Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Tacit working models of human behavioural change II: Farmers’ folk theories of conservation programme design

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Ambio Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Community involvement may be essential for conservation programme success. We focus on farmers, asking how and why they believe conservation interventions will work, or not. Here we test models of folk theories of the human motivational factors required for behaviour change, in 3 rural central Chilean communities. We hypothesize that different models will be supported by farmers with different experiences with conservation programmes, and that socioeconomic and production system variation will explain further variation in who supports each working model. We use a multiple methods approach, combining a questionnaire with participant-observation. We find support for three of the working models of human behavioural change, among different socio-economic profiles of farmers. We believe that the schema of working models provides a boundary object to facilitate communication between conservationists and stakeholders, and can help improve conservation project design and implementation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Agnoletti, M., and I.D. Rotherham. 2015. Landscape and biocultural diversity. Biodiversity and Conservation 24: 3155–3165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alfonso, A., F. Zorondo-Rodríguez, and J.A. Simonetti. 2017. Perceived changes in environmental degradation and loss of ecosystem services, and their implications in human well-being. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 24: 561–574.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armesto, J.J., D. Manuschevich, A. Mora, C. Smith-Ramirez, R. Rozzi, A.M. Abarzúa, and P.A. Marquet. 2010. From the Holocene to the Anthropocene: A historical framework for land cover change in southwestern South America in the past 15,000 years. Land Use Policy 27: 148–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barreiro-Hurlé, J., M. Espinosa-Goded, and P. Dupraz. 2010. Does intensity of change matter? Factors affecting adoption of agri-environmental schemes in Spain. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 53: 891–905.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benton, T.G., J.A. Vickery, and J.D. Wilson. 2003. Farmland biodiversity: Is habitat heterogeneity the key? Trends in Ecology & Evolution 18: 182–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes, F. 1999. Sacred ecology: Traditional ecological knowledge and management systems. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berkes, F. 2004. Rethinking community-based conservation. Conservation Biology 18: 621–630.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bidegain, I., C. Cerda, E. Catalán, A. Tironi, and C. López-Santiago. 2019. Social preferences for ecosystem services in a biodiversity hotspot in South America. PLoS ONE 14: e0215715.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Blake, J. 1999. Overcoming the ‘value-action gap’ in environmental policy: Tensions between national policy and local experience. Local Environment 4: 257–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borges, J.A.R., A.G.O. Lansink, C.M. Ribeiro, and V. Lutke. 2014. Understanding farmers’ intention to adopt improved natural grassland using the theory of planned behavior. Livestock Science 169: 163–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boza, S., Marcos, G., Cortés, M., & Mora, M. 2016. Perfiles basados en actitudes hacia los programas de apoyo público de microempresarios rurales de la zona central de Chile. Revista de la Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias, 48(2).

  • Budds, J. 2004. Power, nature and neoliberalism: The political ecology of water in Chile. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography 25: 322–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Büscher, B., and W. Wolmer. 2007. Introduction: The politics of engagement between biodiversity conservation and the social sciences. Conservation and Society 5: 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabrera, J., and P. Rojas. 2010. Pago por servicios ambientales: conceptos y aplicación en Chile. Instituto Forestal, informe técnico, Valdivia, Chile, 144.

  • Calle, A., F. Montagnini, and A.F. Zuluaga. 2009. Farmer’s perceptions of silvopastoral system promotion in Quindío, Colombia. Bois et forets des tropiques 300: 79–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castro de Hallgren S., and M. Root-Bernstein. 2018. Changing behaviours, changing policy—Evidence on behavioural insights for green growth. GGKP Working Paper 01.

  • CED, Centro de Estudios del Desarrollo. 2013. Desarrollo e implementación inicial del paisaje de conservación de la comuna de Alhue. Informe Final: Región Metropolitana de Santiago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cerda, C., J. Barkmann, and R. Marggraf. 2014. Non-market economic valuation of the benefits provided by temperate ecosystems at the extreme south of the Americas. Regional Environmental Change 14: 1517–1531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cerda, C., A. Ponce, and M. Zappi. 2013. Using choice experiments to understand public demand for the conservation of nature: A case study in central Chile. Journal of Nature Conservation 21: 143–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K.M.A., P. Balvanera, K. Benessaiah, M. Chapman, S. Díaz, E. Gómez-Baggethun, R. Gould, N. Hannahs, et al. 2016. Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113: 1462–1465.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Colding, J., C. Folke, and T. Elmqvist. 2003. Social institutions in ecosystem management and biodiversity conservation. Tropical Ecology 44: 24–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Defrancesco, E., P. Gatto, F. Runge, and S. Trestini. 2008. Factors affecting farmers’ participation in agri-environmental measures: A northern Italian perspective. Journal of Agricultural Economics 59: 114–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Di Giminiani, P., and M. Fonck. 2018. Emerging landscapes of private conservation: Enclosure and mediation in southern Chilean protected areas. Geoforum.

  • Drew, J. A., and A.P. Henne. 2006. Conservation biology and traditional ecological knowledge: Integrating academic disciplines for better conservation practice. Ecology and Society 11(2).

  • Echeverría, C., D. Coomes, J. Salas, J.M. Rey-Benayas, A. Lara, and A. Newton. 2006. Rapid deforestation and fragmentation of Chilean temperate forests. Biological Conservation 130: 481–494.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellis-Jones, J., and T. Mason. 1999. Livelihood strategies and assets of small farmers in the evaluation of soil and water management practices in the temperate inter-Andean valleys of Bolivia. Mountain Research and Development 19: 221–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evenson, R.E., and D. Gollin. 2003. Assessing the impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000. Science 300: 758–762.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • FAO, 2014. Agricultura familiar en America Latina y el Caribe: recomendaciones de política. www.fao.org/publications.

  • Fawaz, J., P. Soto, and R. Vallejos. 2015. Female micro-enterprises in rural central Chile. Construction and reconstruction of the role of women in agriculture. A case study. Athens Journal of Business and Economics, 1(3).

  • Flint, C.G., A.E. Luloff, and J.C. Finley. 2008. Where is “community” in community-based forestry? Society and Natural Resources 21: 526–537.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foley, J.A., R. DeFries, G.P. Asner, C. Barford, G. Bonan, S.R. Carpenter, F.S. Chapin, and M.T. Coe. 2005. Global consequences of land use. Science 309: 570–574.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Frascaroli, F., S. Bhagwat, and M. Diemer. 2014. Healing animals, feeding souls: Ethnobotanica values at sacred sites in central Italy. Economic Botany 68: 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gadgil, M., F. Berkes, and C. Folke. 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22: 151–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gómez-Baggethun, E., R. De Groot, P.L. Lomas, and C. Montes. 2010. The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics 69: 1209–1218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geertz, C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelcich, S., G. Edwards-Jones, and M.J. Kaiser. 2005. Importance of attitudinal differences among artisanal fishers toward co-management and conservation of marine resources. Conservation Biology 19: 865–875.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, C.C., M.A. McKean, and E. Ostrom. 2000. Explaining deforestation: The role of local institutions. In People and forests: Communities, institutions, and governance, eds. Gibson, C.C., M.A. McKean, and E. Ostrom, 1–26. London: MIT Press.

  • Hernández, A., M.D. Miranda, E.C. Arellano, and C. Dobbs. 2016. Landscape trajectories and their effect on fragmentation for a Mediterranean semi-arid ecosystem in Central Chile. Journal of Arid Environments 127: 74–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann, T.M., E. Schüttler, P. Benavides, N. Gálvez, L. Söhn, and N. Palomo. 2013. Values, animal symbolism, and human-animal relationships associated to two threatened felids in Mapuche and Chilean local narratives. Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 9: 41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herzon, I., and M. Mikk. 2007. Farmers’ perceptions of biodiversity and their willingness to enhance it through agri-environment schemes: A comparative study from Estonia and Finland. Journal for Nature Conservation 15: 10–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huenchuleo, C., J. Barkmann, and P. Villalobos. 2012. Social psychology predictors for the adoption of soil conservation measures in Central Chile. Land Degradation and Development 23: 483–495.

    Google Scholar 

  • INE, Instituto Nacional de Estadistica. 2007. Censo agropecuario y forestal.

  • INE, Instituto Nacional de Estadistica. 2017. Resultados censo de población y vivienda 2017.

  • Jaime, M.M., and C.A. Salazar. 2011. Participation in organizations, technical efficiency and territorial differences: A study of small wheat farmers in Chile. Chilean Journal of Agricultural Research 71: 104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jepson, P., and S. Canney. 2003. Values led conservation. Global Ecology and Biogeography 12: 271–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson-Laird, P.N., and K. Oatley. 1992. Basic emotions, rationality, and folk theory. Cognition and Emotion 6: 201–223.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen, D. L. 2015. Participant observation. In Emerging trends in the social and behavioral sciences: An interdisciplinary, searchable, and linkable resource, eds. R.A. Scott, R.H. Scott, S.M. Kosslyn, 1–15. London: Wiley.

  • Kashima, Y., P. Bain, N. Haslam, K. Peters, S. Laham, J. Whelan, B. Bastian, S. Loughnan, L. Kaufmann, and J. Fernando. 2009. Folk theory of social change. Asian Journal of Social Psychology 12: 227–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollmuss, A., and J. Agyeman. 2002. Mind the gap: Why do people act environmentally and what are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior? Environmental education research 8: 239–260.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuehne, G. 2014. How do farmers’ climate change beliefs affect adaptation to climate change? Society & Natural Resources 27: 492–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz, M. 2001. State developmentalism without a developmental state: The public foundations of the “free market miracle” in Chile. Latin American Politics and Society 43: 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambin, E.F., B.L. Turner, H.J. Geist, S.B. Agbola, A. Angelsen, J.W. Bruce, O.T. Coomes, R. Dirzo, et al. 2001. The causes of land-use and land-cover change: Moving beyond the myths. Global Environmental Change 11: 261–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lima M., M. Skutsch, and G. de Medeiros Costa. 2011. Deforestation and the social impacts of soy for biodiesel: Perspectives of farmers in the South Brazilian Amazon. Ecology and Society, 16(4).

  • Lobley, M., and C. Potter. 1998. Environmental stewardship in UK agriculture: A comparison of the environmentally sensitive area programme and the countryside stewardship scheme in South East England. Geoforum 29: 413–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • López-Santiago, C.A., M. Aguado, J.A.G. Novoa, and I. Bidegain. 2019. Evaluación sociocultural del paisaje: una necesidad para la planificación y gestión sostenible de los sistemas socioecológicos. Aportaciones y utilidad de los métodos visuales. In Naturaleza en Sociedad: Una mirada a la dimensión humana de la conservación de la biodiversidad, ed. C. Cerda, C. Briceño, and E. Silva-Rodríguez, 107–141. Santiago, Chile: Editorial Ocho Libros.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, S., S.M. Swinton, F. Lupi, and C. Jolejole-Foreman. 2012. Farmers’ willingness to participate in Payment for Environmental Services programmes. Journal of Agricultural Economics 63: 604–626.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, G.E. 1995. Ethnography in/of the World System: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 95–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mascia, M.B., J.P. Brosius, T.A. Dobson, B.C. Forbes, L. Horowitz, M.A. McKean, and N.J. Turner. 2003. Conservation and the social sciences. Conservation Biology 17: 649–650.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moguel, P., and V.M. Toledo. 1999. Biodiversity conservation in traditional coffee systems of Mexico. Conservation Biology 13: 11–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moon, K., T.D. Brewer, S.R. Januchowski-Hartley, V.M. Adams, and D.A. Blackman. 2016. A guideline to improve qualitative social science publishing in ecology and conservation journals. Ecology and Society 21: 17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, C. 2004. Networks of agri-environmental policy implementatio: A case of England’s Countryside Stewardship Scheme. Land Use Policy 21: 177–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, J., J. Mills, and I.M. Crawford. 2000. Promoting farmer uptake of agri-environment schemes: The Countryside Stewardship Arable Options Scheme. Land Use Policy 17: 241–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morris, C., and C. Potter. 1995. Recruiting the new conservationists: Farmers’ adoption of agri-environmental schemes in the UK. Journal of Rural Studies 11: 51–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moyano Altamirano, C. 2014. Oficios campesinos del Valle de Aconcagua. Ediciones Inubicalistas: Santiago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, W.E. 2002. The neoliberal inheritance: Agrarian policy and rural differentiation in democratic Chile. Bulletin of Latin American Research 21: 425–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, W.E. 2003. From dependency to reform and back again: The Chilean peasan- try during the twentieth century. In Latin American peasants, ed. T. Brass, 185–221. London: Frank Cass Publishers, Library of Peasant Studies.

  • Murray, W.E. 2006. Neo-feudalism in Latin America? Globalisation, agribusiness, and land re-concentration in Chile. The Journal of Peasant Studies 33: 646–677.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newing, H., C. Eagle, R.K. Puri, and C.W. Watson. 2011. Conducting Research in conservation: A social science perspective. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perfecto, I., and R. Snelling. 1995. Biodiversity and the transformation of a tropical agroecosystem: Ants in coffee plantations. Ecological Applications 5: 1084–1097.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pingali, P.L. 2012. Green revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109: 12302–12308.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • PLADECO Alhué (Development Plan for the Municipality of Alhué) 2014-2020, Paisaje de Conservación. 2014. Municipality of Alhué.

  • PLADECO Pintué (Development Plan for the Municipality of Pintué). 2014. Municipality of Paine.

  • PLADECO Doñihue (Development Plan for the Municipality of Doñihue). 2012. Municipality of Doñihue.

  • Porro, R. 2005. Palms, pastures, and swidden fields: The grounded political ecology of “agro-extractive/shifting-cultivator peasants” in Maranhão, Brazil. Human Ecology 33: 17–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rands, M.R.W., W.M. Adams, L. Bennun, S.H.M. Butchart, A. Clements, D. Coomes, A. Entwistle, I. Hodge, et al. 2010. Biodiversity conservation: Challenges beyond 2010. Science 329: 1298–1303.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, S., A. Kuper, and B.D. Hodges. 2008. Qualitative research methodologies: Ethnography. BMJ 337: a1020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roco, L., B. Bravo-Ureta, A. Engler, and R. Jara-Rojas. 2017. The impact of climatic change adaptation on agricultural productivity in Central Chile: A stochastic production frontier approach. Sustainability 9: 1648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roco, L., A. Engler, B.E. Bravo-Ureta, and R. Jara-Rojas. 2015. Farmers’ perception of climate change in mediterranean Chile. Regional Environmental Change 15: 867–879.

    Google Scholar 

  • Root-Bernstein, M. 2014. Nostalgia, the fleeting and the rare in Chilean relationships to nature and non human animals. Society & Animals 22: 560–579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Root-Bernstein, M. 2020. Tacit working models of human behavioural change I: Implementation of conservation projects. Ambio. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01298-4.

  • Rotherham, I.D. 2015. Bio-cultural heritage and biodiversity: Emerging paradigms in conservation and planning. Biodiversity and Conservation 24: 3405–3429.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandbrook, C., W.M. Adams, B. Büscher, and B. Vira. 2013. Social research and biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 27: 1487–1490.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schomers, S., and B. Matzdorf. 2013. Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosystem Services 6: 16–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schulz, J.J., L. Cayuela, J.M. Rey-Benayas, and B. Schröder. 2011. Factors influencing vegetation cover change in Mediterranean Central Chile (1975–2008). Applied Vegetation Science 14: 571–582.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siebert, R., M. Toogood, and A. Knierim. 2006. Factors affecting European farmers’ participation in biodiversity policies. Sociologia Ruralis 46: 318–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, H.G., J. Dänhardt, Å. Lindström, and M. Rundlöf. 2010. Consequences of organic farming and landscape heterogeneity for species richness and abundance of farmland birds. Oecologia 162: 1071–1079.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoate, C., A. Báldi, P. Beja, N.D. Boatman, I. Herzon, A. van Doorn, G.R. de Snoo, I. Rakosy, et al. 2009. Ecological impacts of early 21st century agricultural change in Europe—A review. Journal of Environmental Management 91: 22–46.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, W.J., L.V. Dicks, M. Everard, and D. Geneletti. 2018. Qualitative methods for ecologists and conservation scientists. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 9: 7–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tallis, H., and J. Lubchenco. 2014. Working together: A call for inclusive conservation. Nature News 515: 27.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tangvald-Pedersen, O., and R. Bongaardt. 2017. Towards a tinkering participatory research method in mental health. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research 19: 7–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaman, R., P. Lyver, R. Mpande, E. Perez, J. Cariño, and K. Takeuchi (eds.). 2013. The contribution of indigenous and local knowledge systems to IPBES: Building synergies with science. IPBES Expert Meeting Report, UNESCO/UNU, 49. UNESCO: Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tironi, M., M. Salazar, and D. Valenzuela. 2013. Resisting and accepting: Farmers’ hybrid epistemologies in the GMO controversy in Chile. Technology in Society 35: 93–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Titz, A., T. Cannon, and F. Krüger. 2018. Uncovering ‘community’: Challenging an elusive concept in development and disaster related work. Societies 8: 71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toomey, A.H., A.T. Knight, and J. Barlow. 2017. Navigating the space between research and implementation in conservation. Conservation Letters 10: 619–625.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Uytvanck, J., and K. Verheyen. 2014. Grazing as a tool for wood-pasture restoration and management. In European wood-pastures in transition: A socio-ecological approach, eds. T. Hartel, T. Plieninger, 149–167. New York: Routledge.

  • Vargas, B.H. 2018. Paisaje De Conservación Y Vulnerabilidad Socioambiental. Conocimiento De La Flora Del Bosque Esclerófilo. Comunidad De Pichi, Comuna De Alhué, Chile. Proyecto de Grado, Magister en Áreas Silvestres y Conservación de la Naturaleza. Facultad de Ciencias Forestales y de la Conservación de la Naturaleza, Universidad de Chile.

  • Waylen, K.A., A. Fischer, P.J. Mcgowan, S.J. Thirgood, and E.J. Milner-Gulland. 2010. Effect of local cultural context on the success of community-based conservation interventions. Conservation Biology 24: 1119–1129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, T. 1982. Landowners and reform in Chile: The Sociedad Nacional de Agricultura, 1919-1940. London: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, J., L. Lebel, and J. Sturgeon. 2009. Functional links between biodiversity, livelihoods, and culture in a Hani swidden landscape in southwest China. Ecology and Society 14: 20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zorondo-Rodríguez, F., V. Reyes-García, and J.A. Simonetti. 2014. Conservation of biodiversity in private lands: Are Chilean landowners willing to keep threatened species in their lands? Revista Chilena de Historia Natural 1: 4.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

MR-B benefited from a Marie Curie FP7 COFUND Agreenskills Plus Fellowship. The study was partially supported by Fondecyt-Iniciación 11160672. We are grateful to numerous people who shared their knowledge and provided assistance and support, including Berta Holgado Vargas, Lucia Abello, Andrea Parra, the PRODESAL Alhué team, the PRODESAL Paine team, the municipal staff of Alhué and Paine, the Altos de Cantillana Nature Sanctuary team, Bernardita Castro and of course all the farmers who participated in the questionnaire and others whom we interviewed and who shared their experience with us.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UMR Sciences pour l’Action et le Développement, Activités, Produits, Territoires, INRA, AgroParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, 78850, Thiverval-Grignon, France

    M. Root-Bernstein

  2. Instituto de Ecología y Biodiversidad, Santiago, Chile

    M. Root-Bernstein & M. Guerrero-Gatica

  3. ISTOM, École Supérieure d’Agro-Développement International, Cergy-Pontoise, France

    A. Bondoux

  4. Department of Agrarian Management, University of Santiago, Santiago, Chile

    F. Zorondo-Rodriguez

Authors
  1. M. Root-Bernstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. Bondoux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Guerrero-Gatica
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. F. Zorondo-Rodriguez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Root-Bernstein.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 561 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Root-Bernstein, M., Bondoux, A., Guerrero-Gatica, M. et al. Tacit working models of human behavioural change II: Farmers’ folk theories of conservation programme design. Ambio 49, 1658–1675 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01315-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-019-01315-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation