et al 2009Raudsepp-Hearne et al 2010) Forested areas cannot beused for forage production but are very valuable for carbonsequestration The aesthetic value is negatively correlatedto forage quantity and forage quality ie increasing man-agement intensity leads to higher forage production butreduces the aesthetic value Comparable to Badgley et al(2007) who found that trade-offs between agricultural pro-duction and many ecosystem services can be avoided byusing sustainable management practices our research find-ings indicate that extensive use has a positive influence onregulating and cultural ecosystem services We also foundtrade-offs between regulating and cultural ecosystem ser-vices While the aesthetic value of dense forest is lowerthan for grasslands carbon sequestration and natural haz-ard regulation are higher Since managed landscapes areareas of cultural importance the local population is crit-ical of any shift from rural landscapes to forests (Houmlchtlet al 2005 Bauer et al 2009) but people living outside theAlps perceive forest regeneration less negatively (Hunzikeret al 2008) The results of the survey indicate that touristsappreciate abandoned land and forest better than the localpopulation We found the highest aesthetic values relatedto extensively managed grassland or larch meadows andlower values for meadows of high land-use intensity orabandoned land
In our study we focused on a selection of ecosystemservices to which local stakeholders and farmers attached
importance (Lamarque et al 2011) Several ecosystemservices related to agriculture have been neglected includ-ing pollination water quantity and quality and recreationMoreover management practices control disservices fromagriculture eg habitat loss nutrient run-off pesticidepoisoning of non-target species (Zhang et al 2007) andfuture efforts will be concentrated on modelling additionalservices and disservices to agriculture
Conclusions
Ecosystem services related to agriculture contribute tohuman well-being Provisioning services are directlyrelated to land use but also regulating and cultural servicesdepend on management practices Future land-use policiesshould take into account that ecosystem services in moun-tain regions are closely linked to topographic and climaticconditions and a more flexible system for financial supportcould improve the farmersrsquo options for reacting to climaticvariations Trade-offs are related to land use and occurbetween provisioning regulating and cultural servicesService hotspots and multiple ecosystem service provisioncan be enhanced by sustainable agricultural managementTourism is likely to be strengthened under both the global-ized and the localized scenario and is positively influencedby extensive agricultural management enhancing the aes-thetic value With regard to economic benefits derivingfrom tourism landscape preferences linked to agriculturalpractices should be integrated into land-use policies andagricultural incentives for a sustainable development ofmountain regions
AcknowledgementsWe thank the farmers of the Stubai Valley for participating inthe scenario workshop and for their valuable inputs We wishto thank Michael Heinl for assistance during the workshop andfor data analyses and Christian Newesely Stefanie Rauscher andDagmar Rubatscher for providing data Three anonymous review-ers are acknowledged for their helpful comments We also thankBrigitte Scott for language editing This research was fundedby the ERA-Net BiodivERsA with the national funder FWFpart of the 2008 BiodivERsA call for research proposals Thisstudy was conducted on the LTER site lsquoStubai Valleyrsquo a memberof the Austrian LTSER Platform lsquoTyrolean Alpsrsquo The institu-tions involved are part of the interdisciplinary research centreslsquoEcology of the Alpine Regionrsquo and lsquoMountain Agriculturersquowithin the research area lsquoAlpine Space ndash Man and Environmentrsquoat the University of Innsbruck
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
12 U Schirpke et al
ReferencesAbegg B 1996 Klimaaumlnderung und Tourismus Klimafol-
genforschung am Beispiel des Wintertourismus in denSchweizer Alpen Zuumlrich (Switzerland) vdf Hochschul-verlag AG
Badgley C Moghtader J Quintero E Zakem E Chappell MJAvileacutes-Vaacutezquez K Samulon A Perfecto I 2007 Organicagriculture and the global food supply Renew Agr Food Sys22(2)86ndash108
Bauer N Wallner A Hunziker M 2009 The change ofEuropean landscapes human-nature relationships publicattitudes towards rewilding and the implications for land-scape management in Switzerland J Environ Manage90(9)2910ndash2920
Bayfield N Barancok P Furger M Sebastiagrave MT Domiacutenguez GLapka M Cudlinova E Vescovo L Ganielle D Cernusca Aet al 2008 Stakeholder perceptions of the impacts of ruralfunding scenarios on mountain landscapes across EuropeEcosystems 11(8)1368ndash1382
Beniston M 2006 Mountain weather and climate a generaloverview and a focus on climatic change in the AlpsHydrobiologia 562(1)3ndash16
Bennett EM Peterson GD Gordon LJ 2009 Understandingrelationships among multiple ecosystem services Ecol Lett12(12)1394ndash1404
Bouwman AF Beusen AHW Billen G 2009 Human alterationof the global nitrogen and phosphorus soil balances for theperiod 1970ndash2050 Global Biogeochem Cycles 23GB0A04
Chan KMA Shaw MR Cameron DR Underwood EC Daily GC2006 Conservation planning for ecosystem services PLoSBiol 4(11)e379
Chen XF Chen JM An SQ Ju WM 2007 Effects of topogra-phy on simulated net primary productivity at landscape scaleJ Environ Manage 85(3)585ndash596
Clarke J McClung DM 1999 Full-depth avalanche occur-rences caused by snow gliding Coquihalla British ColumbiaCanada Canada J Glaciol 45(151)539ndash546
de Groot RS Alkemade R Braat L Hein L Willemen L 2010Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem servicesand values in landscape planning management and decisionmaking Ecol Complex 7(3)260ndash272
de la Vega-Leinert A Schroumlter D Leemans R Fritsch UPluimers J 2008 A stakeholder dialogue on European vul-nerability Reg Environ Change 8(3)109ndash124
Dorner B Lertzman K Fall J 2002 Landscape pattern in topo-graphically complex landscapes issues and techniques foranalysis Landscape Ecol 17(8)729ndash743
Egger G 1999 Biotopkartierung Nationalpark Hohe TauernErhebung Bewertung und Maszlignahmenentwicklung aus-gewaumlhlter Biotope der Auszligenzone des Nationalparks HoheTauern (Tirol) Studie im Auftrag von Bundesministerium fuumlrUmwelt Jugend und Familie Klagenfurt
Egger G Angermann K Aigner S Buchgraber K 2005GIS-Gestuumltzte Ertragsmodellierung zur Optimierung desWeidemanagements auf Almweiden Gumpenstein BAL ndashBundesanst fuumlr Alpenlaumlnd Landwirtschaft
Egoh B Reyers B Rouget M Bode M Richardson D 2009Spatial congruence between biodiversity and ecosystem ser-vices in South Africa Biol Conserv 142(3)553ndash562
Egoh B Reyers B Rouget M Richardson DM Le MaitreDC van Jaarsveld AS 2008 Mapping ecosystem servicesfor planning and management Agric Ecosyst Environ127(1ndash2)135ndash140
Eigenbrod F Armsworth PR Anderson BJ Heinemeyer AGillings S Roy DB Thomas CD Gaston KJ 2010Error propagation associated with benefits transfer-basedmapping of ecosystem services Biol Conserv 143(11)2487ndash2493
European Commission 2010 Brussels (Belgium) the CAPtowards 2020 meeting the food natural resources and terri-torial challenges of the future [Internet] [cited 2012 Aug 16]Available from httpeur-lexeuropaeuLexUriServLexUriServdouri=COM20100672FINenPDF
Foley JA DeFries R Asner GP Barford C Bonan GCarpenter SR Chapin FS Coe MT Daily GC Gibbs HKet al 2005 Global consequences of land use Science309(5734)570ndash574
Gellrich M Zimmermann NE 2007 Investigating the regional-scale pattern of agricultural land abandonment in theSwiss mountains a spatial statistical modelling approachLandscape Urban Plan 79(1)65ndash76
Gimona A van der Horst D 2007 Mapping hotspots of multiplelandscape functions a case study on farmland afforestationin Scotland Landscape Ecol 22(8)1255ndash1264
Giupponi C Ramanzin M Sturaro E Fuser S 2006 Climateand land use changes biodiversity and agri-environmentalmeasures in the Belluno province Italy Environ Sci Policy9(2)163ndash173
Gordon LJ Finlayson CM Falkenmark M 2010 Managingwater in agriculture for food production and other ecosystemservices Agric Water Manage 97(4)512ndash519
Grabherr G 2009 Biodiversity in the high ranges of theAlps ethnobotanical and climate change perspectives GlobalEnviron Change 19(2)167ndash172
Grecirct-Regamey A Bebi P Bishop ID Schmid WA 2008 LinkingGIS-based models to value ecosystem services in an Alpineregion J Environ Manage 89(3)197ndash208
Harlinger O Knees G 1999 Klimahandbuch DerOumlsterreichischen Bodenschaumltzung Klimatographie 1Teil 1st ed Innsbruck (Austria) Universitaumltsverlag Wagner
Houmlchtl F Lehringer S Konold W 2005 ldquoWildernessrdquo what itmeans when it becomes a realitymdasha case study from thesouthwestern Alps Landscape Urban Plan 70(1ndash2)85ndash95
Hunziker M Felber P Gehring K Buchecker M Bauer NKienast F 2008 Evaluation of landscape change by differentsocial groups Mt Res Dev 28(2)140ndash147
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2000 Emissionsscenarios A special report of working group III of the inter-governmental panel on climate change Cambridge (UK)Cambridge University Press
Kienast F Bolliger J Potschin M de Groot R Verburg PHeller I Wascher D Haines-Young R 2009 Assessing land-scape functions with broad-scale environmental data insightsgained from a prototype development for Europe EnvironManage 44(6)1099ndash1120
Klapp E Boeker P Koumlnig F Staumlhlin A 1953 Das GruumlnlandHannover Schaper Wertzahlen der Gruumlnlandpflanzenp 38ndash40
Kok K Rothman DS Patel M 2006 Multi-scale narrativesfrom an IA perspective part I European and Mediterraneanscenario development Futures 38(3)261ndash284
Koumlrner C 2003 Alpine plant life functional plant ecology ofhigh mountain ecosystems 2nd ed Heidelberg (Germany)Springer
Lamarque P Tappeiner U Turner C Steinbacher M Bardgett RSzukics U Schermer M Lavorel S 2011 Stakeholder per-ceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowl-edge on soil fertility and biodiversity Reg Environ Change11(4)791ndash804
Lavorel S Grigulis K Lamarque P Colace M Garden D Girel JPellet G Douzet R 2011 Using plant functional traits tounderstand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystemservices J Ecol 99(1)135ndash147
Leitinger G Houmlller P Tasser E Walde J Tappeiner U 2008Development and validation of a spatial snow-glide modelEcol Model 211(3ndash4)363ndash374
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 13
Leitinger G Tasser E Newesely C Obojes N Tappeiner U 2010Seasonal dynamics of surface runoff in mountain grass-land ecosystems differing in land use J Hydrol 385(1ndash4)95ndash104
Mayring P 2002 Einfuumlhrung in die Qualitative Sozialforschung5th revised ed Weinheim (Germany) Beltz Verlag
Metzger MJ Rounsevell M Michlik A Leemans R Schroumlter D2006 The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land usechange Agric Ecosyst Environ 114(1)69ndash86
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 Ecosystems andhuman well-being synthesis Washington (DC) Island Press
Mottet A Ladet S Coqueacute N Gibon A 2006 Agriculturalland-use change and its drivers in mountain landscapesa case study in the Pyrenees Agric Ecosyst Environ114(2ndash4)296ndash310
Naidoo R Balmford A Costanza R Fisher B Green RE LehnerB Malcolm TR Ricketts TH 2008 Global mapping ofecosystem services and conservation priorities Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 105(28)9495ndash9500
Nelson E Mendoza G Regetz J Polasky S Tallis H CameronDR Chan KMA Daily GC Goldstein J Kareiva PM et al2009 Modeling multiple ecosystem services biodiversityconservation commodity production and tradeoffs at land-scape scales Front Ecol Environ 7(1)4ndash11
Pitesky ME Stackhouse KR Mitloehner FM 2009 Clearing theair livestockrsquos contribution to climate change In Sparks Deditor Advances in agronomy Burligton (MA) AcademicPress p 1ndash40
Rabbinge R van Diepen CA 2000 Changes in agriculture andland use in Europe Eur J Agron 13(2ndash3)85ndash99
Raudsepp-Hearne C Peterson GD Bennett EM 2010 Ecosystemservice bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapesProc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(11)5242ndash5247
Reubens B Poesen J Danjon F Geudens G Muys B 2007 Therole of fine and coarse roots in shallow slope stability andsoil erosion control with a focus on root system architecturea review Trees Struct Funct 21(4)385ndash402
Rodriguez JP Beard TD Bennett E Cumming GS Cork SAgard J Dobson A Peterson G 2006 Trade-offs acrossspace time and ecosystem services Ecol Soc 11(1)28
Rounsevell MDA Reginster I Arauacutejo MB Carter TRDendoncker N Ewert F House JI Kankaanpaumlauml SLeemans R Metzger MJ et al 2006 A coherent set of futureland use change scenarios for Europe Agric Ecosyst Environ114(1)57ndash68
Rudel TK Coomes OT Moran E Achard F Angelsen AXu J Lambin E 2005 Forest transitions towards a globalunderstanding of land use change Global Environ Change15(1)23ndash31
Rutherford GN Bebi P Edwards PJ Zimmermann NE 2008Assessing land-use statistics to model land cover change ina mountainous landscape in the European Alps Ecol Model212(3ndash4)460ndash471
Schallberger P 1999 Wovon handeln baumluerliche Zukunfts-vorstellungen Determinanten Dimensionen und Typen(German manuscript of the paper De quel avenir parlent lespaysans) In Droz Y Mieville-Ott V editors On achegravevebien les paysans Reconstruire une identiteacute paysanne dansun monde incertain Genegraveve (Switzerland) Edition Georg p103ndash126
Schneeberger N Buumlrgi M Kienast F 2007 Rates of landscapechange at the northern fringe of the Swiss Alps historical andrecent tendencies Landscape Urban Plan 80(1ndash2)127ndash136
Schroumlter D Cramer W Leemans R Prentice IC Arauacutejo MBArnell NW Bondeau A Bugmann H Carter TR Gracia CAet al 2005 Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability toglobal change in Europe Science 310(5752)1333ndash1337
Stallman HR 2011 Ecosystem services in agriculture determin-ing suitability for provision by collective management EcolEcon 71131ndash139
Steiger R 2010 The impact of climate change on ski seasonlength and snowmaking requirements in Tyrol Austria ClimRes 43(3)251ndash262
Strauss F Formayer H Schmid E 2012 High resolution climatedata for Austria in the period 2008ndash2040 from a statistical cli-mate change model Int J Climatol DOI 101002joc3434
Strauss F Schmid E Moltchanova E Formayer H Wang X2011 Modeling climate change and biophysical impacts ofcrop production in the Austrian Marchfeld region ClimaticChange 111(3) 641ndash664
Swetnam RD Fisher B Mbilinyi BP Munishi PKT Willcock SRicketts T Mwakalila S Balmford A Burgess ND MarshallAR et al 2011 Mapping socio-economic scenarios of landcover change a GIS method to enable ecosystem servicemodeling J Environ Manage 92(3)563ndash574
Swift MJ Izac AN van Noordwijk M 2004 Biodiversity andecosystem services in agricultural landscapesmdashare we askingthe right questions Agric Ecosyst Environ 104(1)113ndash134
Swinton SM Lupi F Robertson GP Hamilton SK 2007Ecosystem services and agriculture cultivating agriculturalecosystems for diverse benefits Ecol Econ 64(2)245ndash252
Tappeiner U Tappeiner G Hilbert A Mattanovich E 2003 TheEU agricultural policy and the environment evaluation of thealpine region Oxford (UK) Blackwell
Tappeiner U Tasser E Leitinger G Cernusca A Tappeiner G2008 Effects of historical and likely future scenarios of landuse on above- and belowground vegetation carbon stocks ofan alpine valley Ecosystems 11(8)1383ndash1400
Tasser E Mader M Tappeiner U 2003 Effects of land use inalpine grasslands on the probability of landslides Basic ApplEcol 4(3)271ndash280
Tasser E Ruffini F Tappeiner U 2009 An integrative approachfor analysing landscape dynamics in diverse cultivated andnatural mountain areas Landscape Ecol 24(5)611ndash628
Tasser E Tappeiner U 2002 Impact of land use changes onmountain vegetation Appl Veg Sci 5(2)173ndash184
Tasser E Walde J Tappeiner U Teutsch A Noggler W 2007Land-use changes and natural reforestation in the EasternCentral Alps Agric Ecosyst Environ 118(1ndash4)115ndash129
Theurillat J Guisan A 2001 Potential impact of climate changeon vegetation in the European Alps a review ClimaticChange 50(1)77ndash109
Thuiller W Lavorel S Arauacutejo MB Sykes MT Prentice IC 2005Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 102(23)8245ndash8250
Tilman D Fargione J Wolff B DrsquoAntonio C Dobson A HowarthR Schindler D Schlesinger WH Simberloff D SwackhamerD 2001 Forecasting agriculturally driven global environ-mental change Science 292(5515)281ndash284
Troy A Wilson MA 2006 Mapping ecosystem services prac-tical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and valuetransfer Ecol Econ 60(2)435ndash449
Van der Ploeg JD Long A 1994 Born from within practice andperspectives of endogenous rural development Van GorcumAssen Styles of farming an introductory note on conceptsand methodology p 7ndash30
Walz A Lardelli C Behrendt H Grecirct-Regamey A Lundstroumlm CKytzia S Bebi P 2007 Participatory scenario analysisfor integrated regional modeling Landscape Urban Plan81(1ndash2)114ndash131
Wischmeier WH Smith DD 1978 Predicting rainfall erosionlosses ndash a guide to conservation planning Washington (DC)US Department of Agriculture
Zhang W Ricketts TH Kremen C Carney K Swinton SM2007 Ecosystem services and dis-services to agricultureEcol Econ 64(2)253ndash260
Zimmermann P Tasser E Leitinger G Tappeiner U 2010Effects of land-use and land-cover pattern on landscape-scalebiodiversity in the European Alps Agric Ecosyst Environ139(1ndash2)13ndash22
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
4 U Schirpke et al
Table 1 Mean annual temperature annual precipitation andsummer precipitation (AprilndashSeptember) of the status quo andscenarios for normal and dry years
Status quo5-year
normal year
5-yeardry
yeara
20-yearnormalyearb
20-yeardry
yearb
Mean annualtemperature (C)
24 69 58 77
Annual precipitation(mm)
1100 549 845 416
Summerprecipitation (mm)
687 283 535 207
Note aCorresponds conditions in the dry year 2003bStrauss et al (2012)
by little rainfall and high temperatures (Table 1)Precipitation in winter falls almost exclusively asrain and leads to a shorter period of solid snow coverIn dry years vegetation below sim1300 m experiencesextreme drought stress and hay yield is only 50 ofthe usual amount (Egger et al 2005)
For the 20-year scenario (2b) the trend withincreased temperatures and variable precipitationpatterns continues and leads to warm winter monthswith very little snow (Table 1) We assume that dryyears occur in 7 out of 10 years (Abegg 1996 Steiger2010) Mainly on alpine meadows and pasturesaverage years produce little loss of yield (simndash10)while dry years reduce agricultural yields by about50 (Egger et al 2005 Pfurtscheller 2012 personalcommunication) Snow cover becomes unreliablebelow 1500 m asl and the conditions for artificialsnow-making are getting poorer Ski tourism is onlyprofitable above 1800 m asl (Steiger 2010)
In the worst-case scenario (2c) most years are verydry with climatic conditions similar to the dry yearsof the 20-year scenario As snow reliability fails(Abegg 1996 Steiger 2010) and springs are drywinter tourism collapses and hay yields are rarelygood enough to make farming feasible
Workshops
The two socio-economic scenarios (termed lsquolocalizedrsquo andlsquoglobalizedrsquo see above) were combined with the climatescenarios resulting in six different overall scenarios(1) localized 5-year LN(5) (2) localized 20-year LN(20)(3) localized worst-case LW(20) (4) globalized 5-yearGN(5) (5) globalized 20-year GN(20) and (6) glob-alized worst-case GW(20) To assess the managementimplications of the different scenarios two workshopsone for the localized scenarios and another one for theglobalized scenarios were organized with 4ndash6 farmersfrom the Stubai Valley in each session A qualitativeapproach was used to select farmers that represent typicalsituations to get a lsquopublic opinion collective attitudesand ideologiesrsquo (Mayring 2002) in the context of futureland-use management
To capture various opinions and solutions the farm-ers were selected by their socio-economic profilescharacterized by their modern or traditional habitus(Schallberger 1999) and their approach towards marketand nature This was reflected in different farming styles(Van der Ploeg and Long 1994) combining production pat-terns (organic or conventional high or low mechanization)with market approaches (directindirect marketing chan-nels) and different employment situation (ie part-time orfull-time employed or self-employed) During the work-shops the farmers were asked to develop a joint strategyto react to the specific scenarios In addition they were toexplain related land-use changes For the study area spatialmapping of the scenarios was done on orthophotos by thefarmers and later digitalized
Modelling ecosystem services
Lamarque et al (2011) identified a common set of ecosys-tem services of mountain grasslands that were consid-ered important by local stakeholders and farmers for theStubai Valley (aesthetic value carbon sequestration foragequality forage quantity natural hazard regulation pollina-tion recreation soil stability water quality and water quan-tity) Accordingly we modelled a selection of ecosystemservices for our study site lsquoKaserstattalmrsquo based on land-use pattern vegetation distribution and topographic char-acteristics using 5 m times 5 m resolution data We adaptedthe different GIS-based modelling approaches which aredescribed in the following in detail to the specific topo-graphic conditions of mountain regions to quantify theecosystem services on a landscape scale Raster mapswere created for historical dates and future scenarios andrescaled to values ranging from 0 to 100 For reporting wecalculated mean values of the total study area
Aesthetic value
The aesthetic value was assessed by a photo survey (seesupplementary online material httpinformahealthcarecomdoisuppl[101080215137322012751936]) Thestandardized questionnaire was composed of five photo-graphic series each consisting of four photographs relatedto (1) different management types of alpine grassland(pasture meadow and abandoned land) (2) differentmanagement intensities of meadows (number of mowingsand fertilization) (3) different successional stages ofabandoned land (4) different management types of alpinegrassland at flowering season (meadow of lowhigh land-use intensity pasture and abandoned land) and (5) differentmanagement types of alpine grassland after cutting orgrazing A total of 78 persons locals and tourists wereinterviewed at the alpine hut which is located at 1900 masl on our study site lsquoKaserstattalmrsquo and asked to givescores to the pictures of each series according to theirpreferences (1 for least preferred and 4 for most pre-ferred) To map the aesthetic value we linked the resultingpreference values to the different land-use categories
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 5
Carbon sequestration
Carbon density (Mg C haminus1) assigned to each vegetationtype was derived from above-ground and below-groundphytomass (Mg haminus1) and C-stocks (g gminus1) resulted fromproject-area-relevant literature and own measurementsAbove-ground phytomass was measured by harvestingor cutting the vegetation of defined plots Below-groundphytomass was determined by taking soil cores and manualexcavation of roots For further details refer to Tappeineret al (2008) Phytomass and C-content were multiplied andan area-weighted mean value for each land-use categorywas obtained by overlaying the vegetation and the land-usemaps
Forage quality
Each vegetation type was assigned a forage quality valueaccording to Klapp et al (1953) By overlaying the veg-etation and the land-use maps an area-weighted meanvalue for each land-use category was obtained To accountfor changing climate conditions within land-use typeseach raster cell was corrected by the elevation accord-ing to Egger (1999) where forage quality increases below1800 m asl (10 per 100 m) and decreases above 2200 masl (10 per 200 m) This leads to a differentiationof our community-weighted mean for climatic and soildifferences
Forage quantity
Forage quantity is a function of topography and land-usepattern and was estimated on the basis of productivity typeof grassland determined by plant species and the growingseason (Egger et al 2005) Using the DEM the days withvegetation growth were determined according to Harflingerand Knees (1999) for the climate zone inner-alpine westHigher mean temperatures of the scenarios are consideredby lowering the DEM with the temperature lapse rate of6C per km of elevation (Koumlrner 2003) The forage quan-tity was corrected by topography ie slope and aspectwhich can accelerate or diminish vegetation growthAs precipitation requirements for forage are 100 mm pre-cipitation per 1000 kg forage (Egger et al 2005) themaximum possible forage quantity is limited by the totalamount of summer precipitation (AprilndashSeptember)
Natural hazard regulation
Natural hazards in mountain regions are mainly massmovements ie rock fall and landslides debris flows andavalanches As rock fall is no major issue in our studyarea natural hazard regulation was modelled on the basisof (1) snow gliding (2) surface water run-off and (3) rootdensity Avalanches are often caused by snow gliding(Clarke and McClung 1999) To predict snow gliding sixkey drivers (forest stand slope angle winter precipita-tion surface roughness slope aspect west and slope aspect
east) were used (Leitinger et al 2008) Snow gliding alsoincreases the probability of landslides (Tasser et al 2003)Surface water run-off contributing to landslides mud-flows and floods is a function of above-ground phytomassskeleton fraction-soil stone content in 0ndash01 m soil depthannual precipitation and elevation (Leitinger et al 2010)Root density is related to slope stability (Reubens et al2007) We mapped root mass associated to each vegetationtype (Tappeiner et al 2008) and obtained an area-weightedmean value for each land-use category by overlaying thevegetation and the land-use maps To determine naturalhazard regulation the three input factors snow gliding sur-face water run-off and root density were added for eachraster cell
Soil stability
To predict the soil stability we used the universal soil lossequation (USLE Wischmeier and Smith 1978) The rate ofsoil erosion is a function of land-use pattern soil type pre-cipitation and topography The erosivity factor ndash the greaterthe intensity and duration of the rain storm the higher theerosion potential ndash was assumed to be equal throughout thestudy area and therefore excluded from calculation as wefound no significant differences in rainfall intensity (mmper time unit) between our climate stations at 970 17501850 and 2000 m asl Slope characteristics were derivedfrom the DEM As no data about soil characteristics wereavailable we used root density which is related to soil sta-bility (Reubens et al 2007) Root mass associated witheach vegetation type (Tappeiner et al 2008) was overlaidon the land-use map and an area-weighted mean value foreach land-use category calculated
Multiple ecosystem services analysis
A multiple ecosystem services map was obtained by thesum of all ecosystem services using 0ndash100 scaled valuesImpacts of land-use change were visualized by creatingmaps of ecosystem service change To understand trade-offs and synergies between different ecosystem servicesa principal component analysis (PCA) was performed inArcGISTM (Version 931 Spatial Analyst ESRI) for his-torical dates and future scenarios Using the six differentecosystem services maps as input raster layers eigenvec-tors eigenvalues a covariance matrix and a correlationmatrix were calculated and maps of the components weregenerated
Results
Scenario workshop
During the workshop the farmers specified that their deci-sions about intensity and type of agricultural use aredriven by different key factors agricultural policies cli-mate conditions nature protection topography and eco-nomic motivations The general strategies for responding
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
6 U Schirpke et al
to the different socio-economic and climate scenarios arerepresentative for the whole region Spatial distributionof land-use patterns was mapped only for the study arealsquoKaserstattalmrsquo
In the globalized scenarios the farmers shift theiractivities towards tourism (in which most of them arealready engaged part-time) and continue managing alpinegrasslands and pastures for landscape conservation Largemeadows are managed as long as they can be mown bymachinery otherwise they are transformed into pasturesThe farmers react to global pressure and decreasingmarket-prices with a shift in livestock ie from cattleto sheep and goats Higher temperatures due to climatechange allow a diversification of products ie vegetablesor wine-growing and animals can stay longer on pasturesIrrigation might become necessary for agricultural useon the valley floor but the farmers were convinced thatthe glacier will continue to provide the required amountof irrigation water even in times of drought For theglobalized worst-case scenario GW(20) farmers assumea global financial crisis In times of economic crisis withscarce employment opportunities farming becomes moreimportant Hence almost any available area is used foragriculture to cover the subsistence food requirements ofthe region
During the workshop on the localized scenarios farm-ers rated the market opportunities of this scenario as goodand considered new crops like pumpkins on the valley floorand new production niches like dairy sheep farming onthe slope The farmers considered water scarcity due to cli-mate change as the biggest problem Irrigation howeverwas seen as a solution only for some farmers in the val-ley on areas of high land-use intensity Farmers on dryslopes would not benefit from irrigation as pumping upwater for irrigation was not thought feasible The use offavourable areas is intensified and diversified for productsneeded on local markets (eg wine fruits and vegetables)Less favourable areas especially on hill sites are largelyabandoned or used for grazing with sheep Livestock farm-ing remains more important than arable farming even ifthe proportion of arable land grows The farmers continuemanaging their agricultural land as long as it is profitable(also due to payments for landscape preservation) and com-bine agricultural activities with other occupations whichstill allow part-time farming Continued transfer paymentswere thought necessary but the restrictions imposed by thecompulsory 5-year period of the contracts were severelycriticized With the prospect of weather conditions pos-sibly varying more frequently from year to year farmersrequested more freedom in their management decisionsAs tourism is likely to increase especially during sum-mer some areas might be adapted for touristic use egwith golf courses and small artificial lakes There is nojoint strategy for facing possible future socio-economicand climate changes but rather individual solutions thatneed to be developed and for each farm to find its ownniche The localized worst-case scenario is dominated byan abandonment of farms due to prolonged drought periods
and overregulation Farmers complained that the existingregulations of contractual commitments for transfer pay-ments in the agri-environmental programme (no land-usechange within the 5-year period) already hinder innova-tions This leads to critical situations especially in thecourse of farm succession
Land-use change
Historical changes
From 1954 to 2011 agricultural use generally decreased(Table 2) The main period of abandonment occurred inthe 1960s and 1970s Larch meadows in particular werealmost completely abandoned until 2011 leading to anincrease of dense forest after several decades Alpine pas-tures and meadows were reduced to 38 of the area in1954 meadows decreasing more rapidly than pasturesOn the valley floor arable land disappeared completely in1970 and changed to grassland of high land-use intensity
Future changes
Land-use changes for the scenarios GN(5) and LN(5) coin-cide and land-use distribution is similar to the SQ (Table 2)This is not astonishing as farmers depend on the trans-fer payments from agri-environmental programmes with a5-year contractual period Half of the abandoned land isused again as alpine pastures and the land-use intensityof meadows has increased The change from abandonedland to alpine pastures continues with a lower transfor-mation rate for the 20-year scenarios Future changes areexpected to result from either a collapse of the worldeconomy (scenario GW(20)) or over-regulation in times ofincreased climatic variation The results of both the sce-narios are entirely different In GW the post-World War IIlandscape is re-established while in scenario LW(20) largeparts are expected to be reforested and abandoned TheGW scenario forecasts massive intensification of use and areversal of almost the entire area to agricultural use Higherareas are dominated by pastures and meadows of low land-use intensity On favourable areas land-use intensity ofmeadows is high Even large areas of previously aban-doned larch meadows are used again especially in areasof higher elevation where forest regeneration occurs moreslowly On the valley floor 30 of the grassland is trans-formed to arable land The farmers considered LN(20) asthe maximum likely reduction of land use as long as thelocal conditions allow farming However future gener-ations might change occupation and abandon all alpinegrassland leading to an increase of forest and abandonedland The valley floor is still managed by big farmers
Ecosystem services
Landscape pattern
Spatial distribution of ecosystem services is related to land-use pattern and topography (Figures 2 and 3) The aesthetic
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 7
Table 2 Land-use distribution of the study area lsquoKaserstattalmrsquo for historical dates the status quo and the scenarios
Total changed area 226 208 161 98 95 57 minus 42 55 46 221 119
Notes The total changed area refers to the status quoaMowing every 3ndash5 yearsbMowing every 2 yearsc1ndash2 mowings per yeard3ndash4 mowings per year
value is highest for meadows of low land-use intensity fol-lowed by abandoned larch meadows Alpine pastures andmeadows are preferred to abandoned land Least attractiveare meadows of high land-use intensity and forest Carbonsequestration is highest in forests and reaches good valuesin larch meadows Meadows of very low land-use inten-sity and abandoned land store more carbon than alpinepastures whereas meadows of high land-use intensity andarable land store the least carbon Meadows of high land-use intensity on the valley floor produce highest foragequantities and have the best forage quality Productionrates and quality diminish with decreasing managementintensity and increasing elevation Pastures have lower for-age quality than meadows Natural hazard regulation islower for alpine pastures than for meadows of low land-useintensity or abandoned land due to higher soil compactionand higher surface run-off Forest and larch meadowshave highest natural hazard regulation values Soil stabilitydepends highly on the slope gradient and the vegetationcover Abandoned land has higher root densities than man-aged grasslands Lowest erosion risk arises on the flatvalley floor and in forests followed by larch meadows andabandoned land on moderate slopes
Historical impacts
Historical land-use changes have led to an increase of thetotal ecosystem service value but have influenced the anal-ysed ecosystem services to different degrees (Figure 3)The aesthetic value increased between 1954 and 1990 pri-marily due to the abandonment of larch meadows whereasthe subsequent decrease was caused by forest regenera-tion An increase in carbon sequestration occurred after1990 because of forest growth Mean values of forage
quality and quantity have risen continuously particularlybetween 1970 and 1980 Large areas of alpine pasturesand meadows were abandoned and only areas with higherproduction rates and better forage quality continued to bemanaged The total forage amount of the entire study sitehas decreased by 47 since 1954 Natural hazard regu-lation and soil stability increased after 1990 when forestreplaced larch meadows and managed grasslands weremore and more abandoned
Future impacts
The total ecosystem service value for all scenarios is lowerthan the SQ except LW(20) and decreases with time forthe globalized scenarios while decelerating for the local-ized scenarios (Figure 3) In the 5-year scenarios onlysmall changes are predicted for carbon sequestration andsoil stability Less precipitation and higher temperaturesgenerally lower the risk of natural hazards because of lesssnow cover and reduced surface run-off Areas for forageproduction are extended but mean forage quality and quan-tity decrease because pastures are lower in forage qualityand quantity than meadows Higher impacts are estimatedfor the 20-year scenarios Carbon sequestration naturalhazard regulation and soil stability increase while meanforage quality and quantity continue to decrease Highestimpacts occur in GW(20) where all ecosystem servicevalues decrease except aesthetic value and natural hazardregulation Forage production is limited due to signifi-cantly lower precipitation Loss of areas with high land-useintensity for forage production is compensated for by anenormous increase of used areas especially pastures Meanforage quantity and quality are therefore lower but the totalforage amount produced by the entire study site reaches
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
8 U Schirpke et al
Figure 2 Ecosystem services of different land-use types for the status quo Values are re-scaled to 0ndash100
more than double that of SQ Impacts in LW(20) arecontrary to GW(20) with a decrease in the aesthetic valueand improved regulating services Agricultural activitiescontinue only on the valley floor Although provisioningservices improve significantly the total forage amount ofthe entire study site is only about 17 of that in SQ
Trade-offs
We applied a PCA for all time steps to assess trade-offsand synergies between multiple ecosystem services Thefirst two components explain 85ndash89 of the variance (for
SQ see Table 3) The relationships between the differ-ent ecosystem services indicate only little changes acrosstime but differ between different land-usecover categories(Figure 4) Thus we concentrate on the SQ The first axis isdriven by contrasts between regulating ecosystem servicesdominated by carbon sequestration and the aesthetic valueand forage provision (Table 3 Figure 5) Regarding dif-ferent land-use types the first component has high valuesfor forest while pastures and meadows have low val-ues (Figure 4) The second axis is driven by contrastsbetween the aesthetic value and forage provision (Table 3Figure 5) High aesthetic values are associated to extensive
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 9
Figure 3 Landscape pattern of ecosystem services for the status quo Values are re-scaled to 0ndash100 Historical development and futuretrends in normalized ecosystem services All scores are normalized by their status quo levels
Table 3 Correlation matrix of PCA for the status quo
Figure 4 Maps of contrasts of (a) the first component and (b)the second component for the status quo
use and lower values with intensive use whereas foragequantity and quality show contrary dependencies Highestvalues of the second component emerge for abandonedlarch meadows with high values for aesthetics and carbonsequestration (Figure 4) Synergies occur between forage
Figure 5 PCA plot of eigenvectors (component 1 times compo-nent 2) for the status quo
quality and forage quantity (r gt 05) (Table 4) Carbonsequestration natural hazard regulation and soil stabilityare also positively correlated (r gt 05) For forests carbonsequestration natural hazard regulation and soil stabilityare negatively correlated with the aesthetic value while forother land-use categories the variables are independent
Discussion
Scenario analysis has often been linked with participatoryapproaches to understand socio-economic administrativecultural political and environmental dynamics within aparticular region (Kok et al 2006 Walz et al 2007)We asked local farmers of the Stubai Valley to specifythe management implications arising in different socio-economic conditions under climate change As key driversfor land-use change the farmers identified agriculturalfunding policies market prices and dryer climate condi-tions While the farmers keep managing agricultural landin the globalized scenarios and respond to global pressureby diversification of products and livestock agriculturalland is partly abandoned in the localized scenarios (espe-cially on the slopes and on alpine pastures) or transformedinto touristic areas During the next 20 years about 11 ofthe area will be subject to land-use changes in GN(20) and9 in LN(20) GW(20) predicts even changes for 43of the total area The farmers considered LW(20) whichaffects 23 of the area not very likely to occur sincethey keep managing agricultural land as long as the localeconomy allows However future generations might decidedifferently During the last decade agriculturally usedareas have been widely abandoned in the European Alpsespecially in southern Italian and French Alps (Houmlchtl et al2005 Giupponi et al 2006 Zimmermann et al 2010)The resulting land-use changes for our study site corre-spond generally to Europe-wide land-usecover scenarios(Rounsevell et al 2006 Bayfield et al 2008) Since theStubai Valley was identified by Tappeiner et al (2003) asan Alpine lsquostandard regionrsquo characterized by agriculturaluse with a specialization in livestock farming which isrepresentative for 22 of the European Alps the studyresults are likely to correspond to the development of othercomparable 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-basedmodelling approaches to quantify the provision of mul-tiple ecosystem services for historical dates and futurescenarios on a landscape scale In mountain regionsecosystem services are influenced by topographic char-acteristics For provisioning services we found strongdependencies to topography As confirmed by Chen et al(2007) forage quantity decreases with increasing eleva-tion Many regulating services are also determined bytopography eg natural hazard regulation and slope stabil-ity are better for smaller slope gradients Consistent withother studies different ecosystem services correspond tolandscape pattern (Gimona and van der Horst 2007 Naidoo
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 11
et al 2008 Egoh et al 2009) The aesthetic value is higherfor alpine pastures and meadows of low land-use inten-sity than for forest or meadows of high land-use intensityCarbon sequestration is higher for forest than for grasslandService hotspots are larch meadows which have howeveralmost completely disappeared in recent decades Impactson multiple ecosystem services can be related to land-usecover change Previous land-use changes have led toan increase of all ecosystem service values except the aes-thetic value The scenarios predict a trend reversion formost ecosystem services apart from natural hazard regula-tion and the aesthetic value For modelling future scenarioswe assumed that plant species distribution is only influ-enced by land use However species distribution shifts andeven extinction of alpine plants can be expected due toclimate change (Thuiller et al 2005 Grabherr 2009)
We found trade-offs between provisioning ecosystemservices and both regulating and cultural ecosystem ser-vices also confirmed by other studies (Bennett et al 2009Raudsepp-Hearne et al 2010) Forested areas cannot beused for forage production but are very valuable for carbonsequestration The aesthetic value is negatively correlatedto forage quantity and forage quality ie increasing man-agement intensity leads to higher forage production butreduces the aesthetic value Comparable to Badgley et al(2007) who found that trade-offs between agricultural pro-duction and many ecosystem services can be avoided byusing sustainable management practices our research find-ings indicate that extensive use has a positive influence onregulating and cultural ecosystem services We also foundtrade-offs between regulating and cultural ecosystem ser-vices While the aesthetic value of dense forest is lowerthan for grasslands carbon sequestration and natural haz-ard regulation are higher Since managed landscapes areareas of cultural importance the local population is crit-ical of any shift from rural landscapes to forests (Houmlchtlet al 2005 Bauer et al 2009) but people living outside theAlps perceive forest regeneration less negatively (Hunzikeret al 2008) The results of the survey indicate that touristsappreciate abandoned land and forest better than the localpopulation We found the highest aesthetic values relatedto extensively managed grassland or larch meadows andlower values for meadows of high land-use intensity orabandoned land
In our study we focused on a selection of ecosystemservices to which local stakeholders and farmers attached
importance (Lamarque et al 2011) Several ecosystemservices related to agriculture have been neglected includ-ing pollination water quantity and quality and recreationMoreover management practices control disservices fromagriculture eg habitat loss nutrient run-off pesticidepoisoning of non-target species (Zhang et al 2007) andfuture efforts will be concentrated on modelling additionalservices and disservices to agriculture
Conclusions
Ecosystem services related to agriculture contribute tohuman well-being Provisioning services are directlyrelated to land use but also regulating and cultural servicesdepend on management practices Future land-use policiesshould take into account that ecosystem services in moun-tain regions are closely linked to topographic and climaticconditions and a more flexible system for financial supportcould improve the farmersrsquo options for reacting to climaticvariations Trade-offs are related to land use and occurbetween provisioning regulating and cultural servicesService hotspots and multiple ecosystem service provisioncan be enhanced by sustainable agricultural managementTourism is likely to be strengthened under both the global-ized and the localized scenario and is positively influencedby extensive agricultural management enhancing the aes-thetic value With regard to economic benefits derivingfrom tourism landscape preferences linked to agriculturalpractices should be integrated into land-use policies andagricultural incentives for a sustainable development ofmountain regions
AcknowledgementsWe thank the farmers of the Stubai Valley for participating inthe scenario workshop and for their valuable inputs We wishto thank Michael Heinl for assistance during the workshop andfor data analyses and Christian Newesely Stefanie Rauscher andDagmar Rubatscher for providing data Three anonymous review-ers are acknowledged for their helpful comments We also thankBrigitte Scott for language editing This research was fundedby the ERA-Net BiodivERsA with the national funder FWFpart of the 2008 BiodivERsA call for research proposals Thisstudy was conducted on the LTER site lsquoStubai Valleyrsquo a memberof the Austrian LTSER Platform lsquoTyrolean Alpsrsquo The institu-tions involved are part of the interdisciplinary research centreslsquoEcology of the Alpine Regionrsquo and lsquoMountain Agriculturersquowithin the research area lsquoAlpine Space ndash Man and Environmentrsquoat the University of Innsbruck
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
12 U Schirpke et al
ReferencesAbegg B 1996 Klimaaumlnderung und Tourismus Klimafol-
genforschung am Beispiel des Wintertourismus in denSchweizer Alpen Zuumlrich (Switzerland) vdf Hochschul-verlag AG
Badgley C Moghtader J Quintero E Zakem E Chappell MJAvileacutes-Vaacutezquez K Samulon A Perfecto I 2007 Organicagriculture and the global food supply Renew Agr Food Sys22(2)86ndash108
Bauer N Wallner A Hunziker M 2009 The change ofEuropean landscapes human-nature relationships publicattitudes towards rewilding and the implications for land-scape management in Switzerland J Environ Manage90(9)2910ndash2920
Bayfield N Barancok P Furger M Sebastiagrave MT Domiacutenguez GLapka M Cudlinova E Vescovo L Ganielle D Cernusca Aet al 2008 Stakeholder perceptions of the impacts of ruralfunding scenarios on mountain landscapes across EuropeEcosystems 11(8)1368ndash1382
Beniston M 2006 Mountain weather and climate a generaloverview and a focus on climatic change in the AlpsHydrobiologia 562(1)3ndash16
Bennett EM Peterson GD Gordon LJ 2009 Understandingrelationships among multiple ecosystem services Ecol Lett12(12)1394ndash1404
Bouwman AF Beusen AHW Billen G 2009 Human alterationof the global nitrogen and phosphorus soil balances for theperiod 1970ndash2050 Global Biogeochem Cycles 23GB0A04
Chan KMA Shaw MR Cameron DR Underwood EC Daily GC2006 Conservation planning for ecosystem services PLoSBiol 4(11)e379
Chen XF Chen JM An SQ Ju WM 2007 Effects of topogra-phy on simulated net primary productivity at landscape scaleJ Environ Manage 85(3)585ndash596
Clarke J McClung DM 1999 Full-depth avalanche occur-rences caused by snow gliding Coquihalla British ColumbiaCanada Canada J Glaciol 45(151)539ndash546
de Groot RS Alkemade R Braat L Hein L Willemen L 2010Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem servicesand values in landscape planning management and decisionmaking Ecol Complex 7(3)260ndash272
de la Vega-Leinert A Schroumlter D Leemans R Fritsch UPluimers J 2008 A stakeholder dialogue on European vul-nerability Reg Environ Change 8(3)109ndash124
Dorner B Lertzman K Fall J 2002 Landscape pattern in topo-graphically complex landscapes issues and techniques foranalysis Landscape Ecol 17(8)729ndash743
Egger G 1999 Biotopkartierung Nationalpark Hohe TauernErhebung Bewertung und Maszlignahmenentwicklung aus-gewaumlhlter Biotope der Auszligenzone des Nationalparks HoheTauern (Tirol) Studie im Auftrag von Bundesministerium fuumlrUmwelt Jugend und Familie Klagenfurt
Egger G Angermann K Aigner S Buchgraber K 2005GIS-Gestuumltzte Ertragsmodellierung zur Optimierung desWeidemanagements auf Almweiden Gumpenstein BAL ndashBundesanst fuumlr Alpenlaumlnd Landwirtschaft
Egoh B Reyers B Rouget M Bode M Richardson D 2009Spatial congruence between biodiversity and ecosystem ser-vices in South Africa Biol Conserv 142(3)553ndash562
Egoh B Reyers B Rouget M Richardson DM Le MaitreDC van Jaarsveld AS 2008 Mapping ecosystem servicesfor planning and management Agric Ecosyst Environ127(1ndash2)135ndash140
Eigenbrod F Armsworth PR Anderson BJ Heinemeyer AGillings S Roy DB Thomas CD Gaston KJ 2010Error propagation associated with benefits transfer-basedmapping of ecosystem services Biol Conserv 143(11)2487ndash2493
European Commission 2010 Brussels (Belgium) the CAPtowards 2020 meeting the food natural resources and terri-torial challenges of the future [Internet] [cited 2012 Aug 16]Available from httpeur-lexeuropaeuLexUriServLexUriServdouri=COM20100672FINenPDF
Foley JA DeFries R Asner GP Barford C Bonan GCarpenter SR Chapin FS Coe MT Daily GC Gibbs HKet al 2005 Global consequences of land use Science309(5734)570ndash574
Gellrich M Zimmermann NE 2007 Investigating the regional-scale pattern of agricultural land abandonment in theSwiss mountains a spatial statistical modelling approachLandscape Urban Plan 79(1)65ndash76
Gimona A van der Horst D 2007 Mapping hotspots of multiplelandscape functions a case study on farmland afforestationin Scotland Landscape Ecol 22(8)1255ndash1264
Giupponi C Ramanzin M Sturaro E Fuser S 2006 Climateand land use changes biodiversity and agri-environmentalmeasures in the Belluno province Italy Environ Sci Policy9(2)163ndash173
Gordon LJ Finlayson CM Falkenmark M 2010 Managingwater in agriculture for food production and other ecosystemservices Agric Water Manage 97(4)512ndash519
Grabherr G 2009 Biodiversity in the high ranges of theAlps ethnobotanical and climate change perspectives GlobalEnviron Change 19(2)167ndash172
Grecirct-Regamey A Bebi P Bishop ID Schmid WA 2008 LinkingGIS-based models to value ecosystem services in an Alpineregion J Environ Manage 89(3)197ndash208
Harlinger O Knees G 1999 Klimahandbuch DerOumlsterreichischen Bodenschaumltzung Klimatographie 1Teil 1st ed Innsbruck (Austria) Universitaumltsverlag Wagner
Houmlchtl F Lehringer S Konold W 2005 ldquoWildernessrdquo what itmeans when it becomes a realitymdasha case study from thesouthwestern Alps Landscape Urban Plan 70(1ndash2)85ndash95
Hunziker M Felber P Gehring K Buchecker M Bauer NKienast F 2008 Evaluation of landscape change by differentsocial groups Mt Res Dev 28(2)140ndash147
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2000 Emissionsscenarios A special report of working group III of the inter-governmental panel on climate change Cambridge (UK)Cambridge University Press
Kienast F Bolliger J Potschin M de Groot R Verburg PHeller I Wascher D Haines-Young R 2009 Assessing land-scape functions with broad-scale environmental data insightsgained from a prototype development for Europe EnvironManage 44(6)1099ndash1120
Klapp E Boeker P Koumlnig F Staumlhlin A 1953 Das GruumlnlandHannover Schaper Wertzahlen der Gruumlnlandpflanzenp 38ndash40
Kok K Rothman DS Patel M 2006 Multi-scale narrativesfrom an IA perspective part I European and Mediterraneanscenario development Futures 38(3)261ndash284
Koumlrner C 2003 Alpine plant life functional plant ecology ofhigh mountain ecosystems 2nd ed Heidelberg (Germany)Springer
Lamarque P Tappeiner U Turner C Steinbacher M Bardgett RSzukics U Schermer M Lavorel S 2011 Stakeholder per-ceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowl-edge on soil fertility and biodiversity Reg Environ Change11(4)791ndash804
Lavorel S Grigulis K Lamarque P Colace M Garden D Girel JPellet G Douzet R 2011 Using plant functional traits tounderstand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystemservices J Ecol 99(1)135ndash147
Leitinger G Houmlller P Tasser E Walde J Tappeiner U 2008Development and validation of a spatial snow-glide modelEcol Model 211(3ndash4)363ndash374
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 13
Leitinger G Tasser E Newesely C Obojes N Tappeiner U 2010Seasonal dynamics of surface runoff in mountain grass-land ecosystems differing in land use J Hydrol 385(1ndash4)95ndash104
Mayring P 2002 Einfuumlhrung in die Qualitative Sozialforschung5th revised ed Weinheim (Germany) Beltz Verlag
Metzger MJ Rounsevell M Michlik A Leemans R Schroumlter D2006 The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land usechange Agric Ecosyst Environ 114(1)69ndash86
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 Ecosystems andhuman well-being synthesis Washington (DC) Island Press
Mottet A Ladet S Coqueacute N Gibon A 2006 Agriculturalland-use change and its drivers in mountain landscapesa case study in the Pyrenees Agric Ecosyst Environ114(2ndash4)296ndash310
Naidoo R Balmford A Costanza R Fisher B Green RE LehnerB Malcolm TR Ricketts TH 2008 Global mapping ofecosystem services and conservation priorities Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 105(28)9495ndash9500
Nelson E Mendoza G Regetz J Polasky S Tallis H CameronDR Chan KMA Daily GC Goldstein J Kareiva PM et al2009 Modeling multiple ecosystem services biodiversityconservation commodity production and tradeoffs at land-scape scales Front Ecol Environ 7(1)4ndash11
Pitesky ME Stackhouse KR Mitloehner FM 2009 Clearing theair livestockrsquos contribution to climate change In Sparks Deditor Advances in agronomy Burligton (MA) AcademicPress p 1ndash40
Rabbinge R van Diepen CA 2000 Changes in agriculture andland use in Europe Eur J Agron 13(2ndash3)85ndash99
Raudsepp-Hearne C Peterson GD Bennett EM 2010 Ecosystemservice bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapesProc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(11)5242ndash5247
Reubens B Poesen J Danjon F Geudens G Muys B 2007 Therole of fine and coarse roots in shallow slope stability andsoil erosion control with a focus on root system architecturea review Trees Struct Funct 21(4)385ndash402
Rodriguez JP Beard TD Bennett E Cumming GS Cork SAgard J Dobson A Peterson G 2006 Trade-offs acrossspace time and ecosystem services Ecol Soc 11(1)28
Rounsevell MDA Reginster I Arauacutejo MB Carter TRDendoncker N Ewert F House JI Kankaanpaumlauml SLeemans R Metzger MJ et al 2006 A coherent set of futureland use change scenarios for Europe Agric Ecosyst Environ114(1)57ndash68
Rudel TK Coomes OT Moran E Achard F Angelsen AXu J Lambin E 2005 Forest transitions towards a globalunderstanding of land use change Global Environ Change15(1)23ndash31
Rutherford GN Bebi P Edwards PJ Zimmermann NE 2008Assessing land-use statistics to model land cover change ina mountainous landscape in the European Alps Ecol Model212(3ndash4)460ndash471
Schallberger P 1999 Wovon handeln baumluerliche Zukunfts-vorstellungen Determinanten Dimensionen und Typen(German manuscript of the paper De quel avenir parlent lespaysans) In Droz Y Mieville-Ott V editors On achegravevebien les paysans Reconstruire une identiteacute paysanne dansun monde incertain Genegraveve (Switzerland) Edition Georg p103ndash126
Schneeberger N Buumlrgi M Kienast F 2007 Rates of landscapechange at the northern fringe of the Swiss Alps historical andrecent tendencies Landscape Urban Plan 80(1ndash2)127ndash136
Schroumlter D Cramer W Leemans R Prentice IC Arauacutejo MBArnell NW Bondeau A Bugmann H Carter TR Gracia CAet al 2005 Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability toglobal change in Europe Science 310(5752)1333ndash1337
Stallman HR 2011 Ecosystem services in agriculture determin-ing suitability for provision by collective management EcolEcon 71131ndash139
Steiger R 2010 The impact of climate change on ski seasonlength and snowmaking requirements in Tyrol Austria ClimRes 43(3)251ndash262
Strauss F Formayer H Schmid E 2012 High resolution climatedata for Austria in the period 2008ndash2040 from a statistical cli-mate change model Int J Climatol DOI 101002joc3434
Strauss F Schmid E Moltchanova E Formayer H Wang X2011 Modeling climate change and biophysical impacts ofcrop production in the Austrian Marchfeld region ClimaticChange 111(3) 641ndash664
Swetnam RD Fisher B Mbilinyi BP Munishi PKT Willcock SRicketts T Mwakalila S Balmford A Burgess ND MarshallAR et al 2011 Mapping socio-economic scenarios of landcover change a GIS method to enable ecosystem servicemodeling J Environ Manage 92(3)563ndash574
Swift MJ Izac AN van Noordwijk M 2004 Biodiversity andecosystem services in agricultural landscapesmdashare we askingthe right questions Agric Ecosyst Environ 104(1)113ndash134
Swinton SM Lupi F Robertson GP Hamilton SK 2007Ecosystem services and agriculture cultivating agriculturalecosystems for diverse benefits Ecol Econ 64(2)245ndash252
Tappeiner U Tappeiner G Hilbert A Mattanovich E 2003 TheEU agricultural policy and the environment evaluation of thealpine region Oxford (UK) Blackwell
Tappeiner U Tasser E Leitinger G Cernusca A Tappeiner G2008 Effects of historical and likely future scenarios of landuse on above- and belowground vegetation carbon stocks ofan alpine valley Ecosystems 11(8)1383ndash1400
Tasser E Mader M Tappeiner U 2003 Effects of land use inalpine grasslands on the probability of landslides Basic ApplEcol 4(3)271ndash280
Tasser E Ruffini F Tappeiner U 2009 An integrative approachfor analysing landscape dynamics in diverse cultivated andnatural mountain areas Landscape Ecol 24(5)611ndash628
Tasser E Tappeiner U 2002 Impact of land use changes onmountain vegetation Appl Veg Sci 5(2)173ndash184
Tasser E Walde J Tappeiner U Teutsch A Noggler W 2007Land-use changes and natural reforestation in the EasternCentral Alps Agric Ecosyst Environ 118(1ndash4)115ndash129
Theurillat J Guisan A 2001 Potential impact of climate changeon vegetation in the European Alps a review ClimaticChange 50(1)77ndash109
Thuiller W Lavorel S Arauacutejo MB Sykes MT Prentice IC 2005Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 102(23)8245ndash8250
Tilman D Fargione J Wolff B DrsquoAntonio C Dobson A HowarthR Schindler D Schlesinger WH Simberloff D SwackhamerD 2001 Forecasting agriculturally driven global environ-mental change Science 292(5515)281ndash284
Troy A Wilson MA 2006 Mapping ecosystem services prac-tical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and valuetransfer Ecol Econ 60(2)435ndash449
Van der Ploeg JD Long A 1994 Born from within practice andperspectives of endogenous rural development Van GorcumAssen Styles of farming an introductory note on conceptsand methodology p 7ndash30
Walz A Lardelli C Behrendt H Grecirct-Regamey A Lundstroumlm CKytzia S Bebi P 2007 Participatory scenario analysisfor integrated regional modeling Landscape Urban Plan81(1ndash2)114ndash131
Wischmeier WH Smith DD 1978 Predicting rainfall erosionlosses ndash a guide to conservation planning Washington (DC)US Department of Agriculture
Zhang W Ricketts TH Kremen C Carney K Swinton SM2007 Ecosystem services and dis-services to agricultureEcol Econ 64(2)253ndash260
Zimmermann P Tasser E Leitinger G Tappeiner U 2010Effects of land-use and land-cover pattern on landscape-scalebiodiversity in the European Alps Agric Ecosyst Environ139(1ndash2)13ndash22
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 5
Carbon sequestration
Carbon density (Mg C haminus1) assigned to each vegetationtype was derived from above-ground and below-groundphytomass (Mg haminus1) and C-stocks (g gminus1) resulted fromproject-area-relevant literature and own measurementsAbove-ground phytomass was measured by harvestingor cutting the vegetation of defined plots Below-groundphytomass was determined by taking soil cores and manualexcavation of roots For further details refer to Tappeineret al (2008) Phytomass and C-content were multiplied andan area-weighted mean value for each land-use categorywas obtained by overlaying the vegetation and the land-usemaps
Forage quality
Each vegetation type was assigned a forage quality valueaccording to Klapp et al (1953) By overlaying the veg-etation and the land-use maps an area-weighted meanvalue for each land-use category was obtained To accountfor changing climate conditions within land-use typeseach raster cell was corrected by the elevation accord-ing to Egger (1999) where forage quality increases below1800 m asl (10 per 100 m) and decreases above 2200 masl (10 per 200 m) This leads to a differentiationof our community-weighted mean for climatic and soildifferences
Forage quantity
Forage quantity is a function of topography and land-usepattern and was estimated on the basis of productivity typeof grassland determined by plant species and the growingseason (Egger et al 2005) Using the DEM the days withvegetation growth were determined according to Harflingerand Knees (1999) for the climate zone inner-alpine westHigher mean temperatures of the scenarios are consideredby lowering the DEM with the temperature lapse rate of6C per km of elevation (Koumlrner 2003) The forage quan-tity was corrected by topography ie slope and aspectwhich can accelerate or diminish vegetation growthAs precipitation requirements for forage are 100 mm pre-cipitation per 1000 kg forage (Egger et al 2005) themaximum possible forage quantity is limited by the totalamount of summer precipitation (AprilndashSeptember)
Natural hazard regulation
Natural hazards in mountain regions are mainly massmovements ie rock fall and landslides debris flows andavalanches As rock fall is no major issue in our studyarea natural hazard regulation was modelled on the basisof (1) snow gliding (2) surface water run-off and (3) rootdensity Avalanches are often caused by snow gliding(Clarke and McClung 1999) To predict snow gliding sixkey drivers (forest stand slope angle winter precipita-tion surface roughness slope aspect west and slope aspect
east) were used (Leitinger et al 2008) Snow gliding alsoincreases the probability of landslides (Tasser et al 2003)Surface water run-off contributing to landslides mud-flows and floods is a function of above-ground phytomassskeleton fraction-soil stone content in 0ndash01 m soil depthannual precipitation and elevation (Leitinger et al 2010)Root density is related to slope stability (Reubens et al2007) We mapped root mass associated to each vegetationtype (Tappeiner et al 2008) and obtained an area-weightedmean value for each land-use category by overlaying thevegetation and the land-use maps To determine naturalhazard regulation the three input factors snow gliding sur-face water run-off and root density were added for eachraster cell
Soil stability
To predict the soil stability we used the universal soil lossequation (USLE Wischmeier and Smith 1978) The rate ofsoil erosion is a function of land-use pattern soil type pre-cipitation and topography The erosivity factor ndash the greaterthe intensity and duration of the rain storm the higher theerosion potential ndash was assumed to be equal throughout thestudy area and therefore excluded from calculation as wefound no significant differences in rainfall intensity (mmper time unit) between our climate stations at 970 17501850 and 2000 m asl Slope characteristics were derivedfrom the DEM As no data about soil characteristics wereavailable we used root density which is related to soil sta-bility (Reubens et al 2007) Root mass associated witheach vegetation type (Tappeiner et al 2008) was overlaidon the land-use map and an area-weighted mean value foreach land-use category calculated
Multiple ecosystem services analysis
A multiple ecosystem services map was obtained by thesum of all ecosystem services using 0ndash100 scaled valuesImpacts of land-use change were visualized by creatingmaps of ecosystem service change To understand trade-offs and synergies between different ecosystem servicesa principal component analysis (PCA) was performed inArcGISTM (Version 931 Spatial Analyst ESRI) for his-torical dates and future scenarios Using the six differentecosystem services maps as input raster layers eigenvec-tors eigenvalues a covariance matrix and a correlationmatrix were calculated and maps of the components weregenerated
Results
Scenario workshop
During the workshop the farmers specified that their deci-sions about intensity and type of agricultural use aredriven by different key factors agricultural policies cli-mate conditions nature protection topography and eco-nomic motivations The general strategies for responding
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
6 U Schirpke et al
to the different socio-economic and climate scenarios arerepresentative for the whole region Spatial distributionof land-use patterns was mapped only for the study arealsquoKaserstattalmrsquo
In the globalized scenarios the farmers shift theiractivities towards tourism (in which most of them arealready engaged part-time) and continue managing alpinegrasslands and pastures for landscape conservation Largemeadows are managed as long as they can be mown bymachinery otherwise they are transformed into pasturesThe farmers react to global pressure and decreasingmarket-prices with a shift in livestock ie from cattleto sheep and goats Higher temperatures due to climatechange allow a diversification of products ie vegetablesor wine-growing and animals can stay longer on pasturesIrrigation might become necessary for agricultural useon the valley floor but the farmers were convinced thatthe glacier will continue to provide the required amountof irrigation water even in times of drought For theglobalized worst-case scenario GW(20) farmers assumea global financial crisis In times of economic crisis withscarce employment opportunities farming becomes moreimportant Hence almost any available area is used foragriculture to cover the subsistence food requirements ofthe region
During the workshop on the localized scenarios farm-ers rated the market opportunities of this scenario as goodand considered new crops like pumpkins on the valley floorand new production niches like dairy sheep farming onthe slope The farmers considered water scarcity due to cli-mate change as the biggest problem Irrigation howeverwas seen as a solution only for some farmers in the val-ley on areas of high land-use intensity Farmers on dryslopes would not benefit from irrigation as pumping upwater for irrigation was not thought feasible The use offavourable areas is intensified and diversified for productsneeded on local markets (eg wine fruits and vegetables)Less favourable areas especially on hill sites are largelyabandoned or used for grazing with sheep Livestock farm-ing remains more important than arable farming even ifthe proportion of arable land grows The farmers continuemanaging their agricultural land as long as it is profitable(also due to payments for landscape preservation) and com-bine agricultural activities with other occupations whichstill allow part-time farming Continued transfer paymentswere thought necessary but the restrictions imposed by thecompulsory 5-year period of the contracts were severelycriticized With the prospect of weather conditions pos-sibly varying more frequently from year to year farmersrequested more freedom in their management decisionsAs tourism is likely to increase especially during sum-mer some areas might be adapted for touristic use egwith golf courses and small artificial lakes There is nojoint strategy for facing possible future socio-economicand climate changes but rather individual solutions thatneed to be developed and for each farm to find its ownniche The localized worst-case scenario is dominated byan abandonment of farms due to prolonged drought periods
and overregulation Farmers complained that the existingregulations of contractual commitments for transfer pay-ments in the agri-environmental programme (no land-usechange within the 5-year period) already hinder innova-tions This leads to critical situations especially in thecourse of farm succession
Land-use change
Historical changes
From 1954 to 2011 agricultural use generally decreased(Table 2) The main period of abandonment occurred inthe 1960s and 1970s Larch meadows in particular werealmost completely abandoned until 2011 leading to anincrease of dense forest after several decades Alpine pas-tures and meadows were reduced to 38 of the area in1954 meadows decreasing more rapidly than pasturesOn the valley floor arable land disappeared completely in1970 and changed to grassland of high land-use intensity
Future changes
Land-use changes for the scenarios GN(5) and LN(5) coin-cide and land-use distribution is similar to the SQ (Table 2)This is not astonishing as farmers depend on the trans-fer payments from agri-environmental programmes with a5-year contractual period Half of the abandoned land isused again as alpine pastures and the land-use intensityof meadows has increased The change from abandonedland to alpine pastures continues with a lower transfor-mation rate for the 20-year scenarios Future changes areexpected to result from either a collapse of the worldeconomy (scenario GW(20)) or over-regulation in times ofincreased climatic variation The results of both the sce-narios are entirely different In GW the post-World War IIlandscape is re-established while in scenario LW(20) largeparts are expected to be reforested and abandoned TheGW scenario forecasts massive intensification of use and areversal of almost the entire area to agricultural use Higherareas are dominated by pastures and meadows of low land-use intensity On favourable areas land-use intensity ofmeadows is high Even large areas of previously aban-doned larch meadows are used again especially in areasof higher elevation where forest regeneration occurs moreslowly On the valley floor 30 of the grassland is trans-formed to arable land The farmers considered LN(20) asthe maximum likely reduction of land use as long as thelocal conditions allow farming However future gener-ations might change occupation and abandon all alpinegrassland leading to an increase of forest and abandonedland The valley floor is still managed by big farmers
Ecosystem services
Landscape pattern
Spatial distribution of ecosystem services is related to land-use pattern and topography (Figures 2 and 3) The aesthetic
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 7
Table 2 Land-use distribution of the study area lsquoKaserstattalmrsquo for historical dates the status quo and the scenarios
Total changed area 226 208 161 98 95 57 minus 42 55 46 221 119
Notes The total changed area refers to the status quoaMowing every 3ndash5 yearsbMowing every 2 yearsc1ndash2 mowings per yeard3ndash4 mowings per year
value is highest for meadows of low land-use intensity fol-lowed by abandoned larch meadows Alpine pastures andmeadows are preferred to abandoned land Least attractiveare meadows of high land-use intensity and forest Carbonsequestration is highest in forests and reaches good valuesin larch meadows Meadows of very low land-use inten-sity and abandoned land store more carbon than alpinepastures whereas meadows of high land-use intensity andarable land store the least carbon Meadows of high land-use intensity on the valley floor produce highest foragequantities and have the best forage quality Productionrates and quality diminish with decreasing managementintensity and increasing elevation Pastures have lower for-age quality than meadows Natural hazard regulation islower for alpine pastures than for meadows of low land-useintensity or abandoned land due to higher soil compactionand higher surface run-off Forest and larch meadowshave highest natural hazard regulation values Soil stabilitydepends highly on the slope gradient and the vegetationcover Abandoned land has higher root densities than man-aged grasslands Lowest erosion risk arises on the flatvalley floor and in forests followed by larch meadows andabandoned land on moderate slopes
Historical impacts
Historical land-use changes have led to an increase of thetotal ecosystem service value but have influenced the anal-ysed ecosystem services to different degrees (Figure 3)The aesthetic value increased between 1954 and 1990 pri-marily due to the abandonment of larch meadows whereasthe subsequent decrease was caused by forest regenera-tion An increase in carbon sequestration occurred after1990 because of forest growth Mean values of forage
quality and quantity have risen continuously particularlybetween 1970 and 1980 Large areas of alpine pasturesand meadows were abandoned and only areas with higherproduction rates and better forage quality continued to bemanaged The total forage amount of the entire study sitehas decreased by 47 since 1954 Natural hazard regu-lation and soil stability increased after 1990 when forestreplaced larch meadows and managed grasslands weremore and more abandoned
Future impacts
The total ecosystem service value for all scenarios is lowerthan the SQ except LW(20) and decreases with time forthe globalized scenarios while decelerating for the local-ized scenarios (Figure 3) In the 5-year scenarios onlysmall changes are predicted for carbon sequestration andsoil stability Less precipitation and higher temperaturesgenerally lower the risk of natural hazards because of lesssnow cover and reduced surface run-off Areas for forageproduction are extended but mean forage quality and quan-tity decrease because pastures are lower in forage qualityand quantity than meadows Higher impacts are estimatedfor the 20-year scenarios Carbon sequestration naturalhazard regulation and soil stability increase while meanforage quality and quantity continue to decrease Highestimpacts occur in GW(20) where all ecosystem servicevalues decrease except aesthetic value and natural hazardregulation Forage production is limited due to signifi-cantly lower precipitation Loss of areas with high land-useintensity for forage production is compensated for by anenormous increase of used areas especially pastures Meanforage quantity and quality are therefore lower but the totalforage amount produced by the entire study site reaches
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
8 U Schirpke et al
Figure 2 Ecosystem services of different land-use types for the status quo Values are re-scaled to 0ndash100
more than double that of SQ Impacts in LW(20) arecontrary to GW(20) with a decrease in the aesthetic valueand improved regulating services Agricultural activitiescontinue only on the valley floor Although provisioningservices improve significantly the total forage amount ofthe entire study site is only about 17 of that in SQ
Trade-offs
We applied a PCA for all time steps to assess trade-offsand synergies between multiple ecosystem services Thefirst two components explain 85ndash89 of the variance (for
SQ see Table 3) The relationships between the differ-ent ecosystem services indicate only little changes acrosstime but differ between different land-usecover categories(Figure 4) Thus we concentrate on the SQ The first axis isdriven by contrasts between regulating ecosystem servicesdominated by carbon sequestration and the aesthetic valueand forage provision (Table 3 Figure 5) Regarding dif-ferent land-use types the first component has high valuesfor forest while pastures and meadows have low val-ues (Figure 4) The second axis is driven by contrastsbetween the aesthetic value and forage provision (Table 3Figure 5) High aesthetic values are associated to extensive
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 9
Figure 3 Landscape pattern of ecosystem services for the status quo Values are re-scaled to 0ndash100 Historical development and futuretrends in normalized ecosystem services All scores are normalized by their status quo levels
Table 3 Correlation matrix of PCA for the status quo
Figure 4 Maps of contrasts of (a) the first component and (b)the second component for the status quo
use and lower values with intensive use whereas foragequantity and quality show contrary dependencies Highestvalues of the second component emerge for abandonedlarch meadows with high values for aesthetics and carbonsequestration (Figure 4) Synergies occur between forage
Figure 5 PCA plot of eigenvectors (component 1 times compo-nent 2) for the status quo
quality and forage quantity (r gt 05) (Table 4) Carbonsequestration natural hazard regulation and soil stabilityare also positively correlated (r gt 05) For forests carbonsequestration natural hazard regulation and soil stabilityare negatively correlated with the aesthetic value while forother land-use categories the variables are independent
Discussion
Scenario analysis has often been linked with participatoryapproaches to understand socio-economic administrativecultural political and environmental dynamics within aparticular region (Kok et al 2006 Walz et al 2007)We asked local farmers of the Stubai Valley to specifythe management implications arising in different socio-economic conditions under climate change As key driversfor land-use change the farmers identified agriculturalfunding policies market prices and dryer climate condi-tions While the farmers keep managing agricultural landin the globalized scenarios and respond to global pressureby diversification of products and livestock agriculturalland is partly abandoned in the localized scenarios (espe-cially on the slopes and on alpine pastures) or transformedinto touristic areas During the next 20 years about 11 ofthe area will be subject to land-use changes in GN(20) and9 in LN(20) GW(20) predicts even changes for 43of the total area The farmers considered LW(20) whichaffects 23 of the area not very likely to occur sincethey keep managing agricultural land as long as the localeconomy allows However future generations might decidedifferently During the last decade agriculturally usedareas have been widely abandoned in the European Alpsespecially in southern Italian and French Alps (Houmlchtl et al2005 Giupponi et al 2006 Zimmermann et al 2010)The resulting land-use changes for our study site corre-spond generally to Europe-wide land-usecover scenarios(Rounsevell et al 2006 Bayfield et al 2008) Since theStubai Valley was identified by Tappeiner et al (2003) asan Alpine lsquostandard regionrsquo characterized by agriculturaluse with a specialization in livestock farming which isrepresentative for 22 of the European Alps the studyresults are likely to correspond to the development of othercomparable 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-basedmodelling approaches to quantify the provision of mul-tiple ecosystem services for historical dates and futurescenarios on a landscape scale In mountain regionsecosystem services are influenced by topographic char-acteristics For provisioning services we found strongdependencies to topography As confirmed by Chen et al(2007) forage quantity decreases with increasing eleva-tion Many regulating services are also determined bytopography eg natural hazard regulation and slope stabil-ity are better for smaller slope gradients Consistent withother studies different ecosystem services correspond tolandscape pattern (Gimona and van der Horst 2007 Naidoo
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 11
et al 2008 Egoh et al 2009) The aesthetic value is higherfor alpine pastures and meadows of low land-use inten-sity than for forest or meadows of high land-use intensityCarbon sequestration is higher for forest than for grasslandService hotspots are larch meadows which have howeveralmost completely disappeared in recent decades Impactson multiple ecosystem services can be related to land-usecover change Previous land-use changes have led toan increase of all ecosystem service values except the aes-thetic value The scenarios predict a trend reversion formost ecosystem services apart from natural hazard regula-tion and the aesthetic value For modelling future scenarioswe assumed that plant species distribution is only influ-enced by land use However species distribution shifts andeven extinction of alpine plants can be expected due toclimate change (Thuiller et al 2005 Grabherr 2009)
We found trade-offs between provisioning ecosystemservices and both regulating and cultural ecosystem ser-vices also confirmed by other studies (Bennett et al 2009Raudsepp-Hearne et al 2010) Forested areas cannot beused for forage production but are very valuable for carbonsequestration The aesthetic value is negatively correlatedto forage quantity and forage quality ie increasing man-agement intensity leads to higher forage production butreduces the aesthetic value Comparable to Badgley et al(2007) who found that trade-offs between agricultural pro-duction and many ecosystem services can be avoided byusing sustainable management practices our research find-ings indicate that extensive use has a positive influence onregulating and cultural ecosystem services We also foundtrade-offs between regulating and cultural ecosystem ser-vices While the aesthetic value of dense forest is lowerthan for grasslands carbon sequestration and natural haz-ard regulation are higher Since managed landscapes areareas of cultural importance the local population is crit-ical of any shift from rural landscapes to forests (Houmlchtlet al 2005 Bauer et al 2009) but people living outside theAlps perceive forest regeneration less negatively (Hunzikeret al 2008) The results of the survey indicate that touristsappreciate abandoned land and forest better than the localpopulation We found the highest aesthetic values relatedto extensively managed grassland or larch meadows andlower values for meadows of high land-use intensity orabandoned land
In our study we focused on a selection of ecosystemservices to which local stakeholders and farmers attached
importance (Lamarque et al 2011) Several ecosystemservices related to agriculture have been neglected includ-ing pollination water quantity and quality and recreationMoreover management practices control disservices fromagriculture eg habitat loss nutrient run-off pesticidepoisoning of non-target species (Zhang et al 2007) andfuture efforts will be concentrated on modelling additionalservices and disservices to agriculture
Conclusions
Ecosystem services related to agriculture contribute tohuman well-being Provisioning services are directlyrelated to land use but also regulating and cultural servicesdepend on management practices Future land-use policiesshould take into account that ecosystem services in moun-tain regions are closely linked to topographic and climaticconditions and a more flexible system for financial supportcould improve the farmersrsquo options for reacting to climaticvariations Trade-offs are related to land use and occurbetween provisioning regulating and cultural servicesService hotspots and multiple ecosystem service provisioncan be enhanced by sustainable agricultural managementTourism is likely to be strengthened under both the global-ized and the localized scenario and is positively influencedby extensive agricultural management enhancing the aes-thetic value With regard to economic benefits derivingfrom tourism landscape preferences linked to agriculturalpractices should be integrated into land-use policies andagricultural incentives for a sustainable development ofmountain regions
AcknowledgementsWe thank the farmers of the Stubai Valley for participating inthe scenario workshop and for their valuable inputs We wishto thank Michael Heinl for assistance during the workshop andfor data analyses and Christian Newesely Stefanie Rauscher andDagmar Rubatscher for providing data Three anonymous review-ers are acknowledged for their helpful comments We also thankBrigitte Scott for language editing This research was fundedby the ERA-Net BiodivERsA with the national funder FWFpart of the 2008 BiodivERsA call for research proposals Thisstudy was conducted on the LTER site lsquoStubai Valleyrsquo a memberof the Austrian LTSER Platform lsquoTyrolean Alpsrsquo The institu-tions involved are part of the interdisciplinary research centreslsquoEcology of the Alpine Regionrsquo and lsquoMountain Agriculturersquowithin the research area lsquoAlpine Space ndash Man and Environmentrsquoat the University of Innsbruck
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
12 U Schirpke et al
ReferencesAbegg B 1996 Klimaaumlnderung und Tourismus Klimafol-
genforschung am Beispiel des Wintertourismus in denSchweizer Alpen Zuumlrich (Switzerland) vdf Hochschul-verlag AG
Badgley C Moghtader J Quintero E Zakem E Chappell MJAvileacutes-Vaacutezquez K Samulon A Perfecto I 2007 Organicagriculture and the global food supply Renew Agr Food Sys22(2)86ndash108
Bauer N Wallner A Hunziker M 2009 The change ofEuropean landscapes human-nature relationships publicattitudes towards rewilding and the implications for land-scape management in Switzerland J Environ Manage90(9)2910ndash2920
Bayfield N Barancok P Furger M Sebastiagrave MT Domiacutenguez GLapka M Cudlinova E Vescovo L Ganielle D Cernusca Aet al 2008 Stakeholder perceptions of the impacts of ruralfunding scenarios on mountain landscapes across EuropeEcosystems 11(8)1368ndash1382
Beniston M 2006 Mountain weather and climate a generaloverview and a focus on climatic change in the AlpsHydrobiologia 562(1)3ndash16
Bennett EM Peterson GD Gordon LJ 2009 Understandingrelationships among multiple ecosystem services Ecol Lett12(12)1394ndash1404
Bouwman AF Beusen AHW Billen G 2009 Human alterationof the global nitrogen and phosphorus soil balances for theperiod 1970ndash2050 Global Biogeochem Cycles 23GB0A04
Chan KMA Shaw MR Cameron DR Underwood EC Daily GC2006 Conservation planning for ecosystem services PLoSBiol 4(11)e379
Chen XF Chen JM An SQ Ju WM 2007 Effects of topogra-phy on simulated net primary productivity at landscape scaleJ Environ Manage 85(3)585ndash596
Clarke J McClung DM 1999 Full-depth avalanche occur-rences caused by snow gliding Coquihalla British ColumbiaCanada Canada J Glaciol 45(151)539ndash546
de Groot RS Alkemade R Braat L Hein L Willemen L 2010Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem servicesand values in landscape planning management and decisionmaking Ecol Complex 7(3)260ndash272
de la Vega-Leinert A Schroumlter D Leemans R Fritsch UPluimers J 2008 A stakeholder dialogue on European vul-nerability Reg Environ Change 8(3)109ndash124
Dorner B Lertzman K Fall J 2002 Landscape pattern in topo-graphically complex landscapes issues and techniques foranalysis Landscape Ecol 17(8)729ndash743
Egger G 1999 Biotopkartierung Nationalpark Hohe TauernErhebung Bewertung und Maszlignahmenentwicklung aus-gewaumlhlter Biotope der Auszligenzone des Nationalparks HoheTauern (Tirol) Studie im Auftrag von Bundesministerium fuumlrUmwelt Jugend und Familie Klagenfurt
Egger G Angermann K Aigner S Buchgraber K 2005GIS-Gestuumltzte Ertragsmodellierung zur Optimierung desWeidemanagements auf Almweiden Gumpenstein BAL ndashBundesanst fuumlr Alpenlaumlnd Landwirtschaft
Egoh B Reyers B Rouget M Bode M Richardson D 2009Spatial congruence between biodiversity and ecosystem ser-vices in South Africa Biol Conserv 142(3)553ndash562
Egoh B Reyers B Rouget M Richardson DM Le MaitreDC van Jaarsveld AS 2008 Mapping ecosystem servicesfor planning and management Agric Ecosyst Environ127(1ndash2)135ndash140
Eigenbrod F Armsworth PR Anderson BJ Heinemeyer AGillings S Roy DB Thomas CD Gaston KJ 2010Error propagation associated with benefits transfer-basedmapping of ecosystem services Biol Conserv 143(11)2487ndash2493
European Commission 2010 Brussels (Belgium) the CAPtowards 2020 meeting the food natural resources and terri-torial challenges of the future [Internet] [cited 2012 Aug 16]Available from httpeur-lexeuropaeuLexUriServLexUriServdouri=COM20100672FINenPDF
Foley JA DeFries R Asner GP Barford C Bonan GCarpenter SR Chapin FS Coe MT Daily GC Gibbs HKet al 2005 Global consequences of land use Science309(5734)570ndash574
Gellrich M Zimmermann NE 2007 Investigating the regional-scale pattern of agricultural land abandonment in theSwiss mountains a spatial statistical modelling approachLandscape Urban Plan 79(1)65ndash76
Gimona A van der Horst D 2007 Mapping hotspots of multiplelandscape functions a case study on farmland afforestationin Scotland Landscape Ecol 22(8)1255ndash1264
Giupponi C Ramanzin M Sturaro E Fuser S 2006 Climateand land use changes biodiversity and agri-environmentalmeasures in the Belluno province Italy Environ Sci Policy9(2)163ndash173
Gordon LJ Finlayson CM Falkenmark M 2010 Managingwater in agriculture for food production and other ecosystemservices Agric Water Manage 97(4)512ndash519
Grabherr G 2009 Biodiversity in the high ranges of theAlps ethnobotanical and climate change perspectives GlobalEnviron Change 19(2)167ndash172
Grecirct-Regamey A Bebi P Bishop ID Schmid WA 2008 LinkingGIS-based models to value ecosystem services in an Alpineregion J Environ Manage 89(3)197ndash208
Harlinger O Knees G 1999 Klimahandbuch DerOumlsterreichischen Bodenschaumltzung Klimatographie 1Teil 1st ed Innsbruck (Austria) Universitaumltsverlag Wagner
Houmlchtl F Lehringer S Konold W 2005 ldquoWildernessrdquo what itmeans when it becomes a realitymdasha case study from thesouthwestern Alps Landscape Urban Plan 70(1ndash2)85ndash95
Hunziker M Felber P Gehring K Buchecker M Bauer NKienast F 2008 Evaluation of landscape change by differentsocial groups Mt Res Dev 28(2)140ndash147
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2000 Emissionsscenarios A special report of working group III of the inter-governmental panel on climate change Cambridge (UK)Cambridge University Press
Kienast F Bolliger J Potschin M de Groot R Verburg PHeller I Wascher D Haines-Young R 2009 Assessing land-scape functions with broad-scale environmental data insightsgained from a prototype development for Europe EnvironManage 44(6)1099ndash1120
Klapp E Boeker P Koumlnig F Staumlhlin A 1953 Das GruumlnlandHannover Schaper Wertzahlen der Gruumlnlandpflanzenp 38ndash40
Kok K Rothman DS Patel M 2006 Multi-scale narrativesfrom an IA perspective part I European and Mediterraneanscenario development Futures 38(3)261ndash284
Koumlrner C 2003 Alpine plant life functional plant ecology ofhigh mountain ecosystems 2nd ed Heidelberg (Germany)Springer
Lamarque P Tappeiner U Turner C Steinbacher M Bardgett RSzukics U Schermer M Lavorel S 2011 Stakeholder per-ceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowl-edge on soil fertility and biodiversity Reg Environ Change11(4)791ndash804
Lavorel S Grigulis K Lamarque P Colace M Garden D Girel JPellet G Douzet R 2011 Using plant functional traits tounderstand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystemservices J Ecol 99(1)135ndash147
Leitinger G Houmlller P Tasser E Walde J Tappeiner U 2008Development and validation of a spatial snow-glide modelEcol Model 211(3ndash4)363ndash374
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 13
Leitinger G Tasser E Newesely C Obojes N Tappeiner U 2010Seasonal dynamics of surface runoff in mountain grass-land ecosystems differing in land use J Hydrol 385(1ndash4)95ndash104
Mayring P 2002 Einfuumlhrung in die Qualitative Sozialforschung5th revised ed Weinheim (Germany) Beltz Verlag
Metzger MJ Rounsevell M Michlik A Leemans R Schroumlter D2006 The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land usechange Agric Ecosyst Environ 114(1)69ndash86
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 Ecosystems andhuman well-being synthesis Washington (DC) Island Press
Mottet A Ladet S Coqueacute N Gibon A 2006 Agriculturalland-use change and its drivers in mountain landscapesa case study in the Pyrenees Agric Ecosyst Environ114(2ndash4)296ndash310
Naidoo R Balmford A Costanza R Fisher B Green RE LehnerB Malcolm TR Ricketts TH 2008 Global mapping ofecosystem services and conservation priorities Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 105(28)9495ndash9500
Nelson E Mendoza G Regetz J Polasky S Tallis H CameronDR Chan KMA Daily GC Goldstein J Kareiva PM et al2009 Modeling multiple ecosystem services biodiversityconservation commodity production and tradeoffs at land-scape scales Front Ecol Environ 7(1)4ndash11
Pitesky ME Stackhouse KR Mitloehner FM 2009 Clearing theair livestockrsquos contribution to climate change In Sparks Deditor Advances in agronomy Burligton (MA) AcademicPress p 1ndash40
Rabbinge R van Diepen CA 2000 Changes in agriculture andland use in Europe Eur J Agron 13(2ndash3)85ndash99
Raudsepp-Hearne C Peterson GD Bennett EM 2010 Ecosystemservice bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapesProc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(11)5242ndash5247
Reubens B Poesen J Danjon F Geudens G Muys B 2007 Therole of fine and coarse roots in shallow slope stability andsoil erosion control with a focus on root system architecturea review Trees Struct Funct 21(4)385ndash402
Rodriguez JP Beard TD Bennett E Cumming GS Cork SAgard J Dobson A Peterson G 2006 Trade-offs acrossspace time and ecosystem services Ecol Soc 11(1)28
Rounsevell MDA Reginster I Arauacutejo MB Carter TRDendoncker N Ewert F House JI Kankaanpaumlauml SLeemans R Metzger MJ et al 2006 A coherent set of futureland use change scenarios for Europe Agric Ecosyst Environ114(1)57ndash68
Rudel TK Coomes OT Moran E Achard F Angelsen AXu J Lambin E 2005 Forest transitions towards a globalunderstanding of land use change Global Environ Change15(1)23ndash31
Rutherford GN Bebi P Edwards PJ Zimmermann NE 2008Assessing land-use statistics to model land cover change ina mountainous landscape in the European Alps Ecol Model212(3ndash4)460ndash471
Schallberger P 1999 Wovon handeln baumluerliche Zukunfts-vorstellungen Determinanten Dimensionen und Typen(German manuscript of the paper De quel avenir parlent lespaysans) In Droz Y Mieville-Ott V editors On achegravevebien les paysans Reconstruire une identiteacute paysanne dansun monde incertain Genegraveve (Switzerland) Edition Georg p103ndash126
Schneeberger N Buumlrgi M Kienast F 2007 Rates of landscapechange at the northern fringe of the Swiss Alps historical andrecent tendencies Landscape Urban Plan 80(1ndash2)127ndash136
Schroumlter D Cramer W Leemans R Prentice IC Arauacutejo MBArnell NW Bondeau A Bugmann H Carter TR Gracia CAet al 2005 Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability toglobal change in Europe Science 310(5752)1333ndash1337
Stallman HR 2011 Ecosystem services in agriculture determin-ing suitability for provision by collective management EcolEcon 71131ndash139
Steiger R 2010 The impact of climate change on ski seasonlength and snowmaking requirements in Tyrol Austria ClimRes 43(3)251ndash262
Strauss F Formayer H Schmid E 2012 High resolution climatedata for Austria in the period 2008ndash2040 from a statistical cli-mate change model Int J Climatol DOI 101002joc3434
Strauss F Schmid E Moltchanova E Formayer H Wang X2011 Modeling climate change and biophysical impacts ofcrop production in the Austrian Marchfeld region ClimaticChange 111(3) 641ndash664
Swetnam RD Fisher B Mbilinyi BP Munishi PKT Willcock SRicketts T Mwakalila S Balmford A Burgess ND MarshallAR et al 2011 Mapping socio-economic scenarios of landcover change a GIS method to enable ecosystem servicemodeling J Environ Manage 92(3)563ndash574
Swift MJ Izac AN van Noordwijk M 2004 Biodiversity andecosystem services in agricultural landscapesmdashare we askingthe right questions Agric Ecosyst Environ 104(1)113ndash134
Swinton SM Lupi F Robertson GP Hamilton SK 2007Ecosystem services and agriculture cultivating agriculturalecosystems for diverse benefits Ecol Econ 64(2)245ndash252
Tappeiner U Tappeiner G Hilbert A Mattanovich E 2003 TheEU agricultural policy and the environment evaluation of thealpine region Oxford (UK) Blackwell
Tappeiner U Tasser E Leitinger G Cernusca A Tappeiner G2008 Effects of historical and likely future scenarios of landuse on above- and belowground vegetation carbon stocks ofan alpine valley Ecosystems 11(8)1383ndash1400
Tasser E Mader M Tappeiner U 2003 Effects of land use inalpine grasslands on the probability of landslides Basic ApplEcol 4(3)271ndash280
Tasser E Ruffini F Tappeiner U 2009 An integrative approachfor analysing landscape dynamics in diverse cultivated andnatural mountain areas Landscape Ecol 24(5)611ndash628
Tasser E Tappeiner U 2002 Impact of land use changes onmountain vegetation Appl Veg Sci 5(2)173ndash184
Tasser E Walde J Tappeiner U Teutsch A Noggler W 2007Land-use changes and natural reforestation in the EasternCentral Alps Agric Ecosyst Environ 118(1ndash4)115ndash129
Theurillat J Guisan A 2001 Potential impact of climate changeon vegetation in the European Alps a review ClimaticChange 50(1)77ndash109
Thuiller W Lavorel S Arauacutejo MB Sykes MT Prentice IC 2005Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 102(23)8245ndash8250
Tilman D Fargione J Wolff B DrsquoAntonio C Dobson A HowarthR Schindler D Schlesinger WH Simberloff D SwackhamerD 2001 Forecasting agriculturally driven global environ-mental change Science 292(5515)281ndash284
Troy A Wilson MA 2006 Mapping ecosystem services prac-tical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and valuetransfer Ecol Econ 60(2)435ndash449
Van der Ploeg JD Long A 1994 Born from within practice andperspectives of endogenous rural development Van GorcumAssen Styles of farming an introductory note on conceptsand methodology p 7ndash30
Walz A Lardelli C Behrendt H Grecirct-Regamey A Lundstroumlm CKytzia S Bebi P 2007 Participatory scenario analysisfor integrated regional modeling Landscape Urban Plan81(1ndash2)114ndash131
Wischmeier WH Smith DD 1978 Predicting rainfall erosionlosses ndash a guide to conservation planning Washington (DC)US Department of Agriculture
Zhang W Ricketts TH Kremen C Carney K Swinton SM2007 Ecosystem services and dis-services to agricultureEcol Econ 64(2)253ndash260
Zimmermann P Tasser E Leitinger G Tappeiner U 2010Effects of land-use and land-cover pattern on landscape-scalebiodiversity in the European Alps Agric Ecosyst Environ139(1ndash2)13ndash22
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
6 U Schirpke et al
to the different socio-economic and climate scenarios arerepresentative for the whole region Spatial distributionof land-use patterns was mapped only for the study arealsquoKaserstattalmrsquo
In the globalized scenarios the farmers shift theiractivities towards tourism (in which most of them arealready engaged part-time) and continue managing alpinegrasslands and pastures for landscape conservation Largemeadows are managed as long as they can be mown bymachinery otherwise they are transformed into pasturesThe farmers react to global pressure and decreasingmarket-prices with a shift in livestock ie from cattleto sheep and goats Higher temperatures due to climatechange allow a diversification of products ie vegetablesor wine-growing and animals can stay longer on pasturesIrrigation might become necessary for agricultural useon the valley floor but the farmers were convinced thatthe glacier will continue to provide the required amountof irrigation water even in times of drought For theglobalized worst-case scenario GW(20) farmers assumea global financial crisis In times of economic crisis withscarce employment opportunities farming becomes moreimportant Hence almost any available area is used foragriculture to cover the subsistence food requirements ofthe region
During the workshop on the localized scenarios farm-ers rated the market opportunities of this scenario as goodand considered new crops like pumpkins on the valley floorand new production niches like dairy sheep farming onthe slope The farmers considered water scarcity due to cli-mate change as the biggest problem Irrigation howeverwas seen as a solution only for some farmers in the val-ley on areas of high land-use intensity Farmers on dryslopes would not benefit from irrigation as pumping upwater for irrigation was not thought feasible The use offavourable areas is intensified and diversified for productsneeded on local markets (eg wine fruits and vegetables)Less favourable areas especially on hill sites are largelyabandoned or used for grazing with sheep Livestock farm-ing remains more important than arable farming even ifthe proportion of arable land grows The farmers continuemanaging their agricultural land as long as it is profitable(also due to payments for landscape preservation) and com-bine agricultural activities with other occupations whichstill allow part-time farming Continued transfer paymentswere thought necessary but the restrictions imposed by thecompulsory 5-year period of the contracts were severelycriticized With the prospect of weather conditions pos-sibly varying more frequently from year to year farmersrequested more freedom in their management decisionsAs tourism is likely to increase especially during sum-mer some areas might be adapted for touristic use egwith golf courses and small artificial lakes There is nojoint strategy for facing possible future socio-economicand climate changes but rather individual solutions thatneed to be developed and for each farm to find its ownniche The localized worst-case scenario is dominated byan abandonment of farms due to prolonged drought periods
and overregulation Farmers complained that the existingregulations of contractual commitments for transfer pay-ments in the agri-environmental programme (no land-usechange within the 5-year period) already hinder innova-tions This leads to critical situations especially in thecourse of farm succession
Land-use change
Historical changes
From 1954 to 2011 agricultural use generally decreased(Table 2) The main period of abandonment occurred inthe 1960s and 1970s Larch meadows in particular werealmost completely abandoned until 2011 leading to anincrease of dense forest after several decades Alpine pas-tures and meadows were reduced to 38 of the area in1954 meadows decreasing more rapidly than pasturesOn the valley floor arable land disappeared completely in1970 and changed to grassland of high land-use intensity
Future changes
Land-use changes for the scenarios GN(5) and LN(5) coin-cide and land-use distribution is similar to the SQ (Table 2)This is not astonishing as farmers depend on the trans-fer payments from agri-environmental programmes with a5-year contractual period Half of the abandoned land isused again as alpine pastures and the land-use intensityof meadows has increased The change from abandonedland to alpine pastures continues with a lower transfor-mation rate for the 20-year scenarios Future changes areexpected to result from either a collapse of the worldeconomy (scenario GW(20)) or over-regulation in times ofincreased climatic variation The results of both the sce-narios are entirely different In GW the post-World War IIlandscape is re-established while in scenario LW(20) largeparts are expected to be reforested and abandoned TheGW scenario forecasts massive intensification of use and areversal of almost the entire area to agricultural use Higherareas are dominated by pastures and meadows of low land-use intensity On favourable areas land-use intensity ofmeadows is high Even large areas of previously aban-doned larch meadows are used again especially in areasof higher elevation where forest regeneration occurs moreslowly On the valley floor 30 of the grassland is trans-formed to arable land The farmers considered LN(20) asthe maximum likely reduction of land use as long as thelocal conditions allow farming However future gener-ations might change occupation and abandon all alpinegrassland leading to an increase of forest and abandonedland The valley floor is still managed by big farmers
Ecosystem services
Landscape pattern
Spatial distribution of ecosystem services is related to land-use pattern and topography (Figures 2 and 3) The aesthetic
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 7
Table 2 Land-use distribution of the study area lsquoKaserstattalmrsquo for historical dates the status quo and the scenarios
Total changed area 226 208 161 98 95 57 minus 42 55 46 221 119
Notes The total changed area refers to the status quoaMowing every 3ndash5 yearsbMowing every 2 yearsc1ndash2 mowings per yeard3ndash4 mowings per year
value is highest for meadows of low land-use intensity fol-lowed by abandoned larch meadows Alpine pastures andmeadows are preferred to abandoned land Least attractiveare meadows of high land-use intensity and forest Carbonsequestration is highest in forests and reaches good valuesin larch meadows Meadows of very low land-use inten-sity and abandoned land store more carbon than alpinepastures whereas meadows of high land-use intensity andarable land store the least carbon Meadows of high land-use intensity on the valley floor produce highest foragequantities and have the best forage quality Productionrates and quality diminish with decreasing managementintensity and increasing elevation Pastures have lower for-age quality than meadows Natural hazard regulation islower for alpine pastures than for meadows of low land-useintensity or abandoned land due to higher soil compactionand higher surface run-off Forest and larch meadowshave highest natural hazard regulation values Soil stabilitydepends highly on the slope gradient and the vegetationcover Abandoned land has higher root densities than man-aged grasslands Lowest erosion risk arises on the flatvalley floor and in forests followed by larch meadows andabandoned land on moderate slopes
Historical impacts
Historical land-use changes have led to an increase of thetotal ecosystem service value but have influenced the anal-ysed ecosystem services to different degrees (Figure 3)The aesthetic value increased between 1954 and 1990 pri-marily due to the abandonment of larch meadows whereasthe subsequent decrease was caused by forest regenera-tion An increase in carbon sequestration occurred after1990 because of forest growth Mean values of forage
quality and quantity have risen continuously particularlybetween 1970 and 1980 Large areas of alpine pasturesand meadows were abandoned and only areas with higherproduction rates and better forage quality continued to bemanaged The total forage amount of the entire study sitehas decreased by 47 since 1954 Natural hazard regu-lation and soil stability increased after 1990 when forestreplaced larch meadows and managed grasslands weremore and more abandoned
Future impacts
The total ecosystem service value for all scenarios is lowerthan the SQ except LW(20) and decreases with time forthe globalized scenarios while decelerating for the local-ized scenarios (Figure 3) In the 5-year scenarios onlysmall changes are predicted for carbon sequestration andsoil stability Less precipitation and higher temperaturesgenerally lower the risk of natural hazards because of lesssnow cover and reduced surface run-off Areas for forageproduction are extended but mean forage quality and quan-tity decrease because pastures are lower in forage qualityand quantity than meadows Higher impacts are estimatedfor the 20-year scenarios Carbon sequestration naturalhazard regulation and soil stability increase while meanforage quality and quantity continue to decrease Highestimpacts occur in GW(20) where all ecosystem servicevalues decrease except aesthetic value and natural hazardregulation Forage production is limited due to signifi-cantly lower precipitation Loss of areas with high land-useintensity for forage production is compensated for by anenormous increase of used areas especially pastures Meanforage quantity and quality are therefore lower but the totalforage amount produced by the entire study site reaches
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
8 U Schirpke et al
Figure 2 Ecosystem services of different land-use types for the status quo Values are re-scaled to 0ndash100
more than double that of SQ Impacts in LW(20) arecontrary to GW(20) with a decrease in the aesthetic valueand improved regulating services Agricultural activitiescontinue only on the valley floor Although provisioningservices improve significantly the total forage amount ofthe entire study site is only about 17 of that in SQ
Trade-offs
We applied a PCA for all time steps to assess trade-offsand synergies between multiple ecosystem services Thefirst two components explain 85ndash89 of the variance (for
SQ see Table 3) The relationships between the differ-ent ecosystem services indicate only little changes acrosstime but differ between different land-usecover categories(Figure 4) Thus we concentrate on the SQ The first axis isdriven by contrasts between regulating ecosystem servicesdominated by carbon sequestration and the aesthetic valueand forage provision (Table 3 Figure 5) Regarding dif-ferent land-use types the first component has high valuesfor forest while pastures and meadows have low val-ues (Figure 4) The second axis is driven by contrastsbetween the aesthetic value and forage provision (Table 3Figure 5) High aesthetic values are associated to extensive
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 9
Figure 3 Landscape pattern of ecosystem services for the status quo Values are re-scaled to 0ndash100 Historical development and futuretrends in normalized ecosystem services All scores are normalized by their status quo levels
Table 3 Correlation matrix of PCA for the status quo
Figure 4 Maps of contrasts of (a) the first component and (b)the second component for the status quo
use and lower values with intensive use whereas foragequantity and quality show contrary dependencies Highestvalues of the second component emerge for abandonedlarch meadows with high values for aesthetics and carbonsequestration (Figure 4) Synergies occur between forage
Figure 5 PCA plot of eigenvectors (component 1 times compo-nent 2) for the status quo
quality and forage quantity (r gt 05) (Table 4) Carbonsequestration natural hazard regulation and soil stabilityare also positively correlated (r gt 05) For forests carbonsequestration natural hazard regulation and soil stabilityare negatively correlated with the aesthetic value while forother land-use categories the variables are independent
Discussion
Scenario analysis has often been linked with participatoryapproaches to understand socio-economic administrativecultural political and environmental dynamics within aparticular region (Kok et al 2006 Walz et al 2007)We asked local farmers of the Stubai Valley to specifythe management implications arising in different socio-economic conditions under climate change As key driversfor land-use change the farmers identified agriculturalfunding policies market prices and dryer climate condi-tions While the farmers keep managing agricultural landin the globalized scenarios and respond to global pressureby diversification of products and livestock agriculturalland is partly abandoned in the localized scenarios (espe-cially on the slopes and on alpine pastures) or transformedinto touristic areas During the next 20 years about 11 ofthe area will be subject to land-use changes in GN(20) and9 in LN(20) GW(20) predicts even changes for 43of the total area The farmers considered LW(20) whichaffects 23 of the area not very likely to occur sincethey keep managing agricultural land as long as the localeconomy allows However future generations might decidedifferently During the last decade agriculturally usedareas have been widely abandoned in the European Alpsespecially in southern Italian and French Alps (Houmlchtl et al2005 Giupponi et al 2006 Zimmermann et al 2010)The resulting land-use changes for our study site corre-spond generally to Europe-wide land-usecover scenarios(Rounsevell et al 2006 Bayfield et al 2008) Since theStubai Valley was identified by Tappeiner et al (2003) asan Alpine lsquostandard regionrsquo characterized by agriculturaluse with a specialization in livestock farming which isrepresentative for 22 of the European Alps the studyresults are likely to correspond to the development of othercomparable 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-basedmodelling approaches to quantify the provision of mul-tiple ecosystem services for historical dates and futurescenarios on a landscape scale In mountain regionsecosystem services are influenced by topographic char-acteristics For provisioning services we found strongdependencies to topography As confirmed by Chen et al(2007) forage quantity decreases with increasing eleva-tion Many regulating services are also determined bytopography eg natural hazard regulation and slope stabil-ity are better for smaller slope gradients Consistent withother studies different ecosystem services correspond tolandscape pattern (Gimona and van der Horst 2007 Naidoo
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 11
et al 2008 Egoh et al 2009) The aesthetic value is higherfor alpine pastures and meadows of low land-use inten-sity than for forest or meadows of high land-use intensityCarbon sequestration is higher for forest than for grasslandService hotspots are larch meadows which have howeveralmost completely disappeared in recent decades Impactson multiple ecosystem services can be related to land-usecover change Previous land-use changes have led toan increase of all ecosystem service values except the aes-thetic value The scenarios predict a trend reversion formost ecosystem services apart from natural hazard regula-tion and the aesthetic value For modelling future scenarioswe assumed that plant species distribution is only influ-enced by land use However species distribution shifts andeven extinction of alpine plants can be expected due toclimate change (Thuiller et al 2005 Grabherr 2009)
We found trade-offs between provisioning ecosystemservices and both regulating and cultural ecosystem ser-vices also confirmed by other studies (Bennett et al 2009Raudsepp-Hearne et al 2010) Forested areas cannot beused for forage production but are very valuable for carbonsequestration The aesthetic value is negatively correlatedto forage quantity and forage quality ie increasing man-agement intensity leads to higher forage production butreduces the aesthetic value Comparable to Badgley et al(2007) who found that trade-offs between agricultural pro-duction and many ecosystem services can be avoided byusing sustainable management practices our research find-ings indicate that extensive use has a positive influence onregulating and cultural ecosystem services We also foundtrade-offs between regulating and cultural ecosystem ser-vices While the aesthetic value of dense forest is lowerthan for grasslands carbon sequestration and natural haz-ard regulation are higher Since managed landscapes areareas of cultural importance the local population is crit-ical of any shift from rural landscapes to forests (Houmlchtlet al 2005 Bauer et al 2009) but people living outside theAlps perceive forest regeneration less negatively (Hunzikeret al 2008) The results of the survey indicate that touristsappreciate abandoned land and forest better than the localpopulation We found the highest aesthetic values relatedto extensively managed grassland or larch meadows andlower values for meadows of high land-use intensity orabandoned land
In our study we focused on a selection of ecosystemservices to which local stakeholders and farmers attached
importance (Lamarque et al 2011) Several ecosystemservices related to agriculture have been neglected includ-ing pollination water quantity and quality and recreationMoreover management practices control disservices fromagriculture eg habitat loss nutrient run-off pesticidepoisoning of non-target species (Zhang et al 2007) andfuture efforts will be concentrated on modelling additionalservices and disservices to agriculture
Conclusions
Ecosystem services related to agriculture contribute tohuman well-being Provisioning services are directlyrelated to land use but also regulating and cultural servicesdepend on management practices Future land-use policiesshould take into account that ecosystem services in moun-tain regions are closely linked to topographic and climaticconditions and a more flexible system for financial supportcould improve the farmersrsquo options for reacting to climaticvariations Trade-offs are related to land use and occurbetween provisioning regulating and cultural servicesService hotspots and multiple ecosystem service provisioncan be enhanced by sustainable agricultural managementTourism is likely to be strengthened under both the global-ized and the localized scenario and is positively influencedby extensive agricultural management enhancing the aes-thetic value With regard to economic benefits derivingfrom tourism landscape preferences linked to agriculturalpractices should be integrated into land-use policies andagricultural incentives for a sustainable development ofmountain regions
AcknowledgementsWe thank the farmers of the Stubai Valley for participating inthe scenario workshop and for their valuable inputs We wishto thank Michael Heinl for assistance during the workshop andfor data analyses and Christian Newesely Stefanie Rauscher andDagmar Rubatscher for providing data Three anonymous review-ers are acknowledged for their helpful comments We also thankBrigitte Scott for language editing This research was fundedby the ERA-Net BiodivERsA with the national funder FWFpart of the 2008 BiodivERsA call for research proposals Thisstudy was conducted on the LTER site lsquoStubai Valleyrsquo a memberof the Austrian LTSER Platform lsquoTyrolean Alpsrsquo The institu-tions involved are part of the interdisciplinary research centreslsquoEcology of the Alpine Regionrsquo and lsquoMountain Agriculturersquowithin the research area lsquoAlpine Space ndash Man and Environmentrsquoat the University of Innsbruck
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
12 U Schirpke et al
ReferencesAbegg B 1996 Klimaaumlnderung und Tourismus Klimafol-
genforschung am Beispiel des Wintertourismus in denSchweizer Alpen Zuumlrich (Switzerland) vdf Hochschul-verlag AG
Badgley C Moghtader J Quintero E Zakem E Chappell MJAvileacutes-Vaacutezquez K Samulon A Perfecto I 2007 Organicagriculture and the global food supply Renew Agr Food Sys22(2)86ndash108
Bauer N Wallner A Hunziker M 2009 The change ofEuropean landscapes human-nature relationships publicattitudes towards rewilding and the implications for land-scape management in Switzerland J Environ Manage90(9)2910ndash2920
Bayfield N Barancok P Furger M Sebastiagrave MT Domiacutenguez GLapka M Cudlinova E Vescovo L Ganielle D Cernusca Aet al 2008 Stakeholder perceptions of the impacts of ruralfunding scenarios on mountain landscapes across EuropeEcosystems 11(8)1368ndash1382
Beniston M 2006 Mountain weather and climate a generaloverview and a focus on climatic change in the AlpsHydrobiologia 562(1)3ndash16
Bennett EM Peterson GD Gordon LJ 2009 Understandingrelationships among multiple ecosystem services Ecol Lett12(12)1394ndash1404
Bouwman AF Beusen AHW Billen G 2009 Human alterationof the global nitrogen and phosphorus soil balances for theperiod 1970ndash2050 Global Biogeochem Cycles 23GB0A04
Chan KMA Shaw MR Cameron DR Underwood EC Daily GC2006 Conservation planning for ecosystem services PLoSBiol 4(11)e379
Chen XF Chen JM An SQ Ju WM 2007 Effects of topogra-phy on simulated net primary productivity at landscape scaleJ Environ Manage 85(3)585ndash596
Clarke J McClung DM 1999 Full-depth avalanche occur-rences caused by snow gliding Coquihalla British ColumbiaCanada Canada J Glaciol 45(151)539ndash546
de Groot RS Alkemade R Braat L Hein L Willemen L 2010Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem servicesand values in landscape planning management and decisionmaking Ecol Complex 7(3)260ndash272
de la Vega-Leinert A Schroumlter D Leemans R Fritsch UPluimers J 2008 A stakeholder dialogue on European vul-nerability Reg Environ Change 8(3)109ndash124
Dorner B Lertzman K Fall J 2002 Landscape pattern in topo-graphically complex landscapes issues and techniques foranalysis Landscape Ecol 17(8)729ndash743
Egger G 1999 Biotopkartierung Nationalpark Hohe TauernErhebung Bewertung und Maszlignahmenentwicklung aus-gewaumlhlter Biotope der Auszligenzone des Nationalparks HoheTauern (Tirol) Studie im Auftrag von Bundesministerium fuumlrUmwelt Jugend und Familie Klagenfurt
Egger G Angermann K Aigner S Buchgraber K 2005GIS-Gestuumltzte Ertragsmodellierung zur Optimierung desWeidemanagements auf Almweiden Gumpenstein BAL ndashBundesanst fuumlr Alpenlaumlnd Landwirtschaft
Egoh B Reyers B Rouget M Bode M Richardson D 2009Spatial congruence between biodiversity and ecosystem ser-vices in South Africa Biol Conserv 142(3)553ndash562
Egoh B Reyers B Rouget M Richardson DM Le MaitreDC van Jaarsveld AS 2008 Mapping ecosystem servicesfor planning and management Agric Ecosyst Environ127(1ndash2)135ndash140
Eigenbrod F Armsworth PR Anderson BJ Heinemeyer AGillings S Roy DB Thomas CD Gaston KJ 2010Error propagation associated with benefits transfer-basedmapping of ecosystem services Biol Conserv 143(11)2487ndash2493
European Commission 2010 Brussels (Belgium) the CAPtowards 2020 meeting the food natural resources and terri-torial challenges of the future [Internet] [cited 2012 Aug 16]Available from httpeur-lexeuropaeuLexUriServLexUriServdouri=COM20100672FINenPDF
Foley JA DeFries R Asner GP Barford C Bonan GCarpenter SR Chapin FS Coe MT Daily GC Gibbs HKet al 2005 Global consequences of land use Science309(5734)570ndash574
Gellrich M Zimmermann NE 2007 Investigating the regional-scale pattern of agricultural land abandonment in theSwiss mountains a spatial statistical modelling approachLandscape Urban Plan 79(1)65ndash76
Gimona A van der Horst D 2007 Mapping hotspots of multiplelandscape functions a case study on farmland afforestationin Scotland Landscape Ecol 22(8)1255ndash1264
Giupponi C Ramanzin M Sturaro E Fuser S 2006 Climateand land use changes biodiversity and agri-environmentalmeasures in the Belluno province Italy Environ Sci Policy9(2)163ndash173
Gordon LJ Finlayson CM Falkenmark M 2010 Managingwater in agriculture for food production and other ecosystemservices Agric Water Manage 97(4)512ndash519
Grabherr G 2009 Biodiversity in the high ranges of theAlps ethnobotanical and climate change perspectives GlobalEnviron Change 19(2)167ndash172
Grecirct-Regamey A Bebi P Bishop ID Schmid WA 2008 LinkingGIS-based models to value ecosystem services in an Alpineregion J Environ Manage 89(3)197ndash208
Harlinger O Knees G 1999 Klimahandbuch DerOumlsterreichischen Bodenschaumltzung Klimatographie 1Teil 1st ed Innsbruck (Austria) Universitaumltsverlag Wagner
Houmlchtl F Lehringer S Konold W 2005 ldquoWildernessrdquo what itmeans when it becomes a realitymdasha case study from thesouthwestern Alps Landscape Urban Plan 70(1ndash2)85ndash95
Hunziker M Felber P Gehring K Buchecker M Bauer NKienast F 2008 Evaluation of landscape change by differentsocial groups Mt Res Dev 28(2)140ndash147
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2000 Emissionsscenarios A special report of working group III of the inter-governmental panel on climate change Cambridge (UK)Cambridge University Press
Kienast F Bolliger J Potschin M de Groot R Verburg PHeller I Wascher D Haines-Young R 2009 Assessing land-scape functions with broad-scale environmental data insightsgained from a prototype development for Europe EnvironManage 44(6)1099ndash1120
Klapp E Boeker P Koumlnig F Staumlhlin A 1953 Das GruumlnlandHannover Schaper Wertzahlen der Gruumlnlandpflanzenp 38ndash40
Kok K Rothman DS Patel M 2006 Multi-scale narrativesfrom an IA perspective part I European and Mediterraneanscenario development Futures 38(3)261ndash284
Koumlrner C 2003 Alpine plant life functional plant ecology ofhigh mountain ecosystems 2nd ed Heidelberg (Germany)Springer
Lamarque P Tappeiner U Turner C Steinbacher M Bardgett RSzukics U Schermer M Lavorel S 2011 Stakeholder per-ceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowl-edge on soil fertility and biodiversity Reg Environ Change11(4)791ndash804
Lavorel S Grigulis K Lamarque P Colace M Garden D Girel JPellet G Douzet R 2011 Using plant functional traits tounderstand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystemservices J Ecol 99(1)135ndash147
Leitinger G Houmlller P Tasser E Walde J Tappeiner U 2008Development and validation of a spatial snow-glide modelEcol Model 211(3ndash4)363ndash374
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 13
Leitinger G Tasser E Newesely C Obojes N Tappeiner U 2010Seasonal dynamics of surface runoff in mountain grass-land ecosystems differing in land use J Hydrol 385(1ndash4)95ndash104
Mayring P 2002 Einfuumlhrung in die Qualitative Sozialforschung5th revised ed Weinheim (Germany) Beltz Verlag
Metzger MJ Rounsevell M Michlik A Leemans R Schroumlter D2006 The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land usechange Agric Ecosyst Environ 114(1)69ndash86
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 Ecosystems andhuman well-being synthesis Washington (DC) Island Press
Mottet A Ladet S Coqueacute N Gibon A 2006 Agriculturalland-use change and its drivers in mountain landscapesa case study in the Pyrenees Agric Ecosyst Environ114(2ndash4)296ndash310
Naidoo R Balmford A Costanza R Fisher B Green RE LehnerB Malcolm TR Ricketts TH 2008 Global mapping ofecosystem services and conservation priorities Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 105(28)9495ndash9500
Nelson E Mendoza G Regetz J Polasky S Tallis H CameronDR Chan KMA Daily GC Goldstein J Kareiva PM et al2009 Modeling multiple ecosystem services biodiversityconservation commodity production and tradeoffs at land-scape scales Front Ecol Environ 7(1)4ndash11
Pitesky ME Stackhouse KR Mitloehner FM 2009 Clearing theair livestockrsquos contribution to climate change In Sparks Deditor Advances in agronomy Burligton (MA) AcademicPress p 1ndash40
Rabbinge R van Diepen CA 2000 Changes in agriculture andland use in Europe Eur J Agron 13(2ndash3)85ndash99
Raudsepp-Hearne C Peterson GD Bennett EM 2010 Ecosystemservice bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapesProc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(11)5242ndash5247
Reubens B Poesen J Danjon F Geudens G Muys B 2007 Therole of fine and coarse roots in shallow slope stability andsoil erosion control with a focus on root system architecturea review Trees Struct Funct 21(4)385ndash402
Rodriguez JP Beard TD Bennett E Cumming GS Cork SAgard J Dobson A Peterson G 2006 Trade-offs acrossspace time and ecosystem services Ecol Soc 11(1)28
Rounsevell MDA Reginster I Arauacutejo MB Carter TRDendoncker N Ewert F House JI Kankaanpaumlauml SLeemans R Metzger MJ et al 2006 A coherent set of futureland use change scenarios for Europe Agric Ecosyst Environ114(1)57ndash68
Rudel TK Coomes OT Moran E Achard F Angelsen AXu J Lambin E 2005 Forest transitions towards a globalunderstanding of land use change Global Environ Change15(1)23ndash31
Rutherford GN Bebi P Edwards PJ Zimmermann NE 2008Assessing land-use statistics to model land cover change ina mountainous landscape in the European Alps Ecol Model212(3ndash4)460ndash471
Schallberger P 1999 Wovon handeln baumluerliche Zukunfts-vorstellungen Determinanten Dimensionen und Typen(German manuscript of the paper De quel avenir parlent lespaysans) In Droz Y Mieville-Ott V editors On achegravevebien les paysans Reconstruire une identiteacute paysanne dansun monde incertain Genegraveve (Switzerland) Edition Georg p103ndash126
Schneeberger N Buumlrgi M Kienast F 2007 Rates of landscapechange at the northern fringe of the Swiss Alps historical andrecent tendencies Landscape Urban Plan 80(1ndash2)127ndash136
Schroumlter D Cramer W Leemans R Prentice IC Arauacutejo MBArnell NW Bondeau A Bugmann H Carter TR Gracia CAet al 2005 Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability toglobal change in Europe Science 310(5752)1333ndash1337
Stallman HR 2011 Ecosystem services in agriculture determin-ing suitability for provision by collective management EcolEcon 71131ndash139
Steiger R 2010 The impact of climate change on ski seasonlength and snowmaking requirements in Tyrol Austria ClimRes 43(3)251ndash262
Strauss F Formayer H Schmid E 2012 High resolution climatedata for Austria in the period 2008ndash2040 from a statistical cli-mate change model Int J Climatol DOI 101002joc3434
Strauss F Schmid E Moltchanova E Formayer H Wang X2011 Modeling climate change and biophysical impacts ofcrop production in the Austrian Marchfeld region ClimaticChange 111(3) 641ndash664
Swetnam RD Fisher B Mbilinyi BP Munishi PKT Willcock SRicketts T Mwakalila S Balmford A Burgess ND MarshallAR et al 2011 Mapping socio-economic scenarios of landcover change a GIS method to enable ecosystem servicemodeling J Environ Manage 92(3)563ndash574
Swift MJ Izac AN van Noordwijk M 2004 Biodiversity andecosystem services in agricultural landscapesmdashare we askingthe right questions Agric Ecosyst Environ 104(1)113ndash134
Swinton SM Lupi F Robertson GP Hamilton SK 2007Ecosystem services and agriculture cultivating agriculturalecosystems for diverse benefits Ecol Econ 64(2)245ndash252
Tappeiner U Tappeiner G Hilbert A Mattanovich E 2003 TheEU agricultural policy and the environment evaluation of thealpine region Oxford (UK) Blackwell
Tappeiner U Tasser E Leitinger G Cernusca A Tappeiner G2008 Effects of historical and likely future scenarios of landuse on above- and belowground vegetation carbon stocks ofan alpine valley Ecosystems 11(8)1383ndash1400
Tasser E Mader M Tappeiner U 2003 Effects of land use inalpine grasslands on the probability of landslides Basic ApplEcol 4(3)271ndash280
Tasser E Ruffini F Tappeiner U 2009 An integrative approachfor analysing landscape dynamics in diverse cultivated andnatural mountain areas Landscape Ecol 24(5)611ndash628
Tasser E Tappeiner U 2002 Impact of land use changes onmountain vegetation Appl Veg Sci 5(2)173ndash184
Tasser E Walde J Tappeiner U Teutsch A Noggler W 2007Land-use changes and natural reforestation in the EasternCentral Alps Agric Ecosyst Environ 118(1ndash4)115ndash129
Theurillat J Guisan A 2001 Potential impact of climate changeon vegetation in the European Alps a review ClimaticChange 50(1)77ndash109
Thuiller W Lavorel S Arauacutejo MB Sykes MT Prentice IC 2005Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 102(23)8245ndash8250
Tilman D Fargione J Wolff B DrsquoAntonio C Dobson A HowarthR Schindler D Schlesinger WH Simberloff D SwackhamerD 2001 Forecasting agriculturally driven global environ-mental change Science 292(5515)281ndash284
Troy A Wilson MA 2006 Mapping ecosystem services prac-tical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and valuetransfer Ecol Econ 60(2)435ndash449
Van der Ploeg JD Long A 1994 Born from within practice andperspectives of endogenous rural development Van GorcumAssen Styles of farming an introductory note on conceptsand methodology p 7ndash30
Walz A Lardelli C Behrendt H Grecirct-Regamey A Lundstroumlm CKytzia S Bebi P 2007 Participatory scenario analysisfor integrated regional modeling Landscape Urban Plan81(1ndash2)114ndash131
Wischmeier WH Smith DD 1978 Predicting rainfall erosionlosses ndash a guide to conservation planning Washington (DC)US Department of Agriculture
Zhang W Ricketts TH Kremen C Carney K Swinton SM2007 Ecosystem services and dis-services to agricultureEcol Econ 64(2)253ndash260
Zimmermann P Tasser E Leitinger G Tappeiner U 2010Effects of land-use and land-cover pattern on landscape-scalebiodiversity in the European Alps Agric Ecosyst Environ139(1ndash2)13ndash22
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 7
Table 2 Land-use distribution of the study area lsquoKaserstattalmrsquo for historical dates the status quo and the scenarios
Total changed area 226 208 161 98 95 57 minus 42 55 46 221 119
Notes The total changed area refers to the status quoaMowing every 3ndash5 yearsbMowing every 2 yearsc1ndash2 mowings per yeard3ndash4 mowings per year
value is highest for meadows of low land-use intensity fol-lowed by abandoned larch meadows Alpine pastures andmeadows are preferred to abandoned land Least attractiveare meadows of high land-use intensity and forest Carbonsequestration is highest in forests and reaches good valuesin larch meadows Meadows of very low land-use inten-sity and abandoned land store more carbon than alpinepastures whereas meadows of high land-use intensity andarable land store the least carbon Meadows of high land-use intensity on the valley floor produce highest foragequantities and have the best forage quality Productionrates and quality diminish with decreasing managementintensity and increasing elevation Pastures have lower for-age quality than meadows Natural hazard regulation islower for alpine pastures than for meadows of low land-useintensity or abandoned land due to higher soil compactionand higher surface run-off Forest and larch meadowshave highest natural hazard regulation values Soil stabilitydepends highly on the slope gradient and the vegetationcover Abandoned land has higher root densities than man-aged grasslands Lowest erosion risk arises on the flatvalley floor and in forests followed by larch meadows andabandoned land on moderate slopes
Historical impacts
Historical land-use changes have led to an increase of thetotal ecosystem service value but have influenced the anal-ysed ecosystem services to different degrees (Figure 3)The aesthetic value increased between 1954 and 1990 pri-marily due to the abandonment of larch meadows whereasthe subsequent decrease was caused by forest regenera-tion An increase in carbon sequestration occurred after1990 because of forest growth Mean values of forage
quality and quantity have risen continuously particularlybetween 1970 and 1980 Large areas of alpine pasturesand meadows were abandoned and only areas with higherproduction rates and better forage quality continued to bemanaged The total forage amount of the entire study sitehas decreased by 47 since 1954 Natural hazard regu-lation and soil stability increased after 1990 when forestreplaced larch meadows and managed grasslands weremore and more abandoned
Future impacts
The total ecosystem service value for all scenarios is lowerthan the SQ except LW(20) and decreases with time forthe globalized scenarios while decelerating for the local-ized scenarios (Figure 3) In the 5-year scenarios onlysmall changes are predicted for carbon sequestration andsoil stability Less precipitation and higher temperaturesgenerally lower the risk of natural hazards because of lesssnow cover and reduced surface run-off Areas for forageproduction are extended but mean forage quality and quan-tity decrease because pastures are lower in forage qualityand quantity than meadows Higher impacts are estimatedfor the 20-year scenarios Carbon sequestration naturalhazard regulation and soil stability increase while meanforage quality and quantity continue to decrease Highestimpacts occur in GW(20) where all ecosystem servicevalues decrease except aesthetic value and natural hazardregulation Forage production is limited due to signifi-cantly lower precipitation Loss of areas with high land-useintensity for forage production is compensated for by anenormous increase of used areas especially pastures Meanforage quantity and quality are therefore lower but the totalforage amount produced by the entire study site reaches
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
8 U Schirpke et al
Figure 2 Ecosystem services of different land-use types for the status quo Values are re-scaled to 0ndash100
more than double that of SQ Impacts in LW(20) arecontrary to GW(20) with a decrease in the aesthetic valueand improved regulating services Agricultural activitiescontinue only on the valley floor Although provisioningservices improve significantly the total forage amount ofthe entire study site is only about 17 of that in SQ
Trade-offs
We applied a PCA for all time steps to assess trade-offsand synergies between multiple ecosystem services Thefirst two components explain 85ndash89 of the variance (for
SQ see Table 3) The relationships between the differ-ent ecosystem services indicate only little changes acrosstime but differ between different land-usecover categories(Figure 4) Thus we concentrate on the SQ The first axis isdriven by contrasts between regulating ecosystem servicesdominated by carbon sequestration and the aesthetic valueand forage provision (Table 3 Figure 5) Regarding dif-ferent land-use types the first component has high valuesfor forest while pastures and meadows have low val-ues (Figure 4) The second axis is driven by contrastsbetween the aesthetic value and forage provision (Table 3Figure 5) High aesthetic values are associated to extensive
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 9
Figure 3 Landscape pattern of ecosystem services for the status quo Values are re-scaled to 0ndash100 Historical development and futuretrends in normalized ecosystem services All scores are normalized by their status quo levels
Table 3 Correlation matrix of PCA for the status quo
Figure 4 Maps of contrasts of (a) the first component and (b)the second component for the status quo
use and lower values with intensive use whereas foragequantity and quality show contrary dependencies Highestvalues of the second component emerge for abandonedlarch meadows with high values for aesthetics and carbonsequestration (Figure 4) Synergies occur between forage
Figure 5 PCA plot of eigenvectors (component 1 times compo-nent 2) for the status quo
quality and forage quantity (r gt 05) (Table 4) Carbonsequestration natural hazard regulation and soil stabilityare also positively correlated (r gt 05) For forests carbonsequestration natural hazard regulation and soil stabilityare negatively correlated with the aesthetic value while forother land-use categories the variables are independent
Discussion
Scenario analysis has often been linked with participatoryapproaches to understand socio-economic administrativecultural political and environmental dynamics within aparticular region (Kok et al 2006 Walz et al 2007)We asked local farmers of the Stubai Valley to specifythe management implications arising in different socio-economic conditions under climate change As key driversfor land-use change the farmers identified agriculturalfunding policies market prices and dryer climate condi-tions While the farmers keep managing agricultural landin the globalized scenarios and respond to global pressureby diversification of products and livestock agriculturalland is partly abandoned in the localized scenarios (espe-cially on the slopes and on alpine pastures) or transformedinto touristic areas During the next 20 years about 11 ofthe area will be subject to land-use changes in GN(20) and9 in LN(20) GW(20) predicts even changes for 43of the total area The farmers considered LW(20) whichaffects 23 of the area not very likely to occur sincethey keep managing agricultural land as long as the localeconomy allows However future generations might decidedifferently During the last decade agriculturally usedareas have been widely abandoned in the European Alpsespecially in southern Italian and French Alps (Houmlchtl et al2005 Giupponi et al 2006 Zimmermann et al 2010)The resulting land-use changes for our study site corre-spond generally to Europe-wide land-usecover scenarios(Rounsevell et al 2006 Bayfield et al 2008) Since theStubai Valley was identified by Tappeiner et al (2003) asan Alpine lsquostandard regionrsquo characterized by agriculturaluse with a specialization in livestock farming which isrepresentative for 22 of the European Alps the studyresults are likely to correspond to the development of othercomparable 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-basedmodelling approaches to quantify the provision of mul-tiple ecosystem services for historical dates and futurescenarios on a landscape scale In mountain regionsecosystem services are influenced by topographic char-acteristics For provisioning services we found strongdependencies to topography As confirmed by Chen et al(2007) forage quantity decreases with increasing eleva-tion Many regulating services are also determined bytopography eg natural hazard regulation and slope stabil-ity are better for smaller slope gradients Consistent withother studies different ecosystem services correspond tolandscape pattern (Gimona and van der Horst 2007 Naidoo
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 11
et al 2008 Egoh et al 2009) The aesthetic value is higherfor alpine pastures and meadows of low land-use inten-sity than for forest or meadows of high land-use intensityCarbon sequestration is higher for forest than for grasslandService hotspots are larch meadows which have howeveralmost completely disappeared in recent decades Impactson multiple ecosystem services can be related to land-usecover change Previous land-use changes have led toan increase of all ecosystem service values except the aes-thetic value The scenarios predict a trend reversion formost ecosystem services apart from natural hazard regula-tion and the aesthetic value For modelling future scenarioswe assumed that plant species distribution is only influ-enced by land use However species distribution shifts andeven extinction of alpine plants can be expected due toclimate change (Thuiller et al 2005 Grabherr 2009)
We found trade-offs between provisioning ecosystemservices and both regulating and cultural ecosystem ser-vices also confirmed by other studies (Bennett et al 2009Raudsepp-Hearne et al 2010) Forested areas cannot beused for forage production but are very valuable for carbonsequestration The aesthetic value is negatively correlatedto forage quantity and forage quality ie increasing man-agement intensity leads to higher forage production butreduces the aesthetic value Comparable to Badgley et al(2007) who found that trade-offs between agricultural pro-duction and many ecosystem services can be avoided byusing sustainable management practices our research find-ings indicate that extensive use has a positive influence onregulating and cultural ecosystem services We also foundtrade-offs between regulating and cultural ecosystem ser-vices While the aesthetic value of dense forest is lowerthan for grasslands carbon sequestration and natural haz-ard regulation are higher Since managed landscapes areareas of cultural importance the local population is crit-ical of any shift from rural landscapes to forests (Houmlchtlet al 2005 Bauer et al 2009) but people living outside theAlps perceive forest regeneration less negatively (Hunzikeret al 2008) The results of the survey indicate that touristsappreciate abandoned land and forest better than the localpopulation We found the highest aesthetic values relatedto extensively managed grassland or larch meadows andlower values for meadows of high land-use intensity orabandoned land
In our study we focused on a selection of ecosystemservices to which local stakeholders and farmers attached
importance (Lamarque et al 2011) Several ecosystemservices related to agriculture have been neglected includ-ing pollination water quantity and quality and recreationMoreover management practices control disservices fromagriculture eg habitat loss nutrient run-off pesticidepoisoning of non-target species (Zhang et al 2007) andfuture efforts will be concentrated on modelling additionalservices and disservices to agriculture
Conclusions
Ecosystem services related to agriculture contribute tohuman well-being Provisioning services are directlyrelated to land use but also regulating and cultural servicesdepend on management practices Future land-use policiesshould take into account that ecosystem services in moun-tain regions are closely linked to topographic and climaticconditions and a more flexible system for financial supportcould improve the farmersrsquo options for reacting to climaticvariations Trade-offs are related to land use and occurbetween provisioning regulating and cultural servicesService hotspots and multiple ecosystem service provisioncan be enhanced by sustainable agricultural managementTourism is likely to be strengthened under both the global-ized and the localized scenario and is positively influencedby extensive agricultural management enhancing the aes-thetic value With regard to economic benefits derivingfrom tourism landscape preferences linked to agriculturalpractices should be integrated into land-use policies andagricultural incentives for a sustainable development ofmountain regions
AcknowledgementsWe thank the farmers of the Stubai Valley for participating inthe scenario workshop and for their valuable inputs We wishto thank Michael Heinl for assistance during the workshop andfor data analyses and Christian Newesely Stefanie Rauscher andDagmar Rubatscher for providing data Three anonymous review-ers are acknowledged for their helpful comments We also thankBrigitte Scott for language editing This research was fundedby the ERA-Net BiodivERsA with the national funder FWFpart of the 2008 BiodivERsA call for research proposals Thisstudy was conducted on the LTER site lsquoStubai Valleyrsquo a memberof the Austrian LTSER Platform lsquoTyrolean Alpsrsquo The institu-tions involved are part of the interdisciplinary research centreslsquoEcology of the Alpine Regionrsquo and lsquoMountain Agriculturersquowithin the research area lsquoAlpine Space ndash Man and Environmentrsquoat the University of Innsbruck
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
12 U Schirpke et al
ReferencesAbegg B 1996 Klimaaumlnderung und Tourismus Klimafol-
genforschung am Beispiel des Wintertourismus in denSchweizer Alpen Zuumlrich (Switzerland) vdf Hochschul-verlag AG
Badgley C Moghtader J Quintero E Zakem E Chappell MJAvileacutes-Vaacutezquez K Samulon A Perfecto I 2007 Organicagriculture and the global food supply Renew Agr Food Sys22(2)86ndash108
Bauer N Wallner A Hunziker M 2009 The change ofEuropean landscapes human-nature relationships publicattitudes towards rewilding and the implications for land-scape management in Switzerland J Environ Manage90(9)2910ndash2920
Bayfield N Barancok P Furger M Sebastiagrave MT Domiacutenguez GLapka M Cudlinova E Vescovo L Ganielle D Cernusca Aet al 2008 Stakeholder perceptions of the impacts of ruralfunding scenarios on mountain landscapes across EuropeEcosystems 11(8)1368ndash1382
Beniston M 2006 Mountain weather and climate a generaloverview and a focus on climatic change in the AlpsHydrobiologia 562(1)3ndash16
Bennett EM Peterson GD Gordon LJ 2009 Understandingrelationships among multiple ecosystem services Ecol Lett12(12)1394ndash1404
Bouwman AF Beusen AHW Billen G 2009 Human alterationof the global nitrogen and phosphorus soil balances for theperiod 1970ndash2050 Global Biogeochem Cycles 23GB0A04
Chan KMA Shaw MR Cameron DR Underwood EC Daily GC2006 Conservation planning for ecosystem services PLoSBiol 4(11)e379
Chen XF Chen JM An SQ Ju WM 2007 Effects of topogra-phy on simulated net primary productivity at landscape scaleJ Environ Manage 85(3)585ndash596
Clarke J McClung DM 1999 Full-depth avalanche occur-rences caused by snow gliding Coquihalla British ColumbiaCanada Canada J Glaciol 45(151)539ndash546
de Groot RS Alkemade R Braat L Hein L Willemen L 2010Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem servicesand values in landscape planning management and decisionmaking Ecol Complex 7(3)260ndash272
de la Vega-Leinert A Schroumlter D Leemans R Fritsch UPluimers J 2008 A stakeholder dialogue on European vul-nerability Reg Environ Change 8(3)109ndash124
Dorner B Lertzman K Fall J 2002 Landscape pattern in topo-graphically complex landscapes issues and techniques foranalysis Landscape Ecol 17(8)729ndash743
Egger G 1999 Biotopkartierung Nationalpark Hohe TauernErhebung Bewertung und Maszlignahmenentwicklung aus-gewaumlhlter Biotope der Auszligenzone des Nationalparks HoheTauern (Tirol) Studie im Auftrag von Bundesministerium fuumlrUmwelt Jugend und Familie Klagenfurt
Egger G Angermann K Aigner S Buchgraber K 2005GIS-Gestuumltzte Ertragsmodellierung zur Optimierung desWeidemanagements auf Almweiden Gumpenstein BAL ndashBundesanst fuumlr Alpenlaumlnd Landwirtschaft
Egoh B Reyers B Rouget M Bode M Richardson D 2009Spatial congruence between biodiversity and ecosystem ser-vices in South Africa Biol Conserv 142(3)553ndash562
Egoh B Reyers B Rouget M Richardson DM Le MaitreDC van Jaarsveld AS 2008 Mapping ecosystem servicesfor planning and management Agric Ecosyst Environ127(1ndash2)135ndash140
Eigenbrod F Armsworth PR Anderson BJ Heinemeyer AGillings S Roy DB Thomas CD Gaston KJ 2010Error propagation associated with benefits transfer-basedmapping of ecosystem services Biol Conserv 143(11)2487ndash2493
European Commission 2010 Brussels (Belgium) the CAPtowards 2020 meeting the food natural resources and terri-torial challenges of the future [Internet] [cited 2012 Aug 16]Available from httpeur-lexeuropaeuLexUriServLexUriServdouri=COM20100672FINenPDF
Foley JA DeFries R Asner GP Barford C Bonan GCarpenter SR Chapin FS Coe MT Daily GC Gibbs HKet al 2005 Global consequences of land use Science309(5734)570ndash574
Gellrich M Zimmermann NE 2007 Investigating the regional-scale pattern of agricultural land abandonment in theSwiss mountains a spatial statistical modelling approachLandscape Urban Plan 79(1)65ndash76
Gimona A van der Horst D 2007 Mapping hotspots of multiplelandscape functions a case study on farmland afforestationin Scotland Landscape Ecol 22(8)1255ndash1264
Giupponi C Ramanzin M Sturaro E Fuser S 2006 Climateand land use changes biodiversity and agri-environmentalmeasures in the Belluno province Italy Environ Sci Policy9(2)163ndash173
Gordon LJ Finlayson CM Falkenmark M 2010 Managingwater in agriculture for food production and other ecosystemservices Agric Water Manage 97(4)512ndash519
Grabherr G 2009 Biodiversity in the high ranges of theAlps ethnobotanical and climate change perspectives GlobalEnviron Change 19(2)167ndash172
Grecirct-Regamey A Bebi P Bishop ID Schmid WA 2008 LinkingGIS-based models to value ecosystem services in an Alpineregion J Environ Manage 89(3)197ndash208
Harlinger O Knees G 1999 Klimahandbuch DerOumlsterreichischen Bodenschaumltzung Klimatographie 1Teil 1st ed Innsbruck (Austria) Universitaumltsverlag Wagner
Houmlchtl F Lehringer S Konold W 2005 ldquoWildernessrdquo what itmeans when it becomes a realitymdasha case study from thesouthwestern Alps Landscape Urban Plan 70(1ndash2)85ndash95
Hunziker M Felber P Gehring K Buchecker M Bauer NKienast F 2008 Evaluation of landscape change by differentsocial groups Mt Res Dev 28(2)140ndash147
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2000 Emissionsscenarios A special report of working group III of the inter-governmental panel on climate change Cambridge (UK)Cambridge University Press
Kienast F Bolliger J Potschin M de Groot R Verburg PHeller I Wascher D Haines-Young R 2009 Assessing land-scape functions with broad-scale environmental data insightsgained from a prototype development for Europe EnvironManage 44(6)1099ndash1120
Klapp E Boeker P Koumlnig F Staumlhlin A 1953 Das GruumlnlandHannover Schaper Wertzahlen der Gruumlnlandpflanzenp 38ndash40
Kok K Rothman DS Patel M 2006 Multi-scale narrativesfrom an IA perspective part I European and Mediterraneanscenario development Futures 38(3)261ndash284
Koumlrner C 2003 Alpine plant life functional plant ecology ofhigh mountain ecosystems 2nd ed Heidelberg (Germany)Springer
Lamarque P Tappeiner U Turner C Steinbacher M Bardgett RSzukics U Schermer M Lavorel S 2011 Stakeholder per-ceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowl-edge on soil fertility and biodiversity Reg Environ Change11(4)791ndash804
Lavorel S Grigulis K Lamarque P Colace M Garden D Girel JPellet G Douzet R 2011 Using plant functional traits tounderstand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystemservices J Ecol 99(1)135ndash147
Leitinger G Houmlller P Tasser E Walde J Tappeiner U 2008Development and validation of a spatial snow-glide modelEcol Model 211(3ndash4)363ndash374
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 13
Leitinger G Tasser E Newesely C Obojes N Tappeiner U 2010Seasonal dynamics of surface runoff in mountain grass-land ecosystems differing in land use J Hydrol 385(1ndash4)95ndash104
Mayring P 2002 Einfuumlhrung in die Qualitative Sozialforschung5th revised ed Weinheim (Germany) Beltz Verlag
Metzger MJ Rounsevell M Michlik A Leemans R Schroumlter D2006 The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land usechange Agric Ecosyst Environ 114(1)69ndash86
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 Ecosystems andhuman well-being synthesis Washington (DC) Island Press
Mottet A Ladet S Coqueacute N Gibon A 2006 Agriculturalland-use change and its drivers in mountain landscapesa case study in the Pyrenees Agric Ecosyst Environ114(2ndash4)296ndash310
Naidoo R Balmford A Costanza R Fisher B Green RE LehnerB Malcolm TR Ricketts TH 2008 Global mapping ofecosystem services and conservation priorities Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 105(28)9495ndash9500
Nelson E Mendoza G Regetz J Polasky S Tallis H CameronDR Chan KMA Daily GC Goldstein J Kareiva PM et al2009 Modeling multiple ecosystem services biodiversityconservation commodity production and tradeoffs at land-scape scales Front Ecol Environ 7(1)4ndash11
Pitesky ME Stackhouse KR Mitloehner FM 2009 Clearing theair livestockrsquos contribution to climate change In Sparks Deditor Advances in agronomy Burligton (MA) AcademicPress p 1ndash40
Rabbinge R van Diepen CA 2000 Changes in agriculture andland use in Europe Eur J Agron 13(2ndash3)85ndash99
Raudsepp-Hearne C Peterson GD Bennett EM 2010 Ecosystemservice bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapesProc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(11)5242ndash5247
Reubens B Poesen J Danjon F Geudens G Muys B 2007 Therole of fine and coarse roots in shallow slope stability andsoil erosion control with a focus on root system architecturea review Trees Struct Funct 21(4)385ndash402
Rodriguez JP Beard TD Bennett E Cumming GS Cork SAgard J Dobson A Peterson G 2006 Trade-offs acrossspace time and ecosystem services Ecol Soc 11(1)28
Rounsevell MDA Reginster I Arauacutejo MB Carter TRDendoncker N Ewert F House JI Kankaanpaumlauml SLeemans R Metzger MJ et al 2006 A coherent set of futureland use change scenarios for Europe Agric Ecosyst Environ114(1)57ndash68
Rudel TK Coomes OT Moran E Achard F Angelsen AXu J Lambin E 2005 Forest transitions towards a globalunderstanding of land use change Global Environ Change15(1)23ndash31
Rutherford GN Bebi P Edwards PJ Zimmermann NE 2008Assessing land-use statistics to model land cover change ina mountainous landscape in the European Alps Ecol Model212(3ndash4)460ndash471
Schallberger P 1999 Wovon handeln baumluerliche Zukunfts-vorstellungen Determinanten Dimensionen und Typen(German manuscript of the paper De quel avenir parlent lespaysans) In Droz Y Mieville-Ott V editors On achegravevebien les paysans Reconstruire une identiteacute paysanne dansun monde incertain Genegraveve (Switzerland) Edition Georg p103ndash126
Schneeberger N Buumlrgi M Kienast F 2007 Rates of landscapechange at the northern fringe of the Swiss Alps historical andrecent tendencies Landscape Urban Plan 80(1ndash2)127ndash136
Schroumlter D Cramer W Leemans R Prentice IC Arauacutejo MBArnell NW Bondeau A Bugmann H Carter TR Gracia CAet al 2005 Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability toglobal change in Europe Science 310(5752)1333ndash1337
Stallman HR 2011 Ecosystem services in agriculture determin-ing suitability for provision by collective management EcolEcon 71131ndash139
Steiger R 2010 The impact of climate change on ski seasonlength and snowmaking requirements in Tyrol Austria ClimRes 43(3)251ndash262
Strauss F Formayer H Schmid E 2012 High resolution climatedata for Austria in the period 2008ndash2040 from a statistical cli-mate change model Int J Climatol DOI 101002joc3434
Strauss F Schmid E Moltchanova E Formayer H Wang X2011 Modeling climate change and biophysical impacts ofcrop production in the Austrian Marchfeld region ClimaticChange 111(3) 641ndash664
Swetnam RD Fisher B Mbilinyi BP Munishi PKT Willcock SRicketts T Mwakalila S Balmford A Burgess ND MarshallAR et al 2011 Mapping socio-economic scenarios of landcover change a GIS method to enable ecosystem servicemodeling J Environ Manage 92(3)563ndash574
Swift MJ Izac AN van Noordwijk M 2004 Biodiversity andecosystem services in agricultural landscapesmdashare we askingthe right questions Agric Ecosyst Environ 104(1)113ndash134
Swinton SM Lupi F Robertson GP Hamilton SK 2007Ecosystem services and agriculture cultivating agriculturalecosystems for diverse benefits Ecol Econ 64(2)245ndash252
Tappeiner U Tappeiner G Hilbert A Mattanovich E 2003 TheEU agricultural policy and the environment evaluation of thealpine region Oxford (UK) Blackwell
Tappeiner U Tasser E Leitinger G Cernusca A Tappeiner G2008 Effects of historical and likely future scenarios of landuse on above- and belowground vegetation carbon stocks ofan alpine valley Ecosystems 11(8)1383ndash1400
Tasser E Mader M Tappeiner U 2003 Effects of land use inalpine grasslands on the probability of landslides Basic ApplEcol 4(3)271ndash280
Tasser E Ruffini F Tappeiner U 2009 An integrative approachfor analysing landscape dynamics in diverse cultivated andnatural mountain areas Landscape Ecol 24(5)611ndash628
Tasser E Tappeiner U 2002 Impact of land use changes onmountain vegetation Appl Veg Sci 5(2)173ndash184
Tasser E Walde J Tappeiner U Teutsch A Noggler W 2007Land-use changes and natural reforestation in the EasternCentral Alps Agric Ecosyst Environ 118(1ndash4)115ndash129
Theurillat J Guisan A 2001 Potential impact of climate changeon vegetation in the European Alps a review ClimaticChange 50(1)77ndash109
Thuiller W Lavorel S Arauacutejo MB Sykes MT Prentice IC 2005Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 102(23)8245ndash8250
Tilman D Fargione J Wolff B DrsquoAntonio C Dobson A HowarthR Schindler D Schlesinger WH Simberloff D SwackhamerD 2001 Forecasting agriculturally driven global environ-mental change Science 292(5515)281ndash284
Troy A Wilson MA 2006 Mapping ecosystem services prac-tical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and valuetransfer Ecol Econ 60(2)435ndash449
Van der Ploeg JD Long A 1994 Born from within practice andperspectives of endogenous rural development Van GorcumAssen Styles of farming an introductory note on conceptsand methodology p 7ndash30
Walz A Lardelli C Behrendt H Grecirct-Regamey A Lundstroumlm CKytzia S Bebi P 2007 Participatory scenario analysisfor integrated regional modeling Landscape Urban Plan81(1ndash2)114ndash131
Wischmeier WH Smith DD 1978 Predicting rainfall erosionlosses ndash a guide to conservation planning Washington (DC)US Department of Agriculture
Zhang W Ricketts TH Kremen C Carney K Swinton SM2007 Ecosystem services and dis-services to agricultureEcol Econ 64(2)253ndash260
Zimmermann P Tasser E Leitinger G Tappeiner U 2010Effects of land-use and land-cover pattern on landscape-scalebiodiversity in the European Alps Agric Ecosyst Environ139(1ndash2)13ndash22
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
8 U Schirpke et al
Figure 2 Ecosystem services of different land-use types for the status quo Values are re-scaled to 0ndash100
more than double that of SQ Impacts in LW(20) arecontrary to GW(20) with a decrease in the aesthetic valueand improved regulating services Agricultural activitiescontinue only on the valley floor Although provisioningservices improve significantly the total forage amount ofthe entire study site is only about 17 of that in SQ
Trade-offs
We applied a PCA for all time steps to assess trade-offsand synergies between multiple ecosystem services Thefirst two components explain 85ndash89 of the variance (for
SQ see Table 3) The relationships between the differ-ent ecosystem services indicate only little changes acrosstime but differ between different land-usecover categories(Figure 4) Thus we concentrate on the SQ The first axis isdriven by contrasts between regulating ecosystem servicesdominated by carbon sequestration and the aesthetic valueand forage provision (Table 3 Figure 5) Regarding dif-ferent land-use types the first component has high valuesfor forest while pastures and meadows have low val-ues (Figure 4) The second axis is driven by contrastsbetween the aesthetic value and forage provision (Table 3Figure 5) High aesthetic values are associated to extensive
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 9
Figure 3 Landscape pattern of ecosystem services for the status quo Values are re-scaled to 0ndash100 Historical development and futuretrends in normalized ecosystem services All scores are normalized by their status quo levels
Table 3 Correlation matrix of PCA for the status quo
Figure 4 Maps of contrasts of (a) the first component and (b)the second component for the status quo
use and lower values with intensive use whereas foragequantity and quality show contrary dependencies Highestvalues of the second component emerge for abandonedlarch meadows with high values for aesthetics and carbonsequestration (Figure 4) Synergies occur between forage
Figure 5 PCA plot of eigenvectors (component 1 times compo-nent 2) for the status quo
quality and forage quantity (r gt 05) (Table 4) Carbonsequestration natural hazard regulation and soil stabilityare also positively correlated (r gt 05) For forests carbonsequestration natural hazard regulation and soil stabilityare negatively correlated with the aesthetic value while forother land-use categories the variables are independent
Discussion
Scenario analysis has often been linked with participatoryapproaches to understand socio-economic administrativecultural political and environmental dynamics within aparticular region (Kok et al 2006 Walz et al 2007)We asked local farmers of the Stubai Valley to specifythe management implications arising in different socio-economic conditions under climate change As key driversfor land-use change the farmers identified agriculturalfunding policies market prices and dryer climate condi-tions While the farmers keep managing agricultural landin the globalized scenarios and respond to global pressureby diversification of products and livestock agriculturalland is partly abandoned in the localized scenarios (espe-cially on the slopes and on alpine pastures) or transformedinto touristic areas During the next 20 years about 11 ofthe area will be subject to land-use changes in GN(20) and9 in LN(20) GW(20) predicts even changes for 43of the total area The farmers considered LW(20) whichaffects 23 of the area not very likely to occur sincethey keep managing agricultural land as long as the localeconomy allows However future generations might decidedifferently During the last decade agriculturally usedareas have been widely abandoned in the European Alpsespecially in southern Italian and French Alps (Houmlchtl et al2005 Giupponi et al 2006 Zimmermann et al 2010)The resulting land-use changes for our study site corre-spond generally to Europe-wide land-usecover scenarios(Rounsevell et al 2006 Bayfield et al 2008) Since theStubai Valley was identified by Tappeiner et al (2003) asan Alpine lsquostandard regionrsquo characterized by agriculturaluse with a specialization in livestock farming which isrepresentative for 22 of the European Alps the studyresults are likely to correspond to the development of othercomparable 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-basedmodelling approaches to quantify the provision of mul-tiple ecosystem services for historical dates and futurescenarios on a landscape scale In mountain regionsecosystem services are influenced by topographic char-acteristics For provisioning services we found strongdependencies to topography As confirmed by Chen et al(2007) forage quantity decreases with increasing eleva-tion Many regulating services are also determined bytopography eg natural hazard regulation and slope stabil-ity are better for smaller slope gradients Consistent withother studies different ecosystem services correspond tolandscape pattern (Gimona and van der Horst 2007 Naidoo
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 11
et al 2008 Egoh et al 2009) The aesthetic value is higherfor alpine pastures and meadows of low land-use inten-sity than for forest or meadows of high land-use intensityCarbon sequestration is higher for forest than for grasslandService hotspots are larch meadows which have howeveralmost completely disappeared in recent decades Impactson multiple ecosystem services can be related to land-usecover change Previous land-use changes have led toan increase of all ecosystem service values except the aes-thetic value The scenarios predict a trend reversion formost ecosystem services apart from natural hazard regula-tion and the aesthetic value For modelling future scenarioswe assumed that plant species distribution is only influ-enced by land use However species distribution shifts andeven extinction of alpine plants can be expected due toclimate change (Thuiller et al 2005 Grabherr 2009)
We found trade-offs between provisioning ecosystemservices and both regulating and cultural ecosystem ser-vices also confirmed by other studies (Bennett et al 2009Raudsepp-Hearne et al 2010) Forested areas cannot beused for forage production but are very valuable for carbonsequestration The aesthetic value is negatively correlatedto forage quantity and forage quality ie increasing man-agement intensity leads to higher forage production butreduces the aesthetic value Comparable to Badgley et al(2007) who found that trade-offs between agricultural pro-duction and many ecosystem services can be avoided byusing sustainable management practices our research find-ings indicate that extensive use has a positive influence onregulating and cultural ecosystem services We also foundtrade-offs between regulating and cultural ecosystem ser-vices While the aesthetic value of dense forest is lowerthan for grasslands carbon sequestration and natural haz-ard regulation are higher Since managed landscapes areareas of cultural importance the local population is crit-ical of any shift from rural landscapes to forests (Houmlchtlet al 2005 Bauer et al 2009) but people living outside theAlps perceive forest regeneration less negatively (Hunzikeret al 2008) The results of the survey indicate that touristsappreciate abandoned land and forest better than the localpopulation We found the highest aesthetic values relatedto extensively managed grassland or larch meadows andlower values for meadows of high land-use intensity orabandoned land
In our study we focused on a selection of ecosystemservices to which local stakeholders and farmers attached
importance (Lamarque et al 2011) Several ecosystemservices related to agriculture have been neglected includ-ing pollination water quantity and quality and recreationMoreover management practices control disservices fromagriculture eg habitat loss nutrient run-off pesticidepoisoning of non-target species (Zhang et al 2007) andfuture efforts will be concentrated on modelling additionalservices and disservices to agriculture
Conclusions
Ecosystem services related to agriculture contribute tohuman well-being Provisioning services are directlyrelated to land use but also regulating and cultural servicesdepend on management practices Future land-use policiesshould take into account that ecosystem services in moun-tain regions are closely linked to topographic and climaticconditions and a more flexible system for financial supportcould improve the farmersrsquo options for reacting to climaticvariations Trade-offs are related to land use and occurbetween provisioning regulating and cultural servicesService hotspots and multiple ecosystem service provisioncan be enhanced by sustainable agricultural managementTourism is likely to be strengthened under both the global-ized and the localized scenario and is positively influencedby extensive agricultural management enhancing the aes-thetic value With regard to economic benefits derivingfrom tourism landscape preferences linked to agriculturalpractices should be integrated into land-use policies andagricultural incentives for a sustainable development ofmountain regions
AcknowledgementsWe thank the farmers of the Stubai Valley for participating inthe scenario workshop and for their valuable inputs We wishto thank Michael Heinl for assistance during the workshop andfor data analyses and Christian Newesely Stefanie Rauscher andDagmar Rubatscher for providing data Three anonymous review-ers are acknowledged for their helpful comments We also thankBrigitte Scott for language editing This research was fundedby the ERA-Net BiodivERsA with the national funder FWFpart of the 2008 BiodivERsA call for research proposals Thisstudy was conducted on the LTER site lsquoStubai Valleyrsquo a memberof the Austrian LTSER Platform lsquoTyrolean Alpsrsquo The institu-tions involved are part of the interdisciplinary research centreslsquoEcology of the Alpine Regionrsquo and lsquoMountain Agriculturersquowithin the research area lsquoAlpine Space ndash Man and Environmentrsquoat the University of Innsbruck
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
12 U Schirpke et al
ReferencesAbegg B 1996 Klimaaumlnderung und Tourismus Klimafol-
genforschung am Beispiel des Wintertourismus in denSchweizer Alpen Zuumlrich (Switzerland) vdf Hochschul-verlag AG
Badgley C Moghtader J Quintero E Zakem E Chappell MJAvileacutes-Vaacutezquez K Samulon A Perfecto I 2007 Organicagriculture and the global food supply Renew Agr Food Sys22(2)86ndash108
Bauer N Wallner A Hunziker M 2009 The change ofEuropean landscapes human-nature relationships publicattitudes towards rewilding and the implications for land-scape management in Switzerland J Environ Manage90(9)2910ndash2920
Bayfield N Barancok P Furger M Sebastiagrave MT Domiacutenguez GLapka M Cudlinova E Vescovo L Ganielle D Cernusca Aet al 2008 Stakeholder perceptions of the impacts of ruralfunding scenarios on mountain landscapes across EuropeEcosystems 11(8)1368ndash1382
Beniston M 2006 Mountain weather and climate a generaloverview and a focus on climatic change in the AlpsHydrobiologia 562(1)3ndash16
Bennett EM Peterson GD Gordon LJ 2009 Understandingrelationships among multiple ecosystem services Ecol Lett12(12)1394ndash1404
Bouwman AF Beusen AHW Billen G 2009 Human alterationof the global nitrogen and phosphorus soil balances for theperiod 1970ndash2050 Global Biogeochem Cycles 23GB0A04
Chan KMA Shaw MR Cameron DR Underwood EC Daily GC2006 Conservation planning for ecosystem services PLoSBiol 4(11)e379
Chen XF Chen JM An SQ Ju WM 2007 Effects of topogra-phy on simulated net primary productivity at landscape scaleJ Environ Manage 85(3)585ndash596
Clarke J McClung DM 1999 Full-depth avalanche occur-rences caused by snow gliding Coquihalla British ColumbiaCanada Canada J Glaciol 45(151)539ndash546
de Groot RS Alkemade R Braat L Hein L Willemen L 2010Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem servicesand values in landscape planning management and decisionmaking Ecol Complex 7(3)260ndash272
de la Vega-Leinert A Schroumlter D Leemans R Fritsch UPluimers J 2008 A stakeholder dialogue on European vul-nerability Reg Environ Change 8(3)109ndash124
Dorner B Lertzman K Fall J 2002 Landscape pattern in topo-graphically complex landscapes issues and techniques foranalysis Landscape Ecol 17(8)729ndash743
Egger G 1999 Biotopkartierung Nationalpark Hohe TauernErhebung Bewertung und Maszlignahmenentwicklung aus-gewaumlhlter Biotope der Auszligenzone des Nationalparks HoheTauern (Tirol) Studie im Auftrag von Bundesministerium fuumlrUmwelt Jugend und Familie Klagenfurt
Egger G Angermann K Aigner S Buchgraber K 2005GIS-Gestuumltzte Ertragsmodellierung zur Optimierung desWeidemanagements auf Almweiden Gumpenstein BAL ndashBundesanst fuumlr Alpenlaumlnd Landwirtschaft
Egoh B Reyers B Rouget M Bode M Richardson D 2009Spatial congruence between biodiversity and ecosystem ser-vices in South Africa Biol Conserv 142(3)553ndash562
Egoh B Reyers B Rouget M Richardson DM Le MaitreDC van Jaarsveld AS 2008 Mapping ecosystem servicesfor planning and management Agric Ecosyst Environ127(1ndash2)135ndash140
Eigenbrod F Armsworth PR Anderson BJ Heinemeyer AGillings S Roy DB Thomas CD Gaston KJ 2010Error propagation associated with benefits transfer-basedmapping of ecosystem services Biol Conserv 143(11)2487ndash2493
European Commission 2010 Brussels (Belgium) the CAPtowards 2020 meeting the food natural resources and terri-torial challenges of the future [Internet] [cited 2012 Aug 16]Available from httpeur-lexeuropaeuLexUriServLexUriServdouri=COM20100672FINenPDF
Foley JA DeFries R Asner GP Barford C Bonan GCarpenter SR Chapin FS Coe MT Daily GC Gibbs HKet al 2005 Global consequences of land use Science309(5734)570ndash574
Gellrich M Zimmermann NE 2007 Investigating the regional-scale pattern of agricultural land abandonment in theSwiss mountains a spatial statistical modelling approachLandscape Urban Plan 79(1)65ndash76
Gimona A van der Horst D 2007 Mapping hotspots of multiplelandscape functions a case study on farmland afforestationin Scotland Landscape Ecol 22(8)1255ndash1264
Giupponi C Ramanzin M Sturaro E Fuser S 2006 Climateand land use changes biodiversity and agri-environmentalmeasures in the Belluno province Italy Environ Sci Policy9(2)163ndash173
Gordon LJ Finlayson CM Falkenmark M 2010 Managingwater in agriculture for food production and other ecosystemservices Agric Water Manage 97(4)512ndash519
Grabherr G 2009 Biodiversity in the high ranges of theAlps ethnobotanical and climate change perspectives GlobalEnviron Change 19(2)167ndash172
Grecirct-Regamey A Bebi P Bishop ID Schmid WA 2008 LinkingGIS-based models to value ecosystem services in an Alpineregion J Environ Manage 89(3)197ndash208
Harlinger O Knees G 1999 Klimahandbuch DerOumlsterreichischen Bodenschaumltzung Klimatographie 1Teil 1st ed Innsbruck (Austria) Universitaumltsverlag Wagner
Houmlchtl F Lehringer S Konold W 2005 ldquoWildernessrdquo what itmeans when it becomes a realitymdasha case study from thesouthwestern Alps Landscape Urban Plan 70(1ndash2)85ndash95
Hunziker M Felber P Gehring K Buchecker M Bauer NKienast F 2008 Evaluation of landscape change by differentsocial groups Mt Res Dev 28(2)140ndash147
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2000 Emissionsscenarios A special report of working group III of the inter-governmental panel on climate change Cambridge (UK)Cambridge University Press
Kienast F Bolliger J Potschin M de Groot R Verburg PHeller I Wascher D Haines-Young R 2009 Assessing land-scape functions with broad-scale environmental data insightsgained from a prototype development for Europe EnvironManage 44(6)1099ndash1120
Klapp E Boeker P Koumlnig F Staumlhlin A 1953 Das GruumlnlandHannover Schaper Wertzahlen der Gruumlnlandpflanzenp 38ndash40
Kok K Rothman DS Patel M 2006 Multi-scale narrativesfrom an IA perspective part I European and Mediterraneanscenario development Futures 38(3)261ndash284
Koumlrner C 2003 Alpine plant life functional plant ecology ofhigh mountain ecosystems 2nd ed Heidelberg (Germany)Springer
Lamarque P Tappeiner U Turner C Steinbacher M Bardgett RSzukics U Schermer M Lavorel S 2011 Stakeholder per-ceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowl-edge on soil fertility and biodiversity Reg Environ Change11(4)791ndash804
Lavorel S Grigulis K Lamarque P Colace M Garden D Girel JPellet G Douzet R 2011 Using plant functional traits tounderstand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystemservices J Ecol 99(1)135ndash147
Leitinger G Houmlller P Tasser E Walde J Tappeiner U 2008Development and validation of a spatial snow-glide modelEcol Model 211(3ndash4)363ndash374
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 13
Leitinger G Tasser E Newesely C Obojes N Tappeiner U 2010Seasonal dynamics of surface runoff in mountain grass-land ecosystems differing in land use J Hydrol 385(1ndash4)95ndash104
Mayring P 2002 Einfuumlhrung in die Qualitative Sozialforschung5th revised ed Weinheim (Germany) Beltz Verlag
Metzger MJ Rounsevell M Michlik A Leemans R Schroumlter D2006 The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land usechange Agric Ecosyst Environ 114(1)69ndash86
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 Ecosystems andhuman well-being synthesis Washington (DC) Island Press
Mottet A Ladet S Coqueacute N Gibon A 2006 Agriculturalland-use change and its drivers in mountain landscapesa case study in the Pyrenees Agric Ecosyst Environ114(2ndash4)296ndash310
Naidoo R Balmford A Costanza R Fisher B Green RE LehnerB Malcolm TR Ricketts TH 2008 Global mapping ofecosystem services and conservation priorities Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 105(28)9495ndash9500
Nelson E Mendoza G Regetz J Polasky S Tallis H CameronDR Chan KMA Daily GC Goldstein J Kareiva PM et al2009 Modeling multiple ecosystem services biodiversityconservation commodity production and tradeoffs at land-scape scales Front Ecol Environ 7(1)4ndash11
Pitesky ME Stackhouse KR Mitloehner FM 2009 Clearing theair livestockrsquos contribution to climate change In Sparks Deditor Advances in agronomy Burligton (MA) AcademicPress p 1ndash40
Rabbinge R van Diepen CA 2000 Changes in agriculture andland use in Europe Eur J Agron 13(2ndash3)85ndash99
Raudsepp-Hearne C Peterson GD Bennett EM 2010 Ecosystemservice bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapesProc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(11)5242ndash5247
Reubens B Poesen J Danjon F Geudens G Muys B 2007 Therole of fine and coarse roots in shallow slope stability andsoil erosion control with a focus on root system architecturea review Trees Struct Funct 21(4)385ndash402
Rodriguez JP Beard TD Bennett E Cumming GS Cork SAgard J Dobson A Peterson G 2006 Trade-offs acrossspace time and ecosystem services Ecol Soc 11(1)28
Rounsevell MDA Reginster I Arauacutejo MB Carter TRDendoncker N Ewert F House JI Kankaanpaumlauml SLeemans R Metzger MJ et al 2006 A coherent set of futureland use change scenarios for Europe Agric Ecosyst Environ114(1)57ndash68
Rudel TK Coomes OT Moran E Achard F Angelsen AXu J Lambin E 2005 Forest transitions towards a globalunderstanding of land use change Global Environ Change15(1)23ndash31
Rutherford GN Bebi P Edwards PJ Zimmermann NE 2008Assessing land-use statistics to model land cover change ina mountainous landscape in the European Alps Ecol Model212(3ndash4)460ndash471
Schallberger P 1999 Wovon handeln baumluerliche Zukunfts-vorstellungen Determinanten Dimensionen und Typen(German manuscript of the paper De quel avenir parlent lespaysans) In Droz Y Mieville-Ott V editors On achegravevebien les paysans Reconstruire une identiteacute paysanne dansun monde incertain Genegraveve (Switzerland) Edition Georg p103ndash126
Schneeberger N Buumlrgi M Kienast F 2007 Rates of landscapechange at the northern fringe of the Swiss Alps historical andrecent tendencies Landscape Urban Plan 80(1ndash2)127ndash136
Schroumlter D Cramer W Leemans R Prentice IC Arauacutejo MBArnell NW Bondeau A Bugmann H Carter TR Gracia CAet al 2005 Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability toglobal change in Europe Science 310(5752)1333ndash1337
Stallman HR 2011 Ecosystem services in agriculture determin-ing suitability for provision by collective management EcolEcon 71131ndash139
Steiger R 2010 The impact of climate change on ski seasonlength and snowmaking requirements in Tyrol Austria ClimRes 43(3)251ndash262
Strauss F Formayer H Schmid E 2012 High resolution climatedata for Austria in the period 2008ndash2040 from a statistical cli-mate change model Int J Climatol DOI 101002joc3434
Strauss F Schmid E Moltchanova E Formayer H Wang X2011 Modeling climate change and biophysical impacts ofcrop production in the Austrian Marchfeld region ClimaticChange 111(3) 641ndash664
Swetnam RD Fisher B Mbilinyi BP Munishi PKT Willcock SRicketts T Mwakalila S Balmford A Burgess ND MarshallAR et al 2011 Mapping socio-economic scenarios of landcover change a GIS method to enable ecosystem servicemodeling J Environ Manage 92(3)563ndash574
Swift MJ Izac AN van Noordwijk M 2004 Biodiversity andecosystem services in agricultural landscapesmdashare we askingthe right questions Agric Ecosyst Environ 104(1)113ndash134
Swinton SM Lupi F Robertson GP Hamilton SK 2007Ecosystem services and agriculture cultivating agriculturalecosystems for diverse benefits Ecol Econ 64(2)245ndash252
Tappeiner U Tappeiner G Hilbert A Mattanovich E 2003 TheEU agricultural policy and the environment evaluation of thealpine region Oxford (UK) Blackwell
Tappeiner U Tasser E Leitinger G Cernusca A Tappeiner G2008 Effects of historical and likely future scenarios of landuse on above- and belowground vegetation carbon stocks ofan alpine valley Ecosystems 11(8)1383ndash1400
Tasser E Mader M Tappeiner U 2003 Effects of land use inalpine grasslands on the probability of landslides Basic ApplEcol 4(3)271ndash280
Tasser E Ruffini F Tappeiner U 2009 An integrative approachfor analysing landscape dynamics in diverse cultivated andnatural mountain areas Landscape Ecol 24(5)611ndash628
Tasser E Tappeiner U 2002 Impact of land use changes onmountain vegetation Appl Veg Sci 5(2)173ndash184
Tasser E Walde J Tappeiner U Teutsch A Noggler W 2007Land-use changes and natural reforestation in the EasternCentral Alps Agric Ecosyst Environ 118(1ndash4)115ndash129
Theurillat J Guisan A 2001 Potential impact of climate changeon vegetation in the European Alps a review ClimaticChange 50(1)77ndash109
Thuiller W Lavorel S Arauacutejo MB Sykes MT Prentice IC 2005Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 102(23)8245ndash8250
Tilman D Fargione J Wolff B DrsquoAntonio C Dobson A HowarthR Schindler D Schlesinger WH Simberloff D SwackhamerD 2001 Forecasting agriculturally driven global environ-mental change Science 292(5515)281ndash284
Troy A Wilson MA 2006 Mapping ecosystem services prac-tical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and valuetransfer Ecol Econ 60(2)435ndash449
Van der Ploeg JD Long A 1994 Born from within practice andperspectives of endogenous rural development Van GorcumAssen Styles of farming an introductory note on conceptsand methodology p 7ndash30
Walz A Lardelli C Behrendt H Grecirct-Regamey A Lundstroumlm CKytzia S Bebi P 2007 Participatory scenario analysisfor integrated regional modeling Landscape Urban Plan81(1ndash2)114ndash131
Wischmeier WH Smith DD 1978 Predicting rainfall erosionlosses ndash a guide to conservation planning Washington (DC)US Department of Agriculture
Zhang W Ricketts TH Kremen C Carney K Swinton SM2007 Ecosystem services and dis-services to agricultureEcol Econ 64(2)253ndash260
Zimmermann P Tasser E Leitinger G Tappeiner U 2010Effects of land-use and land-cover pattern on landscape-scalebiodiversity in the European Alps Agric Ecosyst Environ139(1ndash2)13ndash22
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 9
Figure 3 Landscape pattern of ecosystem services for the status quo Values are re-scaled to 0ndash100 Historical development and futuretrends in normalized ecosystem services All scores are normalized by their status quo levels
Table 3 Correlation matrix of PCA for the status quo
Figure 4 Maps of contrasts of (a) the first component and (b)the second component for the status quo
use and lower values with intensive use whereas foragequantity and quality show contrary dependencies Highestvalues of the second component emerge for abandonedlarch meadows with high values for aesthetics and carbonsequestration (Figure 4) Synergies occur between forage
Figure 5 PCA plot of eigenvectors (component 1 times compo-nent 2) for the status quo
quality and forage quantity (r gt 05) (Table 4) Carbonsequestration natural hazard regulation and soil stabilityare also positively correlated (r gt 05) For forests carbonsequestration natural hazard regulation and soil stabilityare negatively correlated with the aesthetic value while forother land-use categories the variables are independent
Discussion
Scenario analysis has often been linked with participatoryapproaches to understand socio-economic administrativecultural political and environmental dynamics within aparticular region (Kok et al 2006 Walz et al 2007)We asked local farmers of the Stubai Valley to specifythe management implications arising in different socio-economic conditions under climate change As key driversfor land-use change the farmers identified agriculturalfunding policies market prices and dryer climate condi-tions While the farmers keep managing agricultural landin the globalized scenarios and respond to global pressureby diversification of products and livestock agriculturalland is partly abandoned in the localized scenarios (espe-cially on the slopes and on alpine pastures) or transformedinto touristic areas During the next 20 years about 11 ofthe area will be subject to land-use changes in GN(20) and9 in LN(20) GW(20) predicts even changes for 43of the total area The farmers considered LW(20) whichaffects 23 of the area not very likely to occur sincethey keep managing agricultural land as long as the localeconomy allows However future generations might decidedifferently During the last decade agriculturally usedareas have been widely abandoned in the European Alpsespecially in southern Italian and French Alps (Houmlchtl et al2005 Giupponi et al 2006 Zimmermann et al 2010)The resulting land-use changes for our study site corre-spond generally to Europe-wide land-usecover scenarios(Rounsevell et al 2006 Bayfield et al 2008) Since theStubai Valley was identified by Tappeiner et al (2003) asan Alpine lsquostandard regionrsquo characterized by agriculturaluse with a specialization in livestock farming which isrepresentative for 22 of the European Alps the studyresults are likely to correspond to the development of othercomparable 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-basedmodelling approaches to quantify the provision of mul-tiple ecosystem services for historical dates and futurescenarios on a landscape scale In mountain regionsecosystem services are influenced by topographic char-acteristics For provisioning services we found strongdependencies to topography As confirmed by Chen et al(2007) forage quantity decreases with increasing eleva-tion Many regulating services are also determined bytopography eg natural hazard regulation and slope stabil-ity are better for smaller slope gradients Consistent withother studies different ecosystem services correspond tolandscape pattern (Gimona and van der Horst 2007 Naidoo
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 11
et al 2008 Egoh et al 2009) The aesthetic value is higherfor alpine pastures and meadows of low land-use inten-sity than for forest or meadows of high land-use intensityCarbon sequestration is higher for forest than for grasslandService hotspots are larch meadows which have howeveralmost completely disappeared in recent decades Impactson multiple ecosystem services can be related to land-usecover change Previous land-use changes have led toan increase of all ecosystem service values except the aes-thetic value The scenarios predict a trend reversion formost ecosystem services apart from natural hazard regula-tion and the aesthetic value For modelling future scenarioswe assumed that plant species distribution is only influ-enced by land use However species distribution shifts andeven extinction of alpine plants can be expected due toclimate change (Thuiller et al 2005 Grabherr 2009)
We found trade-offs between provisioning ecosystemservices and both regulating and cultural ecosystem ser-vices also confirmed by other studies (Bennett et al 2009Raudsepp-Hearne et al 2010) Forested areas cannot beused for forage production but are very valuable for carbonsequestration The aesthetic value is negatively correlatedto forage quantity and forage quality ie increasing man-agement intensity leads to higher forage production butreduces the aesthetic value Comparable to Badgley et al(2007) who found that trade-offs between agricultural pro-duction and many ecosystem services can be avoided byusing sustainable management practices our research find-ings indicate that extensive use has a positive influence onregulating and cultural ecosystem services We also foundtrade-offs between regulating and cultural ecosystem ser-vices While the aesthetic value of dense forest is lowerthan for grasslands carbon sequestration and natural haz-ard regulation are higher Since managed landscapes areareas of cultural importance the local population is crit-ical of any shift from rural landscapes to forests (Houmlchtlet al 2005 Bauer et al 2009) but people living outside theAlps perceive forest regeneration less negatively (Hunzikeret al 2008) The results of the survey indicate that touristsappreciate abandoned land and forest better than the localpopulation We found the highest aesthetic values relatedto extensively managed grassland or larch meadows andlower values for meadows of high land-use intensity orabandoned land
In our study we focused on a selection of ecosystemservices to which local stakeholders and farmers attached
importance (Lamarque et al 2011) Several ecosystemservices related to agriculture have been neglected includ-ing pollination water quantity and quality and recreationMoreover management practices control disservices fromagriculture eg habitat loss nutrient run-off pesticidepoisoning of non-target species (Zhang et al 2007) andfuture efforts will be concentrated on modelling additionalservices and disservices to agriculture
Conclusions
Ecosystem services related to agriculture contribute tohuman well-being Provisioning services are directlyrelated to land use but also regulating and cultural servicesdepend on management practices Future land-use policiesshould take into account that ecosystem services in moun-tain regions are closely linked to topographic and climaticconditions and a more flexible system for financial supportcould improve the farmersrsquo options for reacting to climaticvariations Trade-offs are related to land use and occurbetween provisioning regulating and cultural servicesService hotspots and multiple ecosystem service provisioncan be enhanced by sustainable agricultural managementTourism is likely to be strengthened under both the global-ized and the localized scenario and is positively influencedby extensive agricultural management enhancing the aes-thetic value With regard to economic benefits derivingfrom tourism landscape preferences linked to agriculturalpractices should be integrated into land-use policies andagricultural incentives for a sustainable development ofmountain regions
AcknowledgementsWe thank the farmers of the Stubai Valley for participating inthe scenario workshop and for their valuable inputs We wishto thank Michael Heinl for assistance during the workshop andfor data analyses and Christian Newesely Stefanie Rauscher andDagmar Rubatscher for providing data Three anonymous review-ers are acknowledged for their helpful comments We also thankBrigitte Scott for language editing This research was fundedby the ERA-Net BiodivERsA with the national funder FWFpart of the 2008 BiodivERsA call for research proposals Thisstudy was conducted on the LTER site lsquoStubai Valleyrsquo a memberof the Austrian LTSER Platform lsquoTyrolean Alpsrsquo The institu-tions involved are part of the interdisciplinary research centreslsquoEcology of the Alpine Regionrsquo and lsquoMountain Agriculturersquowithin the research area lsquoAlpine Space ndash Man and Environmentrsquoat the University of Innsbruck
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
12 U Schirpke et al
ReferencesAbegg B 1996 Klimaaumlnderung und Tourismus Klimafol-
genforschung am Beispiel des Wintertourismus in denSchweizer Alpen Zuumlrich (Switzerland) vdf Hochschul-verlag AG
Badgley C Moghtader J Quintero E Zakem E Chappell MJAvileacutes-Vaacutezquez K Samulon A Perfecto I 2007 Organicagriculture and the global food supply Renew Agr Food Sys22(2)86ndash108
Bauer N Wallner A Hunziker M 2009 The change ofEuropean landscapes human-nature relationships publicattitudes towards rewilding and the implications for land-scape management in Switzerland J Environ Manage90(9)2910ndash2920
Bayfield N Barancok P Furger M Sebastiagrave MT Domiacutenguez GLapka M Cudlinova E Vescovo L Ganielle D Cernusca Aet al 2008 Stakeholder perceptions of the impacts of ruralfunding scenarios on mountain landscapes across EuropeEcosystems 11(8)1368ndash1382
Beniston M 2006 Mountain weather and climate a generaloverview and a focus on climatic change in the AlpsHydrobiologia 562(1)3ndash16
Bennett EM Peterson GD Gordon LJ 2009 Understandingrelationships among multiple ecosystem services Ecol Lett12(12)1394ndash1404
Bouwman AF Beusen AHW Billen G 2009 Human alterationof the global nitrogen and phosphorus soil balances for theperiod 1970ndash2050 Global Biogeochem Cycles 23GB0A04
Chan KMA Shaw MR Cameron DR Underwood EC Daily GC2006 Conservation planning for ecosystem services PLoSBiol 4(11)e379
Chen XF Chen JM An SQ Ju WM 2007 Effects of topogra-phy on simulated net primary productivity at landscape scaleJ Environ Manage 85(3)585ndash596
Clarke J McClung DM 1999 Full-depth avalanche occur-rences caused by snow gliding Coquihalla British ColumbiaCanada Canada J Glaciol 45(151)539ndash546
de Groot RS Alkemade R Braat L Hein L Willemen L 2010Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem servicesand values in landscape planning management and decisionmaking Ecol Complex 7(3)260ndash272
de la Vega-Leinert A Schroumlter D Leemans R Fritsch UPluimers J 2008 A stakeholder dialogue on European vul-nerability Reg Environ Change 8(3)109ndash124
Dorner B Lertzman K Fall J 2002 Landscape pattern in topo-graphically complex landscapes issues and techniques foranalysis Landscape Ecol 17(8)729ndash743
Egger G 1999 Biotopkartierung Nationalpark Hohe TauernErhebung Bewertung und Maszlignahmenentwicklung aus-gewaumlhlter Biotope der Auszligenzone des Nationalparks HoheTauern (Tirol) Studie im Auftrag von Bundesministerium fuumlrUmwelt Jugend und Familie Klagenfurt
Egger G Angermann K Aigner S Buchgraber K 2005GIS-Gestuumltzte Ertragsmodellierung zur Optimierung desWeidemanagements auf Almweiden Gumpenstein BAL ndashBundesanst fuumlr Alpenlaumlnd Landwirtschaft
Egoh B Reyers B Rouget M Bode M Richardson D 2009Spatial congruence between biodiversity and ecosystem ser-vices in South Africa Biol Conserv 142(3)553ndash562
Egoh B Reyers B Rouget M Richardson DM Le MaitreDC van Jaarsveld AS 2008 Mapping ecosystem servicesfor planning and management Agric Ecosyst Environ127(1ndash2)135ndash140
Eigenbrod F Armsworth PR Anderson BJ Heinemeyer AGillings S Roy DB Thomas CD Gaston KJ 2010Error propagation associated with benefits transfer-basedmapping of ecosystem services Biol Conserv 143(11)2487ndash2493
European Commission 2010 Brussels (Belgium) the CAPtowards 2020 meeting the food natural resources and terri-torial challenges of the future [Internet] [cited 2012 Aug 16]Available from httpeur-lexeuropaeuLexUriServLexUriServdouri=COM20100672FINenPDF
Foley JA DeFries R Asner GP Barford C Bonan GCarpenter SR Chapin FS Coe MT Daily GC Gibbs HKet al 2005 Global consequences of land use Science309(5734)570ndash574
Gellrich M Zimmermann NE 2007 Investigating the regional-scale pattern of agricultural land abandonment in theSwiss mountains a spatial statistical modelling approachLandscape Urban Plan 79(1)65ndash76
Gimona A van der Horst D 2007 Mapping hotspots of multiplelandscape functions a case study on farmland afforestationin Scotland Landscape Ecol 22(8)1255ndash1264
Giupponi C Ramanzin M Sturaro E Fuser S 2006 Climateand land use changes biodiversity and agri-environmentalmeasures in the Belluno province Italy Environ Sci Policy9(2)163ndash173
Gordon LJ Finlayson CM Falkenmark M 2010 Managingwater in agriculture for food production and other ecosystemservices Agric Water Manage 97(4)512ndash519
Grabherr G 2009 Biodiversity in the high ranges of theAlps ethnobotanical and climate change perspectives GlobalEnviron Change 19(2)167ndash172
Grecirct-Regamey A Bebi P Bishop ID Schmid WA 2008 LinkingGIS-based models to value ecosystem services in an Alpineregion J Environ Manage 89(3)197ndash208
Harlinger O Knees G 1999 Klimahandbuch DerOumlsterreichischen Bodenschaumltzung Klimatographie 1Teil 1st ed Innsbruck (Austria) Universitaumltsverlag Wagner
Houmlchtl F Lehringer S Konold W 2005 ldquoWildernessrdquo what itmeans when it becomes a realitymdasha case study from thesouthwestern Alps Landscape Urban Plan 70(1ndash2)85ndash95
Hunziker M Felber P Gehring K Buchecker M Bauer NKienast F 2008 Evaluation of landscape change by differentsocial groups Mt Res Dev 28(2)140ndash147
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2000 Emissionsscenarios A special report of working group III of the inter-governmental panel on climate change Cambridge (UK)Cambridge University Press
Kienast F Bolliger J Potschin M de Groot R Verburg PHeller I Wascher D Haines-Young R 2009 Assessing land-scape functions with broad-scale environmental data insightsgained from a prototype development for Europe EnvironManage 44(6)1099ndash1120
Klapp E Boeker P Koumlnig F Staumlhlin A 1953 Das GruumlnlandHannover Schaper Wertzahlen der Gruumlnlandpflanzenp 38ndash40
Kok K Rothman DS Patel M 2006 Multi-scale narrativesfrom an IA perspective part I European and Mediterraneanscenario development Futures 38(3)261ndash284
Koumlrner C 2003 Alpine plant life functional plant ecology ofhigh mountain ecosystems 2nd ed Heidelberg (Germany)Springer
Lamarque P Tappeiner U Turner C Steinbacher M Bardgett RSzukics U Schermer M Lavorel S 2011 Stakeholder per-ceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowl-edge on soil fertility and biodiversity Reg Environ Change11(4)791ndash804
Lavorel S Grigulis K Lamarque P Colace M Garden D Girel JPellet G Douzet R 2011 Using plant functional traits tounderstand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystemservices J Ecol 99(1)135ndash147
Leitinger G Houmlller P Tasser E Walde J Tappeiner U 2008Development and validation of a spatial snow-glide modelEcol Model 211(3ndash4)363ndash374
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 13
Leitinger G Tasser E Newesely C Obojes N Tappeiner U 2010Seasonal dynamics of surface runoff in mountain grass-land ecosystems differing in land use J Hydrol 385(1ndash4)95ndash104
Mayring P 2002 Einfuumlhrung in die Qualitative Sozialforschung5th revised ed Weinheim (Germany) Beltz Verlag
Metzger MJ Rounsevell M Michlik A Leemans R Schroumlter D2006 The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land usechange Agric Ecosyst Environ 114(1)69ndash86
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 Ecosystems andhuman well-being synthesis Washington (DC) Island Press
Mottet A Ladet S Coqueacute N Gibon A 2006 Agriculturalland-use change and its drivers in mountain landscapesa case study in the Pyrenees Agric Ecosyst Environ114(2ndash4)296ndash310
Naidoo R Balmford A Costanza R Fisher B Green RE LehnerB Malcolm TR Ricketts TH 2008 Global mapping ofecosystem services and conservation priorities Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 105(28)9495ndash9500
Nelson E Mendoza G Regetz J Polasky S Tallis H CameronDR Chan KMA Daily GC Goldstein J Kareiva PM et al2009 Modeling multiple ecosystem services biodiversityconservation commodity production and tradeoffs at land-scape scales Front Ecol Environ 7(1)4ndash11
Pitesky ME Stackhouse KR Mitloehner FM 2009 Clearing theair livestockrsquos contribution to climate change In Sparks Deditor Advances in agronomy Burligton (MA) AcademicPress p 1ndash40
Rabbinge R van Diepen CA 2000 Changes in agriculture andland use in Europe Eur J Agron 13(2ndash3)85ndash99
Raudsepp-Hearne C Peterson GD Bennett EM 2010 Ecosystemservice bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapesProc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(11)5242ndash5247
Reubens B Poesen J Danjon F Geudens G Muys B 2007 Therole of fine and coarse roots in shallow slope stability andsoil erosion control with a focus on root system architecturea review Trees Struct Funct 21(4)385ndash402
Rodriguez JP Beard TD Bennett E Cumming GS Cork SAgard J Dobson A Peterson G 2006 Trade-offs acrossspace time and ecosystem services Ecol Soc 11(1)28
Rounsevell MDA Reginster I Arauacutejo MB Carter TRDendoncker N Ewert F House JI Kankaanpaumlauml SLeemans R Metzger MJ et al 2006 A coherent set of futureland use change scenarios for Europe Agric Ecosyst Environ114(1)57ndash68
Rudel TK Coomes OT Moran E Achard F Angelsen AXu J Lambin E 2005 Forest transitions towards a globalunderstanding of land use change Global Environ Change15(1)23ndash31
Rutherford GN Bebi P Edwards PJ Zimmermann NE 2008Assessing land-use statistics to model land cover change ina mountainous landscape in the European Alps Ecol Model212(3ndash4)460ndash471
Schallberger P 1999 Wovon handeln baumluerliche Zukunfts-vorstellungen Determinanten Dimensionen und Typen(German manuscript of the paper De quel avenir parlent lespaysans) In Droz Y Mieville-Ott V editors On achegravevebien les paysans Reconstruire une identiteacute paysanne dansun monde incertain Genegraveve (Switzerland) Edition Georg p103ndash126
Schneeberger N Buumlrgi M Kienast F 2007 Rates of landscapechange at the northern fringe of the Swiss Alps historical andrecent tendencies Landscape Urban Plan 80(1ndash2)127ndash136
Schroumlter D Cramer W Leemans R Prentice IC Arauacutejo MBArnell NW Bondeau A Bugmann H Carter TR Gracia CAet al 2005 Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability toglobal change in Europe Science 310(5752)1333ndash1337
Stallman HR 2011 Ecosystem services in agriculture determin-ing suitability for provision by collective management EcolEcon 71131ndash139
Steiger R 2010 The impact of climate change on ski seasonlength and snowmaking requirements in Tyrol Austria ClimRes 43(3)251ndash262
Strauss F Formayer H Schmid E 2012 High resolution climatedata for Austria in the period 2008ndash2040 from a statistical cli-mate change model Int J Climatol DOI 101002joc3434
Strauss F Schmid E Moltchanova E Formayer H Wang X2011 Modeling climate change and biophysical impacts ofcrop production in the Austrian Marchfeld region ClimaticChange 111(3) 641ndash664
Swetnam RD Fisher B Mbilinyi BP Munishi PKT Willcock SRicketts T Mwakalila S Balmford A Burgess ND MarshallAR et al 2011 Mapping socio-economic scenarios of landcover change a GIS method to enable ecosystem servicemodeling J Environ Manage 92(3)563ndash574
Swift MJ Izac AN van Noordwijk M 2004 Biodiversity andecosystem services in agricultural landscapesmdashare we askingthe right questions Agric Ecosyst Environ 104(1)113ndash134
Swinton SM Lupi F Robertson GP Hamilton SK 2007Ecosystem services and agriculture cultivating agriculturalecosystems for diverse benefits Ecol Econ 64(2)245ndash252
Tappeiner U Tappeiner G Hilbert A Mattanovich E 2003 TheEU agricultural policy and the environment evaluation of thealpine region Oxford (UK) Blackwell
Tappeiner U Tasser E Leitinger G Cernusca A Tappeiner G2008 Effects of historical and likely future scenarios of landuse on above- and belowground vegetation carbon stocks ofan alpine valley Ecosystems 11(8)1383ndash1400
Tasser E Mader M Tappeiner U 2003 Effects of land use inalpine grasslands on the probability of landslides Basic ApplEcol 4(3)271ndash280
Tasser E Ruffini F Tappeiner U 2009 An integrative approachfor analysing landscape dynamics in diverse cultivated andnatural mountain areas Landscape Ecol 24(5)611ndash628
Tasser E Tappeiner U 2002 Impact of land use changes onmountain vegetation Appl Veg Sci 5(2)173ndash184
Tasser E Walde J Tappeiner U Teutsch A Noggler W 2007Land-use changes and natural reforestation in the EasternCentral Alps Agric Ecosyst Environ 118(1ndash4)115ndash129
Theurillat J Guisan A 2001 Potential impact of climate changeon vegetation in the European Alps a review ClimaticChange 50(1)77ndash109
Thuiller W Lavorel S Arauacutejo MB Sykes MT Prentice IC 2005Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 102(23)8245ndash8250
Tilman D Fargione J Wolff B DrsquoAntonio C Dobson A HowarthR Schindler D Schlesinger WH Simberloff D SwackhamerD 2001 Forecasting agriculturally driven global environ-mental change Science 292(5515)281ndash284
Troy A Wilson MA 2006 Mapping ecosystem services prac-tical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and valuetransfer Ecol Econ 60(2)435ndash449
Van der Ploeg JD Long A 1994 Born from within practice andperspectives of endogenous rural development Van GorcumAssen Styles of farming an introductory note on conceptsand methodology p 7ndash30
Walz A Lardelli C Behrendt H Grecirct-Regamey A Lundstroumlm CKytzia S Bebi P 2007 Participatory scenario analysisfor integrated regional modeling Landscape Urban Plan81(1ndash2)114ndash131
Wischmeier WH Smith DD 1978 Predicting rainfall erosionlosses ndash a guide to conservation planning Washington (DC)US Department of Agriculture
Zhang W Ricketts TH Kremen C Carney K Swinton SM2007 Ecosystem services and dis-services to agricultureEcol Econ 64(2)253ndash260
Zimmermann P Tasser E Leitinger G Tappeiner U 2010Effects of land-use and land-cover pattern on landscape-scalebiodiversity in the European Alps Agric Ecosyst Environ139(1ndash2)13ndash22
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
10 U Schirpke et al
Figure 4 Maps of contrasts of (a) the first component and (b)the second component for the status quo
use and lower values with intensive use whereas foragequantity and quality show contrary dependencies Highestvalues of the second component emerge for abandonedlarch meadows with high values for aesthetics and carbonsequestration (Figure 4) Synergies occur between forage
Figure 5 PCA plot of eigenvectors (component 1 times compo-nent 2) for the status quo
quality and forage quantity (r gt 05) (Table 4) Carbonsequestration natural hazard regulation and soil stabilityare also positively correlated (r gt 05) For forests carbonsequestration natural hazard regulation and soil stabilityare negatively correlated with the aesthetic value while forother land-use categories the variables are independent
Discussion
Scenario analysis has often been linked with participatoryapproaches to understand socio-economic administrativecultural political and environmental dynamics within aparticular region (Kok et al 2006 Walz et al 2007)We asked local farmers of the Stubai Valley to specifythe management implications arising in different socio-economic conditions under climate change As key driversfor land-use change the farmers identified agriculturalfunding policies market prices and dryer climate condi-tions While the farmers keep managing agricultural landin the globalized scenarios and respond to global pressureby diversification of products and livestock agriculturalland is partly abandoned in the localized scenarios (espe-cially on the slopes and on alpine pastures) or transformedinto touristic areas During the next 20 years about 11 ofthe area will be subject to land-use changes in GN(20) and9 in LN(20) GW(20) predicts even changes for 43of the total area The farmers considered LW(20) whichaffects 23 of the area not very likely to occur sincethey keep managing agricultural land as long as the localeconomy allows However future generations might decidedifferently During the last decade agriculturally usedareas have been widely abandoned in the European Alpsespecially in southern Italian and French Alps (Houmlchtl et al2005 Giupponi et al 2006 Zimmermann et al 2010)The resulting land-use changes for our study site corre-spond generally to Europe-wide land-usecover scenarios(Rounsevell et al 2006 Bayfield et al 2008) Since theStubai Valley was identified by Tappeiner et al (2003) asan Alpine lsquostandard regionrsquo characterized by agriculturaluse with a specialization in livestock farming which isrepresentative for 22 of the European Alps the studyresults are likely to correspond to the development of othercomparable 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-basedmodelling approaches to quantify the provision of mul-tiple ecosystem services for historical dates and futurescenarios on a landscape scale In mountain regionsecosystem services are influenced by topographic char-acteristics For provisioning services we found strongdependencies to topography As confirmed by Chen et al(2007) forage quantity decreases with increasing eleva-tion Many regulating services are also determined bytopography eg natural hazard regulation and slope stabil-ity are better for smaller slope gradients Consistent withother studies different ecosystem services correspond tolandscape pattern (Gimona and van der Horst 2007 Naidoo
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 11
et al 2008 Egoh et al 2009) The aesthetic value is higherfor alpine pastures and meadows of low land-use inten-sity than for forest or meadows of high land-use intensityCarbon sequestration is higher for forest than for grasslandService hotspots are larch meadows which have howeveralmost completely disappeared in recent decades Impactson multiple ecosystem services can be related to land-usecover change Previous land-use changes have led toan increase of all ecosystem service values except the aes-thetic value The scenarios predict a trend reversion formost ecosystem services apart from natural hazard regula-tion and the aesthetic value For modelling future scenarioswe assumed that plant species distribution is only influ-enced by land use However species distribution shifts andeven extinction of alpine plants can be expected due toclimate change (Thuiller et al 2005 Grabherr 2009)
We found trade-offs between provisioning ecosystemservices and both regulating and cultural ecosystem ser-vices also confirmed by other studies (Bennett et al 2009Raudsepp-Hearne et al 2010) Forested areas cannot beused for forage production but are very valuable for carbonsequestration The aesthetic value is negatively correlatedto forage quantity and forage quality ie increasing man-agement intensity leads to higher forage production butreduces the aesthetic value Comparable to Badgley et al(2007) who found that trade-offs between agricultural pro-duction and many ecosystem services can be avoided byusing sustainable management practices our research find-ings indicate that extensive use has a positive influence onregulating and cultural ecosystem services We also foundtrade-offs between regulating and cultural ecosystem ser-vices While the aesthetic value of dense forest is lowerthan for grasslands carbon sequestration and natural haz-ard regulation are higher Since managed landscapes areareas of cultural importance the local population is crit-ical of any shift from rural landscapes to forests (Houmlchtlet al 2005 Bauer et al 2009) but people living outside theAlps perceive forest regeneration less negatively (Hunzikeret al 2008) The results of the survey indicate that touristsappreciate abandoned land and forest better than the localpopulation We found the highest aesthetic values relatedto extensively managed grassland or larch meadows andlower values for meadows of high land-use intensity orabandoned land
In our study we focused on a selection of ecosystemservices to which local stakeholders and farmers attached
importance (Lamarque et al 2011) Several ecosystemservices related to agriculture have been neglected includ-ing pollination water quantity and quality and recreationMoreover management practices control disservices fromagriculture eg habitat loss nutrient run-off pesticidepoisoning of non-target species (Zhang et al 2007) andfuture efforts will be concentrated on modelling additionalservices and disservices to agriculture
Conclusions
Ecosystem services related to agriculture contribute tohuman well-being Provisioning services are directlyrelated to land use but also regulating and cultural servicesdepend on management practices Future land-use policiesshould take into account that ecosystem services in moun-tain regions are closely linked to topographic and climaticconditions and a more flexible system for financial supportcould improve the farmersrsquo options for reacting to climaticvariations Trade-offs are related to land use and occurbetween provisioning regulating and cultural servicesService hotspots and multiple ecosystem service provisioncan be enhanced by sustainable agricultural managementTourism is likely to be strengthened under both the global-ized and the localized scenario and is positively influencedby extensive agricultural management enhancing the aes-thetic value With regard to economic benefits derivingfrom tourism landscape preferences linked to agriculturalpractices should be integrated into land-use policies andagricultural incentives for a sustainable development ofmountain regions
AcknowledgementsWe thank the farmers of the Stubai Valley for participating inthe scenario workshop and for their valuable inputs We wishto thank Michael Heinl for assistance during the workshop andfor data analyses and Christian Newesely Stefanie Rauscher andDagmar Rubatscher for providing data Three anonymous review-ers are acknowledged for their helpful comments We also thankBrigitte Scott for language editing This research was fundedby the ERA-Net BiodivERsA with the national funder FWFpart of the 2008 BiodivERsA call for research proposals Thisstudy was conducted on the LTER site lsquoStubai Valleyrsquo a memberof the Austrian LTSER Platform lsquoTyrolean Alpsrsquo The institu-tions involved are part of the interdisciplinary research centreslsquoEcology of the Alpine Regionrsquo and lsquoMountain Agriculturersquowithin the research area lsquoAlpine Space ndash Man and Environmentrsquoat the University of Innsbruck
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
12 U Schirpke et al
ReferencesAbegg B 1996 Klimaaumlnderung und Tourismus Klimafol-
genforschung am Beispiel des Wintertourismus in denSchweizer Alpen Zuumlrich (Switzerland) vdf Hochschul-verlag AG
Badgley C Moghtader J Quintero E Zakem E Chappell MJAvileacutes-Vaacutezquez K Samulon A Perfecto I 2007 Organicagriculture and the global food supply Renew Agr Food Sys22(2)86ndash108
Bauer N Wallner A Hunziker M 2009 The change ofEuropean landscapes human-nature relationships publicattitudes towards rewilding and the implications for land-scape management in Switzerland J Environ Manage90(9)2910ndash2920
Bayfield N Barancok P Furger M Sebastiagrave MT Domiacutenguez GLapka M Cudlinova E Vescovo L Ganielle D Cernusca Aet al 2008 Stakeholder perceptions of the impacts of ruralfunding scenarios on mountain landscapes across EuropeEcosystems 11(8)1368ndash1382
Beniston M 2006 Mountain weather and climate a generaloverview and a focus on climatic change in the AlpsHydrobiologia 562(1)3ndash16
Bennett EM Peterson GD Gordon LJ 2009 Understandingrelationships among multiple ecosystem services Ecol Lett12(12)1394ndash1404
Bouwman AF Beusen AHW Billen G 2009 Human alterationof the global nitrogen and phosphorus soil balances for theperiod 1970ndash2050 Global Biogeochem Cycles 23GB0A04
Chan KMA Shaw MR Cameron DR Underwood EC Daily GC2006 Conservation planning for ecosystem services PLoSBiol 4(11)e379
Chen XF Chen JM An SQ Ju WM 2007 Effects of topogra-phy on simulated net primary productivity at landscape scaleJ Environ Manage 85(3)585ndash596
Clarke J McClung DM 1999 Full-depth avalanche occur-rences caused by snow gliding Coquihalla British ColumbiaCanada Canada J Glaciol 45(151)539ndash546
de Groot RS Alkemade R Braat L Hein L Willemen L 2010Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem servicesand values in landscape planning management and decisionmaking Ecol Complex 7(3)260ndash272
de la Vega-Leinert A Schroumlter D Leemans R Fritsch UPluimers J 2008 A stakeholder dialogue on European vul-nerability Reg Environ Change 8(3)109ndash124
Dorner B Lertzman K Fall J 2002 Landscape pattern in topo-graphically complex landscapes issues and techniques foranalysis Landscape Ecol 17(8)729ndash743
Egger G 1999 Biotopkartierung Nationalpark Hohe TauernErhebung Bewertung und Maszlignahmenentwicklung aus-gewaumlhlter Biotope der Auszligenzone des Nationalparks HoheTauern (Tirol) Studie im Auftrag von Bundesministerium fuumlrUmwelt Jugend und Familie Klagenfurt
Egger G Angermann K Aigner S Buchgraber K 2005GIS-Gestuumltzte Ertragsmodellierung zur Optimierung desWeidemanagements auf Almweiden Gumpenstein BAL ndashBundesanst fuumlr Alpenlaumlnd Landwirtschaft
Egoh B Reyers B Rouget M Bode M Richardson D 2009Spatial congruence between biodiversity and ecosystem ser-vices in South Africa Biol Conserv 142(3)553ndash562
Egoh B Reyers B Rouget M Richardson DM Le MaitreDC van Jaarsveld AS 2008 Mapping ecosystem servicesfor planning and management Agric Ecosyst Environ127(1ndash2)135ndash140
Eigenbrod F Armsworth PR Anderson BJ Heinemeyer AGillings S Roy DB Thomas CD Gaston KJ 2010Error propagation associated with benefits transfer-basedmapping of ecosystem services Biol Conserv 143(11)2487ndash2493
European Commission 2010 Brussels (Belgium) the CAPtowards 2020 meeting the food natural resources and terri-torial challenges of the future [Internet] [cited 2012 Aug 16]Available from httpeur-lexeuropaeuLexUriServLexUriServdouri=COM20100672FINenPDF
Foley JA DeFries R Asner GP Barford C Bonan GCarpenter SR Chapin FS Coe MT Daily GC Gibbs HKet al 2005 Global consequences of land use Science309(5734)570ndash574
Gellrich M Zimmermann NE 2007 Investigating the regional-scale pattern of agricultural land abandonment in theSwiss mountains a spatial statistical modelling approachLandscape Urban Plan 79(1)65ndash76
Gimona A van der Horst D 2007 Mapping hotspots of multiplelandscape functions a case study on farmland afforestationin Scotland Landscape Ecol 22(8)1255ndash1264
Giupponi C Ramanzin M Sturaro E Fuser S 2006 Climateand land use changes biodiversity and agri-environmentalmeasures in the Belluno province Italy Environ Sci Policy9(2)163ndash173
Gordon LJ Finlayson CM Falkenmark M 2010 Managingwater in agriculture for food production and other ecosystemservices Agric Water Manage 97(4)512ndash519
Grabherr G 2009 Biodiversity in the high ranges of theAlps ethnobotanical and climate change perspectives GlobalEnviron Change 19(2)167ndash172
Grecirct-Regamey A Bebi P Bishop ID Schmid WA 2008 LinkingGIS-based models to value ecosystem services in an Alpineregion J Environ Manage 89(3)197ndash208
Harlinger O Knees G 1999 Klimahandbuch DerOumlsterreichischen Bodenschaumltzung Klimatographie 1Teil 1st ed Innsbruck (Austria) Universitaumltsverlag Wagner
Houmlchtl F Lehringer S Konold W 2005 ldquoWildernessrdquo what itmeans when it becomes a realitymdasha case study from thesouthwestern Alps Landscape Urban Plan 70(1ndash2)85ndash95
Hunziker M Felber P Gehring K Buchecker M Bauer NKienast F 2008 Evaluation of landscape change by differentsocial groups Mt Res Dev 28(2)140ndash147
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2000 Emissionsscenarios A special report of working group III of the inter-governmental panel on climate change Cambridge (UK)Cambridge University Press
Kienast F Bolliger J Potschin M de Groot R Verburg PHeller I Wascher D Haines-Young R 2009 Assessing land-scape functions with broad-scale environmental data insightsgained from a prototype development for Europe EnvironManage 44(6)1099ndash1120
Klapp E Boeker P Koumlnig F Staumlhlin A 1953 Das GruumlnlandHannover Schaper Wertzahlen der Gruumlnlandpflanzenp 38ndash40
Kok K Rothman DS Patel M 2006 Multi-scale narrativesfrom an IA perspective part I European and Mediterraneanscenario development Futures 38(3)261ndash284
Koumlrner C 2003 Alpine plant life functional plant ecology ofhigh mountain ecosystems 2nd ed Heidelberg (Germany)Springer
Lamarque P Tappeiner U Turner C Steinbacher M Bardgett RSzukics U Schermer M Lavorel S 2011 Stakeholder per-ceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowl-edge on soil fertility and biodiversity Reg Environ Change11(4)791ndash804
Lavorel S Grigulis K Lamarque P Colace M Garden D Girel JPellet G Douzet R 2011 Using plant functional traits tounderstand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystemservices J Ecol 99(1)135ndash147
Leitinger G Houmlller P Tasser E Walde J Tappeiner U 2008Development and validation of a spatial snow-glide modelEcol Model 211(3ndash4)363ndash374
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 13
Leitinger G Tasser E Newesely C Obojes N Tappeiner U 2010Seasonal dynamics of surface runoff in mountain grass-land ecosystems differing in land use J Hydrol 385(1ndash4)95ndash104
Mayring P 2002 Einfuumlhrung in die Qualitative Sozialforschung5th revised ed Weinheim (Germany) Beltz Verlag
Metzger MJ Rounsevell M Michlik A Leemans R Schroumlter D2006 The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land usechange Agric Ecosyst Environ 114(1)69ndash86
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 Ecosystems andhuman well-being synthesis Washington (DC) Island Press
Mottet A Ladet S Coqueacute N Gibon A 2006 Agriculturalland-use change and its drivers in mountain landscapesa case study in the Pyrenees Agric Ecosyst Environ114(2ndash4)296ndash310
Naidoo R Balmford A Costanza R Fisher B Green RE LehnerB Malcolm TR Ricketts TH 2008 Global mapping ofecosystem services and conservation priorities Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 105(28)9495ndash9500
Nelson E Mendoza G Regetz J Polasky S Tallis H CameronDR Chan KMA Daily GC Goldstein J Kareiva PM et al2009 Modeling multiple ecosystem services biodiversityconservation commodity production and tradeoffs at land-scape scales Front Ecol Environ 7(1)4ndash11
Pitesky ME Stackhouse KR Mitloehner FM 2009 Clearing theair livestockrsquos contribution to climate change In Sparks Deditor Advances in agronomy Burligton (MA) AcademicPress p 1ndash40
Rabbinge R van Diepen CA 2000 Changes in agriculture andland use in Europe Eur J Agron 13(2ndash3)85ndash99
Raudsepp-Hearne C Peterson GD Bennett EM 2010 Ecosystemservice bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapesProc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(11)5242ndash5247
Reubens B Poesen J Danjon F Geudens G Muys B 2007 Therole of fine and coarse roots in shallow slope stability andsoil erosion control with a focus on root system architecturea review Trees Struct Funct 21(4)385ndash402
Rodriguez JP Beard TD Bennett E Cumming GS Cork SAgard J Dobson A Peterson G 2006 Trade-offs acrossspace time and ecosystem services Ecol Soc 11(1)28
Rounsevell MDA Reginster I Arauacutejo MB Carter TRDendoncker N Ewert F House JI Kankaanpaumlauml SLeemans R Metzger MJ et al 2006 A coherent set of futureland use change scenarios for Europe Agric Ecosyst Environ114(1)57ndash68
Rudel TK Coomes OT Moran E Achard F Angelsen AXu J Lambin E 2005 Forest transitions towards a globalunderstanding of land use change Global Environ Change15(1)23ndash31
Rutherford GN Bebi P Edwards PJ Zimmermann NE 2008Assessing land-use statistics to model land cover change ina mountainous landscape in the European Alps Ecol Model212(3ndash4)460ndash471
Schallberger P 1999 Wovon handeln baumluerliche Zukunfts-vorstellungen Determinanten Dimensionen und Typen(German manuscript of the paper De quel avenir parlent lespaysans) In Droz Y Mieville-Ott V editors On achegravevebien les paysans Reconstruire une identiteacute paysanne dansun monde incertain Genegraveve (Switzerland) Edition Georg p103ndash126
Schneeberger N Buumlrgi M Kienast F 2007 Rates of landscapechange at the northern fringe of the Swiss Alps historical andrecent tendencies Landscape Urban Plan 80(1ndash2)127ndash136
Schroumlter D Cramer W Leemans R Prentice IC Arauacutejo MBArnell NW Bondeau A Bugmann H Carter TR Gracia CAet al 2005 Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability toglobal change in Europe Science 310(5752)1333ndash1337
Stallman HR 2011 Ecosystem services in agriculture determin-ing suitability for provision by collective management EcolEcon 71131ndash139
Steiger R 2010 The impact of climate change on ski seasonlength and snowmaking requirements in Tyrol Austria ClimRes 43(3)251ndash262
Strauss F Formayer H Schmid E 2012 High resolution climatedata for Austria in the period 2008ndash2040 from a statistical cli-mate change model Int J Climatol DOI 101002joc3434
Strauss F Schmid E Moltchanova E Formayer H Wang X2011 Modeling climate change and biophysical impacts ofcrop production in the Austrian Marchfeld region ClimaticChange 111(3) 641ndash664
Swetnam RD Fisher B Mbilinyi BP Munishi PKT Willcock SRicketts T Mwakalila S Balmford A Burgess ND MarshallAR et al 2011 Mapping socio-economic scenarios of landcover change a GIS method to enable ecosystem servicemodeling J Environ Manage 92(3)563ndash574
Swift MJ Izac AN van Noordwijk M 2004 Biodiversity andecosystem services in agricultural landscapesmdashare we askingthe right questions Agric Ecosyst Environ 104(1)113ndash134
Swinton SM Lupi F Robertson GP Hamilton SK 2007Ecosystem services and agriculture cultivating agriculturalecosystems for diverse benefits Ecol Econ 64(2)245ndash252
Tappeiner U Tappeiner G Hilbert A Mattanovich E 2003 TheEU agricultural policy and the environment evaluation of thealpine region Oxford (UK) Blackwell
Tappeiner U Tasser E Leitinger G Cernusca A Tappeiner G2008 Effects of historical and likely future scenarios of landuse on above- and belowground vegetation carbon stocks ofan alpine valley Ecosystems 11(8)1383ndash1400
Tasser E Mader M Tappeiner U 2003 Effects of land use inalpine grasslands on the probability of landslides Basic ApplEcol 4(3)271ndash280
Tasser E Ruffini F Tappeiner U 2009 An integrative approachfor analysing landscape dynamics in diverse cultivated andnatural mountain areas Landscape Ecol 24(5)611ndash628
Tasser E Tappeiner U 2002 Impact of land use changes onmountain vegetation Appl Veg Sci 5(2)173ndash184
Tasser E Walde J Tappeiner U Teutsch A Noggler W 2007Land-use changes and natural reforestation in the EasternCentral Alps Agric Ecosyst Environ 118(1ndash4)115ndash129
Theurillat J Guisan A 2001 Potential impact of climate changeon vegetation in the European Alps a review ClimaticChange 50(1)77ndash109
Thuiller W Lavorel S Arauacutejo MB Sykes MT Prentice IC 2005Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 102(23)8245ndash8250
Tilman D Fargione J Wolff B DrsquoAntonio C Dobson A HowarthR Schindler D Schlesinger WH Simberloff D SwackhamerD 2001 Forecasting agriculturally driven global environ-mental change Science 292(5515)281ndash284
Troy A Wilson MA 2006 Mapping ecosystem services prac-tical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and valuetransfer Ecol Econ 60(2)435ndash449
Van der Ploeg JD Long A 1994 Born from within practice andperspectives of endogenous rural development Van GorcumAssen Styles of farming an introductory note on conceptsand methodology p 7ndash30
Walz A Lardelli C Behrendt H Grecirct-Regamey A Lundstroumlm CKytzia S Bebi P 2007 Participatory scenario analysisfor integrated regional modeling Landscape Urban Plan81(1ndash2)114ndash131
Wischmeier WH Smith DD 1978 Predicting rainfall erosionlosses ndash a guide to conservation planning Washington (DC)US Department of Agriculture
Zhang W Ricketts TH Kremen C Carney K Swinton SM2007 Ecosystem services and dis-services to agricultureEcol Econ 64(2)253ndash260
Zimmermann P Tasser E Leitinger G Tappeiner U 2010Effects of land-use and land-cover pattern on landscape-scalebiodiversity in the European Alps Agric Ecosyst Environ139(1ndash2)13ndash22
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 11
et al 2008 Egoh et al 2009) The aesthetic value is higherfor alpine pastures and meadows of low land-use inten-sity than for forest or meadows of high land-use intensityCarbon sequestration is higher for forest than for grasslandService hotspots are larch meadows which have howeveralmost completely disappeared in recent decades Impactson multiple ecosystem services can be related to land-usecover change Previous land-use changes have led toan increase of all ecosystem service values except the aes-thetic value The scenarios predict a trend reversion formost ecosystem services apart from natural hazard regula-tion and the aesthetic value For modelling future scenarioswe assumed that plant species distribution is only influ-enced by land use However species distribution shifts andeven extinction of alpine plants can be expected due toclimate change (Thuiller et al 2005 Grabherr 2009)
We found trade-offs between provisioning ecosystemservices and both regulating and cultural ecosystem ser-vices also confirmed by other studies (Bennett et al 2009Raudsepp-Hearne et al 2010) Forested areas cannot beused for forage production but are very valuable for carbonsequestration The aesthetic value is negatively correlatedto forage quantity and forage quality ie increasing man-agement intensity leads to higher forage production butreduces the aesthetic value Comparable to Badgley et al(2007) who found that trade-offs between agricultural pro-duction and many ecosystem services can be avoided byusing sustainable management practices our research find-ings indicate that extensive use has a positive influence onregulating and cultural ecosystem services We also foundtrade-offs between regulating and cultural ecosystem ser-vices While the aesthetic value of dense forest is lowerthan for grasslands carbon sequestration and natural haz-ard regulation are higher Since managed landscapes areareas of cultural importance the local population is crit-ical of any shift from rural landscapes to forests (Houmlchtlet al 2005 Bauer et al 2009) but people living outside theAlps perceive forest regeneration less negatively (Hunzikeret al 2008) The results of the survey indicate that touristsappreciate abandoned land and forest better than the localpopulation We found the highest aesthetic values relatedto extensively managed grassland or larch meadows andlower values for meadows of high land-use intensity orabandoned land
In our study we focused on a selection of ecosystemservices to which local stakeholders and farmers attached
importance (Lamarque et al 2011) Several ecosystemservices related to agriculture have been neglected includ-ing pollination water quantity and quality and recreationMoreover management practices control disservices fromagriculture eg habitat loss nutrient run-off pesticidepoisoning of non-target species (Zhang et al 2007) andfuture efforts will be concentrated on modelling additionalservices and disservices to agriculture
Conclusions
Ecosystem services related to agriculture contribute tohuman well-being Provisioning services are directlyrelated to land use but also regulating and cultural servicesdepend on management practices Future land-use policiesshould take into account that ecosystem services in moun-tain regions are closely linked to topographic and climaticconditions and a more flexible system for financial supportcould improve the farmersrsquo options for reacting to climaticvariations Trade-offs are related to land use and occurbetween provisioning regulating and cultural servicesService hotspots and multiple ecosystem service provisioncan be enhanced by sustainable agricultural managementTourism is likely to be strengthened under both the global-ized and the localized scenario and is positively influencedby extensive agricultural management enhancing the aes-thetic value With regard to economic benefits derivingfrom tourism landscape preferences linked to agriculturalpractices should be integrated into land-use policies andagricultural incentives for a sustainable development ofmountain regions
AcknowledgementsWe thank the farmers of the Stubai Valley for participating inthe scenario workshop and for their valuable inputs We wishto thank Michael Heinl for assistance during the workshop andfor data analyses and Christian Newesely Stefanie Rauscher andDagmar Rubatscher for providing data Three anonymous review-ers are acknowledged for their helpful comments We also thankBrigitte Scott for language editing This research was fundedby the ERA-Net BiodivERsA with the national funder FWFpart of the 2008 BiodivERsA call for research proposals Thisstudy was conducted on the LTER site lsquoStubai Valleyrsquo a memberof the Austrian LTSER Platform lsquoTyrolean Alpsrsquo The institu-tions involved are part of the interdisciplinary research centreslsquoEcology of the Alpine Regionrsquo and lsquoMountain Agriculturersquowithin the research area lsquoAlpine Space ndash Man and Environmentrsquoat the University of Innsbruck
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
12 U Schirpke et al
ReferencesAbegg B 1996 Klimaaumlnderung und Tourismus Klimafol-
genforschung am Beispiel des Wintertourismus in denSchweizer Alpen Zuumlrich (Switzerland) vdf Hochschul-verlag AG
Badgley C Moghtader J Quintero E Zakem E Chappell MJAvileacutes-Vaacutezquez K Samulon A Perfecto I 2007 Organicagriculture and the global food supply Renew Agr Food Sys22(2)86ndash108
Bauer N Wallner A Hunziker M 2009 The change ofEuropean landscapes human-nature relationships publicattitudes towards rewilding and the implications for land-scape management in Switzerland J Environ Manage90(9)2910ndash2920
Bayfield N Barancok P Furger M Sebastiagrave MT Domiacutenguez GLapka M Cudlinova E Vescovo L Ganielle D Cernusca Aet al 2008 Stakeholder perceptions of the impacts of ruralfunding scenarios on mountain landscapes across EuropeEcosystems 11(8)1368ndash1382
Beniston M 2006 Mountain weather and climate a generaloverview and a focus on climatic change in the AlpsHydrobiologia 562(1)3ndash16
Bennett EM Peterson GD Gordon LJ 2009 Understandingrelationships among multiple ecosystem services Ecol Lett12(12)1394ndash1404
Bouwman AF Beusen AHW Billen G 2009 Human alterationof the global nitrogen and phosphorus soil balances for theperiod 1970ndash2050 Global Biogeochem Cycles 23GB0A04
Chan KMA Shaw MR Cameron DR Underwood EC Daily GC2006 Conservation planning for ecosystem services PLoSBiol 4(11)e379
Chen XF Chen JM An SQ Ju WM 2007 Effects of topogra-phy on simulated net primary productivity at landscape scaleJ Environ Manage 85(3)585ndash596
Clarke J McClung DM 1999 Full-depth avalanche occur-rences caused by snow gliding Coquihalla British ColumbiaCanada Canada J Glaciol 45(151)539ndash546
de Groot RS Alkemade R Braat L Hein L Willemen L 2010Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem servicesand values in landscape planning management and decisionmaking Ecol Complex 7(3)260ndash272
de la Vega-Leinert A Schroumlter D Leemans R Fritsch UPluimers J 2008 A stakeholder dialogue on European vul-nerability Reg Environ Change 8(3)109ndash124
Dorner B Lertzman K Fall J 2002 Landscape pattern in topo-graphically complex landscapes issues and techniques foranalysis Landscape Ecol 17(8)729ndash743
Egger G 1999 Biotopkartierung Nationalpark Hohe TauernErhebung Bewertung und Maszlignahmenentwicklung aus-gewaumlhlter Biotope der Auszligenzone des Nationalparks HoheTauern (Tirol) Studie im Auftrag von Bundesministerium fuumlrUmwelt Jugend und Familie Klagenfurt
Egger G Angermann K Aigner S Buchgraber K 2005GIS-Gestuumltzte Ertragsmodellierung zur Optimierung desWeidemanagements auf Almweiden Gumpenstein BAL ndashBundesanst fuumlr Alpenlaumlnd Landwirtschaft
Egoh B Reyers B Rouget M Bode M Richardson D 2009Spatial congruence between biodiversity and ecosystem ser-vices in South Africa Biol Conserv 142(3)553ndash562
Egoh B Reyers B Rouget M Richardson DM Le MaitreDC van Jaarsveld AS 2008 Mapping ecosystem servicesfor planning and management Agric Ecosyst Environ127(1ndash2)135ndash140
Eigenbrod F Armsworth PR Anderson BJ Heinemeyer AGillings S Roy DB Thomas CD Gaston KJ 2010Error propagation associated with benefits transfer-basedmapping of ecosystem services Biol Conserv 143(11)2487ndash2493
European Commission 2010 Brussels (Belgium) the CAPtowards 2020 meeting the food natural resources and terri-torial challenges of the future [Internet] [cited 2012 Aug 16]Available from httpeur-lexeuropaeuLexUriServLexUriServdouri=COM20100672FINenPDF
Foley JA DeFries R Asner GP Barford C Bonan GCarpenter SR Chapin FS Coe MT Daily GC Gibbs HKet al 2005 Global consequences of land use Science309(5734)570ndash574
Gellrich M Zimmermann NE 2007 Investigating the regional-scale pattern of agricultural land abandonment in theSwiss mountains a spatial statistical modelling approachLandscape Urban Plan 79(1)65ndash76
Gimona A van der Horst D 2007 Mapping hotspots of multiplelandscape functions a case study on farmland afforestationin Scotland Landscape Ecol 22(8)1255ndash1264
Giupponi C Ramanzin M Sturaro E Fuser S 2006 Climateand land use changes biodiversity and agri-environmentalmeasures in the Belluno province Italy Environ Sci Policy9(2)163ndash173
Gordon LJ Finlayson CM Falkenmark M 2010 Managingwater in agriculture for food production and other ecosystemservices Agric Water Manage 97(4)512ndash519
Grabherr G 2009 Biodiversity in the high ranges of theAlps ethnobotanical and climate change perspectives GlobalEnviron Change 19(2)167ndash172
Grecirct-Regamey A Bebi P Bishop ID Schmid WA 2008 LinkingGIS-based models to value ecosystem services in an Alpineregion J Environ Manage 89(3)197ndash208
Harlinger O Knees G 1999 Klimahandbuch DerOumlsterreichischen Bodenschaumltzung Klimatographie 1Teil 1st ed Innsbruck (Austria) Universitaumltsverlag Wagner
Houmlchtl F Lehringer S Konold W 2005 ldquoWildernessrdquo what itmeans when it becomes a realitymdasha case study from thesouthwestern Alps Landscape Urban Plan 70(1ndash2)85ndash95
Hunziker M Felber P Gehring K Buchecker M Bauer NKienast F 2008 Evaluation of landscape change by differentsocial groups Mt Res Dev 28(2)140ndash147
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2000 Emissionsscenarios A special report of working group III of the inter-governmental panel on climate change Cambridge (UK)Cambridge University Press
Kienast F Bolliger J Potschin M de Groot R Verburg PHeller I Wascher D Haines-Young R 2009 Assessing land-scape functions with broad-scale environmental data insightsgained from a prototype development for Europe EnvironManage 44(6)1099ndash1120
Klapp E Boeker P Koumlnig F Staumlhlin A 1953 Das GruumlnlandHannover Schaper Wertzahlen der Gruumlnlandpflanzenp 38ndash40
Kok K Rothman DS Patel M 2006 Multi-scale narrativesfrom an IA perspective part I European and Mediterraneanscenario development Futures 38(3)261ndash284
Koumlrner C 2003 Alpine plant life functional plant ecology ofhigh mountain ecosystems 2nd ed Heidelberg (Germany)Springer
Lamarque P Tappeiner U Turner C Steinbacher M Bardgett RSzukics U Schermer M Lavorel S 2011 Stakeholder per-ceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowl-edge on soil fertility and biodiversity Reg Environ Change11(4)791ndash804
Lavorel S Grigulis K Lamarque P Colace M Garden D Girel JPellet G Douzet R 2011 Using plant functional traits tounderstand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystemservices J Ecol 99(1)135ndash147
Leitinger G Houmlller P Tasser E Walde J Tappeiner U 2008Development and validation of a spatial snow-glide modelEcol Model 211(3ndash4)363ndash374
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 13
Leitinger G Tasser E Newesely C Obojes N Tappeiner U 2010Seasonal dynamics of surface runoff in mountain grass-land ecosystems differing in land use J Hydrol 385(1ndash4)95ndash104
Mayring P 2002 Einfuumlhrung in die Qualitative Sozialforschung5th revised ed Weinheim (Germany) Beltz Verlag
Metzger MJ Rounsevell M Michlik A Leemans R Schroumlter D2006 The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land usechange Agric Ecosyst Environ 114(1)69ndash86
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 Ecosystems andhuman well-being synthesis Washington (DC) Island Press
Mottet A Ladet S Coqueacute N Gibon A 2006 Agriculturalland-use change and its drivers in mountain landscapesa case study in the Pyrenees Agric Ecosyst Environ114(2ndash4)296ndash310
Naidoo R Balmford A Costanza R Fisher B Green RE LehnerB Malcolm TR Ricketts TH 2008 Global mapping ofecosystem services and conservation priorities Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 105(28)9495ndash9500
Nelson E Mendoza G Regetz J Polasky S Tallis H CameronDR Chan KMA Daily GC Goldstein J Kareiva PM et al2009 Modeling multiple ecosystem services biodiversityconservation commodity production and tradeoffs at land-scape scales Front Ecol Environ 7(1)4ndash11
Pitesky ME Stackhouse KR Mitloehner FM 2009 Clearing theair livestockrsquos contribution to climate change In Sparks Deditor Advances in agronomy Burligton (MA) AcademicPress p 1ndash40
Rabbinge R van Diepen CA 2000 Changes in agriculture andland use in Europe Eur J Agron 13(2ndash3)85ndash99
Raudsepp-Hearne C Peterson GD Bennett EM 2010 Ecosystemservice bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapesProc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(11)5242ndash5247
Reubens B Poesen J Danjon F Geudens G Muys B 2007 Therole of fine and coarse roots in shallow slope stability andsoil erosion control with a focus on root system architecturea review Trees Struct Funct 21(4)385ndash402
Rodriguez JP Beard TD Bennett E Cumming GS Cork SAgard J Dobson A Peterson G 2006 Trade-offs acrossspace time and ecosystem services Ecol Soc 11(1)28
Rounsevell MDA Reginster I Arauacutejo MB Carter TRDendoncker N Ewert F House JI Kankaanpaumlauml SLeemans R Metzger MJ et al 2006 A coherent set of futureland use change scenarios for Europe Agric Ecosyst Environ114(1)57ndash68
Rudel TK Coomes OT Moran E Achard F Angelsen AXu J Lambin E 2005 Forest transitions towards a globalunderstanding of land use change Global Environ Change15(1)23ndash31
Rutherford GN Bebi P Edwards PJ Zimmermann NE 2008Assessing land-use statistics to model land cover change ina mountainous landscape in the European Alps Ecol Model212(3ndash4)460ndash471
Schallberger P 1999 Wovon handeln baumluerliche Zukunfts-vorstellungen Determinanten Dimensionen und Typen(German manuscript of the paper De quel avenir parlent lespaysans) In Droz Y Mieville-Ott V editors On achegravevebien les paysans Reconstruire une identiteacute paysanne dansun monde incertain Genegraveve (Switzerland) Edition Georg p103ndash126
Schneeberger N Buumlrgi M Kienast F 2007 Rates of landscapechange at the northern fringe of the Swiss Alps historical andrecent tendencies Landscape Urban Plan 80(1ndash2)127ndash136
Schroumlter D Cramer W Leemans R Prentice IC Arauacutejo MBArnell NW Bondeau A Bugmann H Carter TR Gracia CAet al 2005 Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability toglobal change in Europe Science 310(5752)1333ndash1337
Stallman HR 2011 Ecosystem services in agriculture determin-ing suitability for provision by collective management EcolEcon 71131ndash139
Steiger R 2010 The impact of climate change on ski seasonlength and snowmaking requirements in Tyrol Austria ClimRes 43(3)251ndash262
Strauss F Formayer H Schmid E 2012 High resolution climatedata for Austria in the period 2008ndash2040 from a statistical cli-mate change model Int J Climatol DOI 101002joc3434
Strauss F Schmid E Moltchanova E Formayer H Wang X2011 Modeling climate change and biophysical impacts ofcrop production in the Austrian Marchfeld region ClimaticChange 111(3) 641ndash664
Swetnam RD Fisher B Mbilinyi BP Munishi PKT Willcock SRicketts T Mwakalila S Balmford A Burgess ND MarshallAR et al 2011 Mapping socio-economic scenarios of landcover change a GIS method to enable ecosystem servicemodeling J Environ Manage 92(3)563ndash574
Swift MJ Izac AN van Noordwijk M 2004 Biodiversity andecosystem services in agricultural landscapesmdashare we askingthe right questions Agric Ecosyst Environ 104(1)113ndash134
Swinton SM Lupi F Robertson GP Hamilton SK 2007Ecosystem services and agriculture cultivating agriculturalecosystems for diverse benefits Ecol Econ 64(2)245ndash252
Tappeiner U Tappeiner G Hilbert A Mattanovich E 2003 TheEU agricultural policy and the environment evaluation of thealpine region Oxford (UK) Blackwell
Tappeiner U Tasser E Leitinger G Cernusca A Tappeiner G2008 Effects of historical and likely future scenarios of landuse on above- and belowground vegetation carbon stocks ofan alpine valley Ecosystems 11(8)1383ndash1400
Tasser E Mader M Tappeiner U 2003 Effects of land use inalpine grasslands on the probability of landslides Basic ApplEcol 4(3)271ndash280
Tasser E Ruffini F Tappeiner U 2009 An integrative approachfor analysing landscape dynamics in diverse cultivated andnatural mountain areas Landscape Ecol 24(5)611ndash628
Tasser E Tappeiner U 2002 Impact of land use changes onmountain vegetation Appl Veg Sci 5(2)173ndash184
Tasser E Walde J Tappeiner U Teutsch A Noggler W 2007Land-use changes and natural reforestation in the EasternCentral Alps Agric Ecosyst Environ 118(1ndash4)115ndash129
Theurillat J Guisan A 2001 Potential impact of climate changeon vegetation in the European Alps a review ClimaticChange 50(1)77ndash109
Thuiller W Lavorel S Arauacutejo MB Sykes MT Prentice IC 2005Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 102(23)8245ndash8250
Tilman D Fargione J Wolff B DrsquoAntonio C Dobson A HowarthR Schindler D Schlesinger WH Simberloff D SwackhamerD 2001 Forecasting agriculturally driven global environ-mental change Science 292(5515)281ndash284
Troy A Wilson MA 2006 Mapping ecosystem services prac-tical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and valuetransfer Ecol Econ 60(2)435ndash449
Van der Ploeg JD Long A 1994 Born from within practice andperspectives of endogenous rural development Van GorcumAssen Styles of farming an introductory note on conceptsand methodology p 7ndash30
Walz A Lardelli C Behrendt H Grecirct-Regamey A Lundstroumlm CKytzia S Bebi P 2007 Participatory scenario analysisfor integrated regional modeling Landscape Urban Plan81(1ndash2)114ndash131
Wischmeier WH Smith DD 1978 Predicting rainfall erosionlosses ndash a guide to conservation planning Washington (DC)US Department of Agriculture
Zhang W Ricketts TH Kremen C Carney K Swinton SM2007 Ecosystem services and dis-services to agricultureEcol Econ 64(2)253ndash260
Zimmermann P Tasser E Leitinger G Tappeiner U 2010Effects of land-use and land-cover pattern on landscape-scalebiodiversity in the European Alps Agric Ecosyst Environ139(1ndash2)13ndash22
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
12 U Schirpke et al
ReferencesAbegg B 1996 Klimaaumlnderung und Tourismus Klimafol-
genforschung am Beispiel des Wintertourismus in denSchweizer Alpen Zuumlrich (Switzerland) vdf Hochschul-verlag AG
Badgley C Moghtader J Quintero E Zakem E Chappell MJAvileacutes-Vaacutezquez K Samulon A Perfecto I 2007 Organicagriculture and the global food supply Renew Agr Food Sys22(2)86ndash108
Bauer N Wallner A Hunziker M 2009 The change ofEuropean landscapes human-nature relationships publicattitudes towards rewilding and the implications for land-scape management in Switzerland J Environ Manage90(9)2910ndash2920
Bayfield N Barancok P Furger M Sebastiagrave MT Domiacutenguez GLapka M Cudlinova E Vescovo L Ganielle D Cernusca Aet al 2008 Stakeholder perceptions of the impacts of ruralfunding scenarios on mountain landscapes across EuropeEcosystems 11(8)1368ndash1382
Beniston M 2006 Mountain weather and climate a generaloverview and a focus on climatic change in the AlpsHydrobiologia 562(1)3ndash16
Bennett EM Peterson GD Gordon LJ 2009 Understandingrelationships among multiple ecosystem services Ecol Lett12(12)1394ndash1404
Bouwman AF Beusen AHW Billen G 2009 Human alterationof the global nitrogen and phosphorus soil balances for theperiod 1970ndash2050 Global Biogeochem Cycles 23GB0A04
Chan KMA Shaw MR Cameron DR Underwood EC Daily GC2006 Conservation planning for ecosystem services PLoSBiol 4(11)e379
Chen XF Chen JM An SQ Ju WM 2007 Effects of topogra-phy on simulated net primary productivity at landscape scaleJ Environ Manage 85(3)585ndash596
Clarke J McClung DM 1999 Full-depth avalanche occur-rences caused by snow gliding Coquihalla British ColumbiaCanada Canada J Glaciol 45(151)539ndash546
de Groot RS Alkemade R Braat L Hein L Willemen L 2010Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem servicesand values in landscape planning management and decisionmaking Ecol Complex 7(3)260ndash272
de la Vega-Leinert A Schroumlter D Leemans R Fritsch UPluimers J 2008 A stakeholder dialogue on European vul-nerability Reg Environ Change 8(3)109ndash124
Dorner B Lertzman K Fall J 2002 Landscape pattern in topo-graphically complex landscapes issues and techniques foranalysis Landscape Ecol 17(8)729ndash743
Egger G 1999 Biotopkartierung Nationalpark Hohe TauernErhebung Bewertung und Maszlignahmenentwicklung aus-gewaumlhlter Biotope der Auszligenzone des Nationalparks HoheTauern (Tirol) Studie im Auftrag von Bundesministerium fuumlrUmwelt Jugend und Familie Klagenfurt
Egger G Angermann K Aigner S Buchgraber K 2005GIS-Gestuumltzte Ertragsmodellierung zur Optimierung desWeidemanagements auf Almweiden Gumpenstein BAL ndashBundesanst fuumlr Alpenlaumlnd Landwirtschaft
Egoh B Reyers B Rouget M Bode M Richardson D 2009Spatial congruence between biodiversity and ecosystem ser-vices in South Africa Biol Conserv 142(3)553ndash562
Egoh B Reyers B Rouget M Richardson DM Le MaitreDC van Jaarsveld AS 2008 Mapping ecosystem servicesfor planning and management Agric Ecosyst Environ127(1ndash2)135ndash140
Eigenbrod F Armsworth PR Anderson BJ Heinemeyer AGillings S Roy DB Thomas CD Gaston KJ 2010Error propagation associated with benefits transfer-basedmapping of ecosystem services Biol Conserv 143(11)2487ndash2493
European Commission 2010 Brussels (Belgium) the CAPtowards 2020 meeting the food natural resources and terri-torial challenges of the future [Internet] [cited 2012 Aug 16]Available from httpeur-lexeuropaeuLexUriServLexUriServdouri=COM20100672FINenPDF
Foley JA DeFries R Asner GP Barford C Bonan GCarpenter SR Chapin FS Coe MT Daily GC Gibbs HKet al 2005 Global consequences of land use Science309(5734)570ndash574
Gellrich M Zimmermann NE 2007 Investigating the regional-scale pattern of agricultural land abandonment in theSwiss mountains a spatial statistical modelling approachLandscape Urban Plan 79(1)65ndash76
Gimona A van der Horst D 2007 Mapping hotspots of multiplelandscape functions a case study on farmland afforestationin Scotland Landscape Ecol 22(8)1255ndash1264
Giupponi C Ramanzin M Sturaro E Fuser S 2006 Climateand land use changes biodiversity and agri-environmentalmeasures in the Belluno province Italy Environ Sci Policy9(2)163ndash173
Gordon LJ Finlayson CM Falkenmark M 2010 Managingwater in agriculture for food production and other ecosystemservices Agric Water Manage 97(4)512ndash519
Grabherr G 2009 Biodiversity in the high ranges of theAlps ethnobotanical and climate change perspectives GlobalEnviron Change 19(2)167ndash172
Grecirct-Regamey A Bebi P Bishop ID Schmid WA 2008 LinkingGIS-based models to value ecosystem services in an Alpineregion J Environ Manage 89(3)197ndash208
Harlinger O Knees G 1999 Klimahandbuch DerOumlsterreichischen Bodenschaumltzung Klimatographie 1Teil 1st ed Innsbruck (Austria) Universitaumltsverlag Wagner
Houmlchtl F Lehringer S Konold W 2005 ldquoWildernessrdquo what itmeans when it becomes a realitymdasha case study from thesouthwestern Alps Landscape Urban Plan 70(1ndash2)85ndash95
Hunziker M Felber P Gehring K Buchecker M Bauer NKienast F 2008 Evaluation of landscape change by differentsocial groups Mt Res Dev 28(2)140ndash147
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2000 Emissionsscenarios A special report of working group III of the inter-governmental panel on climate change Cambridge (UK)Cambridge University Press
Kienast F Bolliger J Potschin M de Groot R Verburg PHeller I Wascher D Haines-Young R 2009 Assessing land-scape functions with broad-scale environmental data insightsgained from a prototype development for Europe EnvironManage 44(6)1099ndash1120
Klapp E Boeker P Koumlnig F Staumlhlin A 1953 Das GruumlnlandHannover Schaper Wertzahlen der Gruumlnlandpflanzenp 38ndash40
Kok K Rothman DS Patel M 2006 Multi-scale narrativesfrom an IA perspective part I European and Mediterraneanscenario development Futures 38(3)261ndash284
Koumlrner C 2003 Alpine plant life functional plant ecology ofhigh mountain ecosystems 2nd ed Heidelberg (Germany)Springer
Lamarque P Tappeiner U Turner C Steinbacher M Bardgett RSzukics U Schermer M Lavorel S 2011 Stakeholder per-ceptions of grassland ecosystem services in relation to knowl-edge on soil fertility and biodiversity Reg Environ Change11(4)791ndash804
Lavorel S Grigulis K Lamarque P Colace M Garden D Girel JPellet G Douzet R 2011 Using plant functional traits tounderstand the landscape distribution of multiple ecosystemservices J Ecol 99(1)135ndash147
Leitinger G Houmlller P Tasser E Walde J Tappeiner U 2008Development and validation of a spatial snow-glide modelEcol Model 211(3ndash4)363ndash374
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 13
Leitinger G Tasser E Newesely C Obojes N Tappeiner U 2010Seasonal dynamics of surface runoff in mountain grass-land ecosystems differing in land use J Hydrol 385(1ndash4)95ndash104
Mayring P 2002 Einfuumlhrung in die Qualitative Sozialforschung5th revised ed Weinheim (Germany) Beltz Verlag
Metzger MJ Rounsevell M Michlik A Leemans R Schroumlter D2006 The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land usechange Agric Ecosyst Environ 114(1)69ndash86
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 Ecosystems andhuman well-being synthesis Washington (DC) Island Press
Mottet A Ladet S Coqueacute N Gibon A 2006 Agriculturalland-use change and its drivers in mountain landscapesa case study in the Pyrenees Agric Ecosyst Environ114(2ndash4)296ndash310
Naidoo R Balmford A Costanza R Fisher B Green RE LehnerB Malcolm TR Ricketts TH 2008 Global mapping ofecosystem services and conservation priorities Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 105(28)9495ndash9500
Nelson E Mendoza G Regetz J Polasky S Tallis H CameronDR Chan KMA Daily GC Goldstein J Kareiva PM et al2009 Modeling multiple ecosystem services biodiversityconservation commodity production and tradeoffs at land-scape scales Front Ecol Environ 7(1)4ndash11
Pitesky ME Stackhouse KR Mitloehner FM 2009 Clearing theair livestockrsquos contribution to climate change In Sparks Deditor Advances in agronomy Burligton (MA) AcademicPress p 1ndash40
Rabbinge R van Diepen CA 2000 Changes in agriculture andland use in Europe Eur J Agron 13(2ndash3)85ndash99
Raudsepp-Hearne C Peterson GD Bennett EM 2010 Ecosystemservice bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapesProc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(11)5242ndash5247
Reubens B Poesen J Danjon F Geudens G Muys B 2007 Therole of fine and coarse roots in shallow slope stability andsoil erosion control with a focus on root system architecturea review Trees Struct Funct 21(4)385ndash402
Rodriguez JP Beard TD Bennett E Cumming GS Cork SAgard J Dobson A Peterson G 2006 Trade-offs acrossspace time and ecosystem services Ecol Soc 11(1)28
Rounsevell MDA Reginster I Arauacutejo MB Carter TRDendoncker N Ewert F House JI Kankaanpaumlauml SLeemans R Metzger MJ et al 2006 A coherent set of futureland use change scenarios for Europe Agric Ecosyst Environ114(1)57ndash68
Rudel TK Coomes OT Moran E Achard F Angelsen AXu J Lambin E 2005 Forest transitions towards a globalunderstanding of land use change Global Environ Change15(1)23ndash31
Rutherford GN Bebi P Edwards PJ Zimmermann NE 2008Assessing land-use statistics to model land cover change ina mountainous landscape in the European Alps Ecol Model212(3ndash4)460ndash471
Schallberger P 1999 Wovon handeln baumluerliche Zukunfts-vorstellungen Determinanten Dimensionen und Typen(German manuscript of the paper De quel avenir parlent lespaysans) In Droz Y Mieville-Ott V editors On achegravevebien les paysans Reconstruire une identiteacute paysanne dansun monde incertain Genegraveve (Switzerland) Edition Georg p103ndash126
Schneeberger N Buumlrgi M Kienast F 2007 Rates of landscapechange at the northern fringe of the Swiss Alps historical andrecent tendencies Landscape Urban Plan 80(1ndash2)127ndash136
Schroumlter D Cramer W Leemans R Prentice IC Arauacutejo MBArnell NW Bondeau A Bugmann H Carter TR Gracia CAet al 2005 Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability toglobal change in Europe Science 310(5752)1333ndash1337
Stallman HR 2011 Ecosystem services in agriculture determin-ing suitability for provision by collective management EcolEcon 71131ndash139
Steiger R 2010 The impact of climate change on ski seasonlength and snowmaking requirements in Tyrol Austria ClimRes 43(3)251ndash262
Strauss F Formayer H Schmid E 2012 High resolution climatedata for Austria in the period 2008ndash2040 from a statistical cli-mate change model Int J Climatol DOI 101002joc3434
Strauss F Schmid E Moltchanova E Formayer H Wang X2011 Modeling climate change and biophysical impacts ofcrop production in the Austrian Marchfeld region ClimaticChange 111(3) 641ndash664
Swetnam RD Fisher B Mbilinyi BP Munishi PKT Willcock SRicketts T Mwakalila S Balmford A Burgess ND MarshallAR et al 2011 Mapping socio-economic scenarios of landcover change a GIS method to enable ecosystem servicemodeling J Environ Manage 92(3)563ndash574
Swift MJ Izac AN van Noordwijk M 2004 Biodiversity andecosystem services in agricultural landscapesmdashare we askingthe right questions Agric Ecosyst Environ 104(1)113ndash134
Swinton SM Lupi F Robertson GP Hamilton SK 2007Ecosystem services and agriculture cultivating agriculturalecosystems for diverse benefits Ecol Econ 64(2)245ndash252
Tappeiner U Tappeiner G Hilbert A Mattanovich E 2003 TheEU agricultural policy and the environment evaluation of thealpine region Oxford (UK) Blackwell
Tappeiner U Tasser E Leitinger G Cernusca A Tappeiner G2008 Effects of historical and likely future scenarios of landuse on above- and belowground vegetation carbon stocks ofan alpine valley Ecosystems 11(8)1383ndash1400
Tasser E Mader M Tappeiner U 2003 Effects of land use inalpine grasslands on the probability of landslides Basic ApplEcol 4(3)271ndash280
Tasser E Ruffini F Tappeiner U 2009 An integrative approachfor analysing landscape dynamics in diverse cultivated andnatural mountain areas Landscape Ecol 24(5)611ndash628
Tasser E Tappeiner U 2002 Impact of land use changes onmountain vegetation Appl Veg Sci 5(2)173ndash184
Tasser E Walde J Tappeiner U Teutsch A Noggler W 2007Land-use changes and natural reforestation in the EasternCentral Alps Agric Ecosyst Environ 118(1ndash4)115ndash129
Theurillat J Guisan A 2001 Potential impact of climate changeon vegetation in the European Alps a review ClimaticChange 50(1)77ndash109
Thuiller W Lavorel S Arauacutejo MB Sykes MT Prentice IC 2005Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 102(23)8245ndash8250
Tilman D Fargione J Wolff B DrsquoAntonio C Dobson A HowarthR Schindler D Schlesinger WH Simberloff D SwackhamerD 2001 Forecasting agriculturally driven global environ-mental change Science 292(5515)281ndash284
Troy A Wilson MA 2006 Mapping ecosystem services prac-tical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and valuetransfer Ecol Econ 60(2)435ndash449
Van der Ploeg JD Long A 1994 Born from within practice andperspectives of endogenous rural development Van GorcumAssen Styles of farming an introductory note on conceptsand methodology p 7ndash30
Walz A Lardelli C Behrendt H Grecirct-Regamey A Lundstroumlm CKytzia S Bebi P 2007 Participatory scenario analysisfor integrated regional modeling Landscape Urban Plan81(1ndash2)114ndash131
Wischmeier WH Smith DD 1978 Predicting rainfall erosionlosses ndash a guide to conservation planning Washington (DC)US Department of Agriculture
Zhang W Ricketts TH Kremen C Carney K Swinton SM2007 Ecosystem services and dis-services to agricultureEcol Econ 64(2)253ndash260
Zimmermann P Tasser E Leitinger G Tappeiner U 2010Effects of land-use and land-cover pattern on landscape-scalebiodiversity in the European Alps Agric Ecosyst Environ139(1ndash2)13ndash22
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
152
772
434
] at
09
43 0
4 Ja
nuar
y 20
13
International Journal of Biodiversity Science Ecosystem Services amp Management 13
Leitinger G Tasser E Newesely C Obojes N Tappeiner U 2010Seasonal dynamics of surface runoff in mountain grass-land ecosystems differing in land use J Hydrol 385(1ndash4)95ndash104
Mayring P 2002 Einfuumlhrung in die Qualitative Sozialforschung5th revised ed Weinheim (Germany) Beltz Verlag
Metzger MJ Rounsevell M Michlik A Leemans R Schroumlter D2006 The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land usechange Agric Ecosyst Environ 114(1)69ndash86
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 Ecosystems andhuman well-being synthesis Washington (DC) Island Press
Mottet A Ladet S Coqueacute N Gibon A 2006 Agriculturalland-use change and its drivers in mountain landscapesa case study in the Pyrenees Agric Ecosyst Environ114(2ndash4)296ndash310
Naidoo R Balmford A Costanza R Fisher B Green RE LehnerB Malcolm TR Ricketts TH 2008 Global mapping ofecosystem services and conservation priorities Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 105(28)9495ndash9500
Nelson E Mendoza G Regetz J Polasky S Tallis H CameronDR Chan KMA Daily GC Goldstein J Kareiva PM et al2009 Modeling multiple ecosystem services biodiversityconservation commodity production and tradeoffs at land-scape scales Front Ecol Environ 7(1)4ndash11
Pitesky ME Stackhouse KR Mitloehner FM 2009 Clearing theair livestockrsquos contribution to climate change In Sparks Deditor Advances in agronomy Burligton (MA) AcademicPress p 1ndash40
Rabbinge R van Diepen CA 2000 Changes in agriculture andland use in Europe Eur J Agron 13(2ndash3)85ndash99
Raudsepp-Hearne C Peterson GD Bennett EM 2010 Ecosystemservice bundles for analyzing tradeoffs in diverse landscapesProc Natl Acad Sci USA 107(11)5242ndash5247
Reubens B Poesen J Danjon F Geudens G Muys B 2007 Therole of fine and coarse roots in shallow slope stability andsoil erosion control with a focus on root system architecturea review Trees Struct Funct 21(4)385ndash402
Rodriguez JP Beard TD Bennett E Cumming GS Cork SAgard J Dobson A Peterson G 2006 Trade-offs acrossspace time and ecosystem services Ecol Soc 11(1)28
Rounsevell MDA Reginster I Arauacutejo MB Carter TRDendoncker N Ewert F House JI Kankaanpaumlauml SLeemans R Metzger MJ et al 2006 A coherent set of futureland use change scenarios for Europe Agric Ecosyst Environ114(1)57ndash68
Rudel TK Coomes OT Moran E Achard F Angelsen AXu J Lambin E 2005 Forest transitions towards a globalunderstanding of land use change Global Environ Change15(1)23ndash31
Rutherford GN Bebi P Edwards PJ Zimmermann NE 2008Assessing land-use statistics to model land cover change ina mountainous landscape in the European Alps Ecol Model212(3ndash4)460ndash471
Schallberger P 1999 Wovon handeln baumluerliche Zukunfts-vorstellungen Determinanten Dimensionen und Typen(German manuscript of the paper De quel avenir parlent lespaysans) In Droz Y Mieville-Ott V editors On achegravevebien les paysans Reconstruire une identiteacute paysanne dansun monde incertain Genegraveve (Switzerland) Edition Georg p103ndash126
Schneeberger N Buumlrgi M Kienast F 2007 Rates of landscapechange at the northern fringe of the Swiss Alps historical andrecent tendencies Landscape Urban Plan 80(1ndash2)127ndash136
Schroumlter D Cramer W Leemans R Prentice IC Arauacutejo MBArnell NW Bondeau A Bugmann H Carter TR Gracia CAet al 2005 Ecosystem service supply and vulnerability toglobal change in Europe Science 310(5752)1333ndash1337
Stallman HR 2011 Ecosystem services in agriculture determin-ing suitability for provision by collective management EcolEcon 71131ndash139
Steiger R 2010 The impact of climate change on ski seasonlength and snowmaking requirements in Tyrol Austria ClimRes 43(3)251ndash262
Strauss F Formayer H Schmid E 2012 High resolution climatedata for Austria in the period 2008ndash2040 from a statistical cli-mate change model Int J Climatol DOI 101002joc3434
Strauss F Schmid E Moltchanova E Formayer H Wang X2011 Modeling climate change and biophysical impacts ofcrop production in the Austrian Marchfeld region ClimaticChange 111(3) 641ndash664
Swetnam RD Fisher B Mbilinyi BP Munishi PKT Willcock SRicketts T Mwakalila S Balmford A Burgess ND MarshallAR et al 2011 Mapping socio-economic scenarios of landcover change a GIS method to enable ecosystem servicemodeling J Environ Manage 92(3)563ndash574
Swift MJ Izac AN van Noordwijk M 2004 Biodiversity andecosystem services in agricultural landscapesmdashare we askingthe right questions Agric Ecosyst Environ 104(1)113ndash134
Swinton SM Lupi F Robertson GP Hamilton SK 2007Ecosystem services and agriculture cultivating agriculturalecosystems for diverse benefits Ecol Econ 64(2)245ndash252
Tappeiner U Tappeiner G Hilbert A Mattanovich E 2003 TheEU agricultural policy and the environment evaluation of thealpine region Oxford (UK) Blackwell
Tappeiner U Tasser E Leitinger G Cernusca A Tappeiner G2008 Effects of historical and likely future scenarios of landuse on above- and belowground vegetation carbon stocks ofan alpine valley Ecosystems 11(8)1383ndash1400
Tasser E Mader M Tappeiner U 2003 Effects of land use inalpine grasslands on the probability of landslides Basic ApplEcol 4(3)271ndash280
Tasser E Ruffini F Tappeiner U 2009 An integrative approachfor analysing landscape dynamics in diverse cultivated andnatural mountain areas Landscape Ecol 24(5)611ndash628
Tasser E Tappeiner U 2002 Impact of land use changes onmountain vegetation Appl Veg Sci 5(2)173ndash184
Tasser E Walde J Tappeiner U Teutsch A Noggler W 2007Land-use changes and natural reforestation in the EasternCentral Alps Agric Ecosyst Environ 118(1ndash4)115ndash129
Theurillat J Guisan A 2001 Potential impact of climate changeon vegetation in the European Alps a review ClimaticChange 50(1)77ndash109
Thuiller W Lavorel S Arauacutejo MB Sykes MT Prentice IC 2005Climate change threats to plant diversity in Europe Proc NatlAcad Sci USA 102(23)8245ndash8250
Tilman D Fargione J Wolff B DrsquoAntonio C Dobson A HowarthR Schindler D Schlesinger WH Simberloff D SwackhamerD 2001 Forecasting agriculturally driven global environ-mental change Science 292(5515)281ndash284
Troy A Wilson MA 2006 Mapping ecosystem services prac-tical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and valuetransfer Ecol Econ 60(2)435ndash449
Van der Ploeg JD Long A 1994 Born from within practice andperspectives of endogenous rural development Van GorcumAssen Styles of farming an introductory note on conceptsand methodology p 7ndash30
Walz A Lardelli C Behrendt H Grecirct-Regamey A Lundstroumlm CKytzia S Bebi P 2007 Participatory scenario analysisfor integrated regional modeling Landscape Urban Plan81(1ndash2)114ndash131
Wischmeier WH Smith DD 1978 Predicting rainfall erosionlosses ndash a guide to conservation planning Washington (DC)US Department of Agriculture
Zhang W Ricketts TH Kremen C Carney K Swinton SM2007 Ecosystem services and dis-services to agricultureEcol Econ 64(2)253ndash260
Zimmermann P Tasser E Leitinger G Tappeiner U 2010Effects of land-use and land-cover pattern on landscape-scalebiodiversity in the European Alps Agric Ecosyst Environ139(1ndash2)13ndash22
![16662073 Dynamic Ecosystem Endangered Ecosystem[1]](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/577d295b1a28ab4e1ea691a3/16662073-dynamic-ecosystem-endangered-ecosystem1.jpg)
