Stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes: A case study in the North China Plain

CONTEXT: Intensive agriculture is under pressure from changing demands from society, prompting the need to redesign agricultural landscapes to provide multiple ecosystem services (ESs). However, implementation of changed practices requires positive engagement from stakeholders. Therefore, their perspective on ecosystem services needs to be known. OBJECTIVE: This study investigates stakeholders' perspectives on multiple ESs in Quzhou County, an area in the North China Plain used for intensified cereal production. We aim to elucidate perspectives within and across diverse stakeholder groups (farmers, companies, citizens, academics, village and township heads, and county government staff). METHODS: Employing the Q methodology, we identified differences in perspectives within stakeholder groups and we compared the similarities and differences of those perspectives across stakeholder groups. We also investigated how farmers' personal and household characteristics were related to the perspectives they held. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences in preference emerged among stakeholder groups. Academics assigned higher importance to regulating and supporting services than other stakeholder groups and companies assigned less importance to cultural services. We identified 18 distinct perspectives across seven stakeholder groups. These perspectives showed a combination of preferences for at least two different ES categories. Most of the perspectives prioritize provisioning services whereas only few perspectives prioritize supporting services. SIGNIFICANCE: This study exemplifies a bottom-up approach for systematically analyzing stakeholder perspectives on the relative importance of ESs derived from agricultural landscapes. The revealed differences and complexity of stakeholder perspectives can inform decision-making on the redesign of agricultural landscapes with stakeholder engagement. Recognizing areas of consensus and conflict can guide efforts to promote agroecologically sound practices and policies.