Raimon Ripoll-Bosch

It is crucial that biodiversity conservation initiatives in agriculture take into account how farmers understand and value their relationships with nature. However, while highly relevant for pan‐European conservation work, insight into differences and commonalities in farmers' views across socio‐ecologically different European regions is still lacking. Therefore, we studied how farmers describe the relationship between how they farm and biodiversity in two contrasting regions: the Netherlands and the French Massif Central. In both regions, we included two specific study areas. We focused on dairy farming, as it is a key sector in terms of socio‐economic importance and biodiversity impact in both regions. In each area, we conducted 15 in‐depth interviews focusing on the impacts of the farm on biodiversity and vice versa, as well as on the relational importance of biodiversity to the farmer. We allowed farmers to use the term ‘biodiversity’ in their own words. We analysed our data using the Integrated Nature Futures Framework (I‐NFF), a recently proposed framework for analysing what people value positively and negatively about nature‐related matters. Six main narratives emerged, which we named ‘farming WITH biodiversity’, ‘farming FROM biodiversity—valorising what is there’, ‘farming FROM biodiversity—innovating for sustainability’, ‘farming FOR biodiversity’, ‘farming SEPARATE from biodiversity—out of necessity’ and ‘farming SEPARATE from biodiversity—out of conviction’. These narratives vary in how farmers conceptualise biodiversity, perceive and value interactions between farming and biodiversity, and define problems and solutions. Although we encountered partly the same narratives in the Dutch and Massif Central areas, we also noted considerable differences. In the Dutch areas, we frequently encountered ‘FOR’, which strongly depicts biodiversity as an additional service that requires payment, and ‘SEPARATE—out of conviction’, which argues for production‐intensive systems. In the Massif Central areas, we virtually never encountered these narratives and instead more often encountered ‘WITH’, which depicts farming as naturally integrated with biodiversity. Moreover, the narratives had strong region‐specific details. We close by discussing how better insight into such differences and commonalities can help foster more understanding engagement with farmers on the topic of biodiversity. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.

Climate change will increase average temperatures and the frequency and intensity of summertime droughts; those shifts will in turn affect forage production in grassland-based livestock farms. Farmers will accordingly likely have to implement adaptation strategies to cope with the effects of climate change. We hypothesized that farmers' resilience strategies would depend on (i) their intention to adapt to climate change, which partly results from previous climate risk exposure, (ii) how they perceive the values and disvalues of multi-species permanent grasslands (PGs), and (iii) that both of the aforementioned factors would vary according to the geographical context of each farm. We carried out 15 semi-structured interviews with dairy cattle farmers in the French Massif Central; the farms were distributed along a range of climatic and topographic conditions. We used (i) the Model of Proactive Private Adaptation to Climate Change to analyze farmers' individual process of adaptation, (ii) the Integrated Nature Futures Framework to analyze farmers' perception of multi-species PGs, and (iii) text analysis to identify the farmers' adaptation strategies. Nine of the farmers felt that they were already adapted to climate change or that they had a plan in place to implement new adaptations in the future. We observed straightforward relationships between these farmers' perception of PGs and their choice of adaptation strategy; those relationships varied, however, with the geographical context of each farm. Farmers in the northern Massif Central and southern uplands highlighted the values of PGs and considered PGs to be central to their adaption strategies. Conversely, farmers in the southern lowlands mostly referred to the disvalues of PGs; they based their adaptation strategies on temporary grasslands and forage crops. Three of the farmers believed that climate change posed a significant risk, but they foresaw little room to maneuver. Despite acknowledging the values of PGs, those individuals did not intend to use PGs to adapt to climate change. The final three farmers did not intend to adapt to climate change; their reasoning stemmed from either a mindset of fatalism or their acknowledged desire to retire soon. Extreme events such as the summertime drought of 2003 and human factors such as intergenerational transmission of farm can accordingly facilitate or inhibit climate change-related adaptation. It is accordingly important to take into account both socio-psychological and environmental factors when analyzing how grassland-based farmers transition to more climate change-resilient systems.

Food systems are largely responsible for today’s anthropogenic environmental impacts. Transitioning towards a circular food system is seen as a promising solution to reduce land use (LU) and greenhouse gas emissions (GHGe). But what about biodiversity? The aim of this paper was to assess the potential of enhancing biodiversity in circular European food systems. Two scenarios were assessed with a food systems optimization model: land sharing or sparing while producing healthy food. Our results show that both scenarios can enhance biodiversity while reducing GHGe. The land sparing scenario reduced LU by 81%, depicting great potential for rewilding. However, reduction of LU was achieved via intensification, decreasing agroecosystem’s biodiversity (0 biodiversity score). Conversely, land sharing increased biodiversity in agroecosystems (86% biodiversity score), and LU was maintaned. Both scenarios require to radically redesign today’s food system. Our results demonstrate circular food systems can help enhance biodiversity via land sparing or sharing.

Taking into account the perspectives of local stakeholders is essential for just and effective biodiversity conservation. Plural valuation, making visible the diverse values people hold in relation to nature, has emerged as a key approach towards better inclusion of stakeholders' perspectives. So far, plural valuation has mainly focused on positive values, leaving equally important negative values underexposed. To address this, a concrete proposal has been presented to also consider ‘disvalues’. However, accessible frameworks to help practitioners apply this concept are arguably still lacking. To address this gap, we here propose the ‘Integrated Nature Futures Framework’ (I‐NFF), where ‘integrated’ indicates joint consideration of positive and negative values. The I‐NFF draws on the popular Nature Futures Framework (NFF) to develop disvalue thinking in a more accessible form. The I‐NFF considers three perspectives (‘nature’, ‘society’ and ‘culture’), based on which something can be placed on a spectrum from positive (‘for nature’, ‘for society’ and ‘as culture’) to negative (‘against nature’, ‘against society’ and ‘in conflict with culture’), and can be represented as two mirrored triangles. Using empirical data, we illustrate various purposes for which the I‐NFF can be used: to inventory nature‐related topics ‘at play’ in a given context, to depict how people frame their overall relationship with nature or to depict how people frame specific issues. This demonstrates how the I‐NFF helps reveal value pluralism and trade‐offs, capture the reciprocity of human–nature relationships and identify where perspectives differ and share common ground. We close by discussing how the I‐NFF can enhance the inclusion of stakeholder voices in biodiversity conservation, which is indispensable for a more nature‐ and people‐positive future. Read the free Plain Language Summary for this article on the Journal blog.