How much would it cost to monitor farmland biodiversity in Europe?

Ilse R. Geijzendorffer, Stefano Targetti, Manuel K. Schneider, Dick J. Brus, Philippe Jeanneret, Robert H G Jongman, Martin Knotters, Davide Viaggi, Siyka Angelova, Michaela Arndorfer, Debra Bailey, Katalin Balázs, A. Báldi, Marion M B Bogers, Robert G H Bunce, Jean Philippe Choisis, Peter Dennis, Sebastian Eiter, Wendy Fjellstad, Jürgen K. FriedelTiziano Gomiero, Arjan Griffioen, Max Kainz, Anikó Kovács-Hostyánszki, Gisela Lüscher, Gerardo Moreno, Juri Nascimbene, Maurizio G. Paoletti, Philippe Pointereau, Jean Pierre Sarthou, Norman Siebrecht, Igor Staritsky, Siyka Stoyanova, Sebastian Wolfrum, Felix Herzog

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

To evaluate progress on political biodiversity objectives, biodiversity monitoring provides information on whether intended results are being achieved. Despite scientific proof that monitoring and evaluation increase the (cost) efficiency of policy measures, cost estimates for monitoring schemes are seldom available, hampering their inclusion in policy programme budgets. Empirical data collected from 12 case studies across Europe were used in a power analysis to estimate the number of farms that would need to be sampled per major farm type to detect changes in species richness over time for four taxa (vascular plants, earthworms, spiders and bees). A sampling design was developed to allocate spatially, across Europe, the farms that should be sampled. Cost estimates are provided for nine monitoring scenarios with differing robustness for detecting temporal changes in species numbers. These cost estimates are compared with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) budget (2014-2020) to determine the budget allocation required for the proposed farmland biodiversity monitoring. Results show that the bee indicator requires the highest number of farms to be sampled and the vascular plant indicator the lowest. The costs for the nine farmland biodiversity monitoring scenarios corresponded to 0·01%-0·74% of the total CAP budget and to 0·04%-2·48% of the CAP budget specifically allocated to environmental targets. Synthesis and applications. The results of the cost scenarios demonstrate that, based on the taxa and methods used in this study, a Europe-wide farmland biodiversity monitoring scheme would require a modest share of the Common Agricultural Policy budget. The monitoring scenarios are flexible and can be adapted or complemented with alternate data collection options (e.g. at national scale or voluntary efforts), data mobilization, data integration or modelling efforts.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)140-149
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Applied Ecology
Volume53
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Feb 1 2016

Fingerprint

agricultural land
biodiversity
Common Agricultural Policy
monitoring
cost
farm
vascular plant
bee
Europe
earthworm
spider
mobilization
species richness
budget
sampling
modeling

Keywords

  • Agri-environment schemes
  • Agriculture
  • Biodiversity indicator
  • Common agricultural policy
  • Empirical data
  • Farming system
  • Habitat
  • Power analysis
  • Sampling design
  • Species trend

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ecology

Cite this

Geijzendorffer, I. R., Targetti, S., Schneider, M. K., Brus, D. J., Jeanneret, P., Jongman, R. H. G., ... Herzog, F. (2016). How much would it cost to monitor farmland biodiversity in Europe? Journal of Applied Ecology, 53(1), 140-149. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12552

How much would it cost to monitor farmland biodiversity in Europe? / Geijzendorffer, Ilse R.; Targetti, Stefano; Schneider, Manuel K.; Brus, Dick J.; Jeanneret, Philippe; Jongman, Robert H G; Knotters, Martin; Viaggi, Davide; Angelova, Siyka; Arndorfer, Michaela; Bailey, Debra; Balázs, Katalin; Báldi, A.; Bogers, Marion M B; Bunce, Robert G H; Choisis, Jean Philippe; Dennis, Peter; Eiter, Sebastian; Fjellstad, Wendy; Friedel, Jürgen K.; Gomiero, Tiziano; Griffioen, Arjan; Kainz, Max; Kovács-Hostyánszki, Anikó; Lüscher, Gisela; Moreno, Gerardo; Nascimbene, Juri; Paoletti, Maurizio G.; Pointereau, Philippe; Sarthou, Jean Pierre; Siebrecht, Norman; Staritsky, Igor; Stoyanova, Siyka; Wolfrum, Sebastian; Herzog, Felix.

In: Journal of Applied Ecology, Vol. 53, No. 1, 01.02.2016, p. 140-149.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Geijzendorffer, IR, Targetti, S, Schneider, MK, Brus, DJ, Jeanneret, P, Jongman, RHG, Knotters, M, Viaggi, D, Angelova, S, Arndorfer, M, Bailey, D, Balázs, K, Báldi, A, Bogers, MMB, Bunce, RGH, Choisis, JP, Dennis, P, Eiter, S, Fjellstad, W, Friedel, JK, Gomiero, T, Griffioen, A, Kainz, M, Kovács-Hostyánszki, A, Lüscher, G, Moreno, G, Nascimbene, J, Paoletti, MG, Pointereau, P, Sarthou, JP, Siebrecht, N, Staritsky, I, Stoyanova, S, Wolfrum, S & Herzog, F 2016, 'How much would it cost to monitor farmland biodiversity in Europe?', Journal of Applied Ecology, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 140-149. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12552
Geijzendorffer IR, Targetti S, Schneider MK, Brus DJ, Jeanneret P, Jongman RHG et al. How much would it cost to monitor farmland biodiversity in Europe? Journal of Applied Ecology. 2016 Feb 1;53(1):140-149. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12552
Geijzendorffer, Ilse R. ; Targetti, Stefano ; Schneider, Manuel K. ; Brus, Dick J. ; Jeanneret, Philippe ; Jongman, Robert H G ; Knotters, Martin ; Viaggi, Davide ; Angelova, Siyka ; Arndorfer, Michaela ; Bailey, Debra ; Balázs, Katalin ; Báldi, A. ; Bogers, Marion M B ; Bunce, Robert G H ; Choisis, Jean Philippe ; Dennis, Peter ; Eiter, Sebastian ; Fjellstad, Wendy ; Friedel, Jürgen K. ; Gomiero, Tiziano ; Griffioen, Arjan ; Kainz, Max ; Kovács-Hostyánszki, Anikó ; Lüscher, Gisela ; Moreno, Gerardo ; Nascimbene, Juri ; Paoletti, Maurizio G. ; Pointereau, Philippe ; Sarthou, Jean Pierre ; Siebrecht, Norman ; Staritsky, Igor ; Stoyanova, Siyka ; Wolfrum, Sebastian ; Herzog, Felix. / How much would it cost to monitor farmland biodiversity in Europe?. In: Journal of Applied Ecology. 2016 ; Vol. 53, No. 1. pp. 140-149.
@article{679c27b7d1344e12bfcfd53e1b21c9d6,
title = "How much would it cost to monitor farmland biodiversity in Europe?",
abstract = "To evaluate progress on political biodiversity objectives, biodiversity monitoring provides information on whether intended results are being achieved. Despite scientific proof that monitoring and evaluation increase the (cost) efficiency of policy measures, cost estimates for monitoring schemes are seldom available, hampering their inclusion in policy programme budgets. Empirical data collected from 12 case studies across Europe were used in a power analysis to estimate the number of farms that would need to be sampled per major farm type to detect changes in species richness over time for four taxa (vascular plants, earthworms, spiders and bees). A sampling design was developed to allocate spatially, across Europe, the farms that should be sampled. Cost estimates are provided for nine monitoring scenarios with differing robustness for detecting temporal changes in species numbers. These cost estimates are compared with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) budget (2014-2020) to determine the budget allocation required for the proposed farmland biodiversity monitoring. Results show that the bee indicator requires the highest number of farms to be sampled and the vascular plant indicator the lowest. The costs for the nine farmland biodiversity monitoring scenarios corresponded to 0·01{\%}-0·74{\%} of the total CAP budget and to 0·04{\%}-2·48{\%} of the CAP budget specifically allocated to environmental targets. Synthesis and applications. The results of the cost scenarios demonstrate that, based on the taxa and methods used in this study, a Europe-wide farmland biodiversity monitoring scheme would require a modest share of the Common Agricultural Policy budget. The monitoring scenarios are flexible and can be adapted or complemented with alternate data collection options (e.g. at national scale or voluntary efforts), data mobilization, data integration or modelling efforts.",
keywords = "Agri-environment schemes, Agriculture, Biodiversity indicator, Common agricultural policy, Empirical data, Farming system, Habitat, Power analysis, Sampling design, Species trend",
author = "Geijzendorffer, {Ilse R.} and Stefano Targetti and Schneider, {Manuel K.} and Brus, {Dick J.} and Philippe Jeanneret and Jongman, {Robert H G} and Martin Knotters and Davide Viaggi and Siyka Angelova and Michaela Arndorfer and Debra Bailey and Katalin Bal{\'a}zs and A. B{\'a}ldi and Bogers, {Marion M B} and Bunce, {Robert G H} and Choisis, {Jean Philippe} and Peter Dennis and Sebastian Eiter and Wendy Fjellstad and Friedel, {J{\"u}rgen K.} and Tiziano Gomiero and Arjan Griffioen and Max Kainz and Anik{\'o} Kov{\'a}cs-Hosty{\'a}nszki and Gisela L{\"u}scher and Gerardo Moreno and Juri Nascimbene and Paoletti, {Maurizio G.} and Philippe Pointereau and Sarthou, {Jean Pierre} and Norman Siebrecht and Igor Staritsky and Siyka Stoyanova and Sebastian Wolfrum and Felix Herzog",
year = "2016",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/1365-2664.12552",
language = "English",
volume = "53",
pages = "140--149",
journal = "Journal of Applied Ecology",
issn = "0021-8901",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How much would it cost to monitor farmland biodiversity in Europe?

AU - Geijzendorffer, Ilse R.

AU - Targetti, Stefano

AU - Schneider, Manuel K.

AU - Brus, Dick J.

AU - Jeanneret, Philippe

AU - Jongman, Robert H G

AU - Knotters, Martin

AU - Viaggi, Davide

AU - Angelova, Siyka

AU - Arndorfer, Michaela

AU - Bailey, Debra

AU - Balázs, Katalin

AU - Báldi, A.

AU - Bogers, Marion M B

AU - Bunce, Robert G H

AU - Choisis, Jean Philippe

AU - Dennis, Peter

AU - Eiter, Sebastian

AU - Fjellstad, Wendy

AU - Friedel, Jürgen K.

AU - Gomiero, Tiziano

AU - Griffioen, Arjan

AU - Kainz, Max

AU - Kovács-Hostyánszki, Anikó

AU - Lüscher, Gisela

AU - Moreno, Gerardo

AU - Nascimbene, Juri

AU - Paoletti, Maurizio G.

AU - Pointereau, Philippe

AU - Sarthou, Jean Pierre

AU - Siebrecht, Norman

AU - Staritsky, Igor

AU - Stoyanova, Siyka

AU - Wolfrum, Sebastian

AU - Herzog, Felix

PY - 2016/2/1

Y1 - 2016/2/1

N2 - To evaluate progress on political biodiversity objectives, biodiversity monitoring provides information on whether intended results are being achieved. Despite scientific proof that monitoring and evaluation increase the (cost) efficiency of policy measures, cost estimates for monitoring schemes are seldom available, hampering their inclusion in policy programme budgets. Empirical data collected from 12 case studies across Europe were used in a power analysis to estimate the number of farms that would need to be sampled per major farm type to detect changes in species richness over time for four taxa (vascular plants, earthworms, spiders and bees). A sampling design was developed to allocate spatially, across Europe, the farms that should be sampled. Cost estimates are provided for nine monitoring scenarios with differing robustness for detecting temporal changes in species numbers. These cost estimates are compared with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) budget (2014-2020) to determine the budget allocation required for the proposed farmland biodiversity monitoring. Results show that the bee indicator requires the highest number of farms to be sampled and the vascular plant indicator the lowest. The costs for the nine farmland biodiversity monitoring scenarios corresponded to 0·01%-0·74% of the total CAP budget and to 0·04%-2·48% of the CAP budget specifically allocated to environmental targets. Synthesis and applications. The results of the cost scenarios demonstrate that, based on the taxa and methods used in this study, a Europe-wide farmland biodiversity monitoring scheme would require a modest share of the Common Agricultural Policy budget. The monitoring scenarios are flexible and can be adapted or complemented with alternate data collection options (e.g. at national scale or voluntary efforts), data mobilization, data integration or modelling efforts.

AB - To evaluate progress on political biodiversity objectives, biodiversity monitoring provides information on whether intended results are being achieved. Despite scientific proof that monitoring and evaluation increase the (cost) efficiency of policy measures, cost estimates for monitoring schemes are seldom available, hampering their inclusion in policy programme budgets. Empirical data collected from 12 case studies across Europe were used in a power analysis to estimate the number of farms that would need to be sampled per major farm type to detect changes in species richness over time for four taxa (vascular plants, earthworms, spiders and bees). A sampling design was developed to allocate spatially, across Europe, the farms that should be sampled. Cost estimates are provided for nine monitoring scenarios with differing robustness for detecting temporal changes in species numbers. These cost estimates are compared with the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) budget (2014-2020) to determine the budget allocation required for the proposed farmland biodiversity monitoring. Results show that the bee indicator requires the highest number of farms to be sampled and the vascular plant indicator the lowest. The costs for the nine farmland biodiversity monitoring scenarios corresponded to 0·01%-0·74% of the total CAP budget and to 0·04%-2·48% of the CAP budget specifically allocated to environmental targets. Synthesis and applications. The results of the cost scenarios demonstrate that, based on the taxa and methods used in this study, a Europe-wide farmland biodiversity monitoring scheme would require a modest share of the Common Agricultural Policy budget. The monitoring scenarios are flexible and can be adapted or complemented with alternate data collection options (e.g. at national scale or voluntary efforts), data mobilization, data integration or modelling efforts.

KW - Agri-environment schemes

KW - Agriculture

KW - Biodiversity indicator

KW - Common agricultural policy

KW - Empirical data

KW - Farming system

KW - Habitat

KW - Power analysis

KW - Sampling design

KW - Species trend

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84953715557&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84953715557&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/1365-2664.12552

DO - 10.1111/1365-2664.12552

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84953715557

VL - 53

SP - 140

EP - 149

JO - Journal of Applied Ecology

JF - Journal of Applied Ecology

SN - 0021-8901

IS - 1

ER -