Drivers and mechanisms of pastoral system adaptation to climate change: An assessment in a French Alps case study region

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3093232/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Drivers and mechanisms of pastoral system adaptation to climate change: An assessment in a French Alps case study region

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3093232/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Alpine pastoral systems are examples of human-managed landscapes where farming practices are traditionally adapted to semi-natural forage resources. Climate change effects will likely drive farming management with relevant socioeconomic and environmental impacts on pastoral systems and mountain communities. However, pastoral systems are complex socio-ecological systems driven by a range of drivers such as policies and institutions that trigger a range of direct and indirect feedbacks and influence the adaptation response to climate change. We present a participatory approach based on different sources and types of knowledge, building of cognitive maps with local farmers, and testing of scenarios featuring different impacts on the local pastoral system. The approach is aimed at identifying the drivers of vulnerability, understanding the cause-effect relationships between the main stress factors affecting the local pastoral system and at discerning the “concurrent” factors that enable or constrain farmers’ adaptation capacity. Our results outline that unpredictability linked to climate variability is relevant for farmers’ decisions. Nonetheless, predation is clearly the most important threat hindering the utilization of upland grasslands. The results discussed with local stakeholders point to an attentive consideration of the expected increase in farmers’ workload linked to predation, climate variability stresses, and agricultural policy. Strategies aimed at enhancing the availability of skilled shepherds result as the most effective to decrease the workload for farmers, increase the adaptive capacity of the local pastoral system, and thus contribute effectively in contrasting the abandonment of mountain grasslands.

Agricultural Economics & Policy

Agri-environmental policy

agriculture

fuzzy cognitive mapping

grazing

mental models

predation

vulnerability

Ensuring that agricultural systems have the capacity to withstand the effects from climate change is relevant to preserve the vitality of rural areas and the bundle of ecosystem services including food provision provided by agro-ecosystems (Belliveau et al., 2006). The potential of farming systems to cope with, or adapt to, the effects of climate change involves both biophysical and socioeconomic factors as much as the consideration of different socio-ecological aspects (Eakin et al. 2011). Indeed, agriculture can be considered a socio-ecological-cultural system informed and regulated by social, institutional, and economic processes that suggests the importance to consider not just the system capacity to cope with shocks but also a range of environmental and social characteristics that modulate the impact of global changes (Marchant, 2020). These aspects include impacts of climate change on productivity and revenues, but also effects concerning the role of agri-environmental policy and technical support, the ability to adapt practices to contingencies, and farmers’ perception and awareness of risks (Darnhofer, 2017).

In mountain regions, climate change-related events have significantly increased in recent decades, generating noticeable consequences for people and ecosystems (IPCC, 2022). Alpine regions are considered as hot spots of climate change, but a wider range of issues concur to exacerbate or reduce the sensitivity of the local agricultural systems (Tasser et al., 2005). For instance, pastoral systems in the Alps are characterized by high biological diversity, historical traditions, and cultural heritage (Dobremez et al., 2014). They also hold complex linkages with downstream socio-ecological systems (e.g. Debolini et al., 2018 concerning the Mediterranean Alps). Moreover, since the 2nd half of the 20th Century, alpine socio-economic systems have encountered important land-use modifications associated with depopulation and the differentiation of economic activities such as tourism. This trend has been documented across Europe, where abandonment of grassland management was linked to a general depopulation in marginal rural areas and the indirect effects of the Common Agricultural Policy that has privileged agricultural activity on more fertile and accessible land (MacDonald et al. 2000).

Methodologies aiming at understanding the nature and magnitude of expected impacts of climate change on pastoral systems have commonly been framed by vulnerability analyses (Dong et al., 2011). Studies on farm vulnerability in mountain regions include constraining aspects for livestock activity such as accessibility, marginality and a range of feedback between grazing systems, ecosystems, other economic sectors such as tourism, and local institutions (Huber et al., 2013). Several approaches and methods have been implemented to identify and estimate indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity, either based on case-study approaches or by using models applied at the national scale (e.g. Polsky et al. 2003, Brooks et al. 2005). However, despite all progress made, there is still wide room to find the right fit for applying frameworks and methods to specific regions, considering the factors that affect farms’ vulnerability and the role that policy interventions have in helping, or harming, their adaptation capacities (Acosta-Michlik 2008, Eakin and Patt 2011). For instance, recent research has shown that land-use dynamics in the Alps are more nuanced than the simple relation isolation-abandonment and more comprehensive approaches are necessary to support the design of a more effective agricultural policy (Hinojosa et al., 2016a).

Important dynamics in mountain pastures relate to grassland conditions as these are the main forage resources on which the management of pastoral systems depends (Dibari et al. 2016). Nonetheless, accurate projections of climate change impacts on forage resources are difficult to assess and may be debated in terms of their level or nature (Choler et al., 2021; Brilli et al., 2023). Also, the dynamics affecting grasslands and their impact on local pastoral systems is debated. For instance, grazing systems strongly relying on semi-natural resources are expected to be much more affected in comparison to systems based on external resources (Marshall et al. 2014). From this perspective, farmers depending on local resources and strongly attached to their activity, as it is the case in alpine pastoral systems, are more sensitive to changes in quality, quantity, or access to, the forage resources on which they rely because of an intrinsic lower capacity to buffer local climate variability. On the other hand, strong links with semi-natural resources may also imply a higher ability to tackle climate change effects based on experience, awareness and the habit to adapt (Maru et al. 2014). In that rationale, a stronger link with semi-natural resources entails an improved capacity to detect subtle changes in the resource condition overtime, and an effective aptitude to put in place adaptation strategies. This underlines the role of local environmental knowledge and the more efficient ability of farmers that know their environment to recognize and respond to environmental feedbacks (Berkes et al., 2000).

In the last decade, progress in understanding the vulnerability and response of socio-ecological systems in the face of climate change was important. Nevertheless, understanding whether the higher adaptation capacity of local-resource-based systems can counterbalance its higher sensitivity remains practically challenging (Thiault et al., 2019). Research on the topic should involve effective participation of local actors, to explicitly address their perception of risk and the range of mechanisms that are potentially triggered by different stressors (Adger, 2006; Brand et al., 2013). In other words, what is needed is a methodological approach capable of embracing the complexity of socio-ecological systems (Norberg and Cumming, 2008).

The objective of this paper is to identify the drivers of vulnerability and adaptation strategies by means of a participatory approach used to co-construct an analytical framework, tailored to a pastoral system located in an alpine case study region. In particular, this work aims at understanding the cause-effect relationships between the main stress factors affecting the local pastoral system, and identifying the “concurrent” factors that enable or constrain the effectiveness of farmers’ adaptation capacity. The study approach relies on a participatory Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping (FCM) (Özesmi and Özesmi, 2004) to identify the factors and feedback relations between climate-change-related variables and the drivers of farming systems (Jetter and Kok, 2014). Local stakeholders interactively identified and assessed the relations between drivers and potential adaptation strategies in a case study region located in the Parc National des Écrins (PNE), French Southern Alps. By applying the FCM, results were then elaborated with local stakeholders to assess the more relevant mechanisms driving and affecting the vulnerability of the local pastoral system under climate change (Van Vliet et al., 2010).

1.1 Study area

The case study region is located in the the French Southern Alps, (Parc Nationa des Ecrins, PACA Region) (Fig. 1). It includes almost 70,000 ha of summer pastures, covering c.a. 30% of the PNE area, that are grazed by 115,000 ovine heads (75% of total stocking rate), 5,800 bovines and more than 1,000 goats and horses (National Pastoral Survey 2012–2014; https://enquete-pastorale.inrae.fr). Despite transhumance is declining across Europe (Lopez-Santiago et al., 2014), in the case study region it is still a relevant activity involving approximatively 30% of total ovine stocking rate (Brien, 2018).

Around 70% of upland pastures are collective properties (owned by the municipalities) on which local farmers are usually granted rights of use by means of contractual arrangements with the local administration. Since the 70s’, the French National Pastoral Law (Loi Pastorale 72/1972) has supported the establishment of farmers’ collectives (Groupements Pastoraux) for the exploitation of summer pastures. The law aims at boosting the competitiveness of the sector by improving the management of semi-natural grasslands, hire shepherds, etc. Consequently, 60% of farmers of the case study area are nowadays involved in these collectives characterized by large concentrations of flocks from different farm holdings.

Pasture management is extensive as it is based on local forage resources and limited external inputs. The predominant pastoral system in the study area is based on the traditional ‘vertical transhumance’, i.e. the displacement of livestock to upland grasslands (alpages) in summer while the meadows in the bottom valleys are mainly used for hay that is stocked to cover the October-February period. The purchase of hay is limited to cover contingencies such as extreme drought years. Additionally, in the summer season large flocks from Mediterranean lowland areas move to mountain pastures (the so-called La Grande Transhumance). These pastoral systems enable the management of large flocks with few requirements of additional infrastructures (e.g. barns or stables). On the other hand, these systems strongly rely on the availability of semi-natural pastures. Other less important forms of pastoral management include the custody of livestock (mainly heifers) from the neighboring regions in summer periods. Contrary to other European pastoral systems, local upland pastures are generally not under abandonment (Bernues et al. 2016). Abandonment of some areas is however observed, particularly in ‘interseason pastures’, which are located at lower altitudes or in smaller pastures (personal communication M.D. Parc National des Ecrins). .

Regarding climate factors that affect pastoralism in the Southern French Alps, higher temperature increases have been recorded: almost + 2° C since the XVIII Century in comparison to the average of + 1° C at the global scale (Gobiet et al., 2014). Also, the harsh drought events observed in the first decade of the 2000’s have raised local farmers communities’ concerns and have impacted the pastoral system (Lamarque et al., 2014).

Since the beginning of 2000, the increasing presence of pack of wolves from neighboring regions has forced fundamental changes in pastoral management. Among other effects, predation has raised the demand for shepherds and wolf-dogs, and the availability of shelters and paddocks to safeguard the flocks on summer pastures. The increased use of wolf-dogs during the summer season has entailed effects on other activities developed in the Alps, such as tourism. Indeed, the presence of wolf-dogs has triggered tension over the use of mountain areas, notably by backpackers and locals accessing the mountain trails.

1.2 Participatory building and assessment of the analytical framework

The socioeconomic analytical framework was developed following a participatory-based process that targeted a wide range of aspects and factors influencing the local pastoral system. The framework concerned three dimensions of analysis to assess diverse potential climate change impacts on the local pastoral system and to identify the more relevant factors that enhance (or reduce) its adaptive capacity (Fraser et al. 2011; Metzger et al., 2006). These are: 1) climate change impacts on the local agro-ecosystem resources (Brilli et al., 2023); 2) a stakeholder-based assessment of socioeconomic sensitivity, directly or indirectly linked to those changes. This was based on a step-by-step system mapping development (Dentoni et al. 2022); and 3) an exploration of the ‘pro-active’ adaptation practices that local farmers could mobilize. The process was aimed at developing a FCM focused on local farmers’ perception of the cause-effect links and mechanisms driving the management of the local pastoral system, and of the potential changes in upland pasture utilization.

The participatory-based process was carried-out between 2017 and 2022 with a group of 64 local stakeholders including farmers and farmers’ associations, technicians, members of the Center of Studies and Pastoral Achievements of Mediterranean Alps (CERPAM), and representatives of local institutions (i.e., the PNE, local decision-makers, and agriculture-support institutions such as the local Chamber of Agriculture). Stakeholders were invited to actively join a panel to discuss and debate on the local pastoral system and the challenges and opportunities linked to climate change in the case study region. The selection of stakeholders was facilitated by the Alpages Sentinelles network, a long-standing working group that facilitates information exchange between local and regional actors regarding climate change and pastoral management (Dobremez et al. 2014). The participatory process included three workshops, several interviews, and informal discussions that were carried out in parallel with pasture-use data collection and analysis (Fig. 2).

The first round of stakeholder workshops consisted of two meetings held in November and December 2017 in the case study region (Fig. 2; step 1; Appendix A). The aim of the meetings was to facilitate a debate in reference to climate change and potential adaptation strategies, identify the main features of local pastoral systems and discuss the range of drivers and mechanisms affecting the pastoral socioeconomic system (Schaller et al., 2018). The objective was also to ensure support and participation to the process all along the research from local institutions and stimulate the interest of local stakeholders. Afterwards, an online questionnaire was sent to 10 stakeholders to rank a set of socioeconomic proxies relevant for the sustainability of the local pastoral systems (Fig. 2 step 2). The questionnaire was based on a list of categories of sustainability indicators for livestock systems (Lebacq et al., 2013) and aimed at providing a list of economic, social and cultural aspects relevant for the sustainability of the PNE pastoral system (Appendix B).

Information collected in the first workshop was complemented by an exploratory survey involving 16 farmers and 8 experts carried out between March and August 2018. The goal of the survey (Fig. 2; step 3) was to assess the perception of the main stress factors for the local pastoral sector and the response strategies that were considered feasible to reduce the risks connected to climate change such as droughts, extreme events, unpredictable forage availability (Brien, 2018). The survey allowed to define a set of strategies categorized as: coping responses when these did not imply practice changes (e.g. insurances or the decision to change pasture areas), adaptation strategies when these introduced some novelty in the system (e.g. introducing drought adapted breeds or the accounting for hay purchase), and finally transformation in case of decisions changing the system identity (e.g. abandonment or diversification of farming activities) (Tuvendal and Elmquist, 2012).

The outputs of the steps 1 to 3 were processed to outline potential links between climate change and other stress factors potentially affecting the local pastoral system to identify the range of factors to be discussed in the next steps (Fig. 2; step 4). To validate the preliminary results and in particular the list of factors and challenges affecting the management of the pastoral system, a meeting of the Alpages Sentinelles network involving 10 technicians and representatives of local agricultural institutions was organized in January 2019 (Fig. 2; step 5). Diachronic vegetation maps based on the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI)[1] helped to situate and visualize the points for discussion. Maps were employed to show the recent change of the vegetation in the PNE upland pastures, to identify the management trends in the different areas (i.e. abandonment or overgrazing) and to facilitate the discussion on the factors affecting the pastoral system that were identified in the precedent steps. The meeting also served to define the institutions and experts to be involved in the 2nd stakeholder workshop, which took place in February 2019 (Fig. 2; step 6; Appendix A).

The objective of the 2nd workshop was to link factors and mechanisms affecting the sensitivity of the pastoral system to climate change (Fig. 3). The main output of the workshop was a cause-effect conceptual map depicting issues, drivers and concepts that was developed following a mind mapping approach (Reed et al., 2009): Firstly, factors, institutions and conditions, considered by stakeholders as relevant for exacerbating or reducing the sensitivity of the pastoral system to climate change were elicited. Secondly, discussion on a broader range of drivers affecting the pastoral system was facilitated. Finally, direct and indirect cause-effect relations between the different elements were identified.

The cause-effect mechanisms, factors and drivers, portrayed by stakeholders in the conceptual map, were subsequently organized on a network structure that was presented and discussed with three local experts in individual interviews held in June 2019 (Fig. 2; step 7). The objective of the interviews was to collect and validate feedback on the general rationale of the network, and to envision an accurate definition of climate-related and other drivers affecting the pastoral system. Experts also helped to identify whether other relevant issues, response strategies and/or mechanisms were missing. Following Özesmi and Özesmi (2004), a qualitative aggregation procedure was employed to organize the factors and simplify the visualization and elicitation of weights in the final step of the analysis. For instance, factors referring to grassland condition, or necessity of hay purchase were clustered in a ‘forage resources’ group; drivers impacting on the system as climate or agricultural policy were clustered in the ‘drivers’ group and so on.

The network constructed for the PNE pastoral system was then used to build a FCM (Voinov and Bousquet, 2010; Voinov et al., 2016) (Fig. 2, step 8). The FCM was aimed at facilitating the discussion and improving the understanding of the PNE pastoral system’s adaptation to climate-related changes. Further, the added value of the FCM was the identification of potential mechanisms and impacts on the pastoral systems connected to different stressors indicated during the participatory process (e.g., changes in agricultural policy, predation, climate change; Gray et al., 2014). To elicit weights and relations between the different factors, a questionnaire was developed. The questionnaire aimed at assessing the farmers’ perception of the main cause-effect relations affecting the local pastoral system and their relative importance. After being internally tested, it was applied for in-depth interviews with local farmers. Nine farmers agreed to participate in the interviews carried-out in November -December 2020. Each interview took on average 2 hours. After the introduction to the research and the pastoral system network, the interviewed farmers were asked: i) to sketch connections as arrows between the different factors; ii) to assign a ‘direction’ to the connection (+ for a stimulating effect of factor i on factor j or – for a de-stimulating effect) and iii) to indicate a level of intensity on a 1–9 interval). During the interviews, the interviewee could add any relation between factors, as much as new factors to the network. Any information provided by the farmers regarding the design of links and weighting of the connections was noted down and transcribed to support the subsequent interpretation of the model results. A zero value was assigned to all the possible connections that were not included by the interviewees. Factors resulting from the interviews were included in the FCM and the weights calculated as the average of the weights originated from the nine individual questionnaires. The FCM inference (Murungweni et al.,2011) was based on the generic update function proposed by Stylios and Groumpos (2004; see also Kosko, 1986) that allows the introduction of ‘drivers’ in the network (i.e. factors that influence the network but are not influenced by other factors; Felix et al., 2017) (Appendix C).

Finally, FCM results were discussed and validated at the third and final stakeholder workshop, held in March 2022 (Fig. 2; step 9). The FCM outputs such as network features and a range of system dynamics (Soler et al. 2012) were presented and participants were invited to express their opinion, outline their argument, and explain their interpretation of results. The discussion aimed at formulating an agreed narrative concerning the adaptation strategies that could be considered effective in the socio-ecological context of the PNE pastoral system, critical factors, and supporting planning and policy design for the study region.

The system mapping process led to the definition of a network of factors and relations that were organized in four clusters (Fig. 4): ‘Adaptation strategies’, ‘External drivers’, ‘Farm management’ and ‘Forage resources’. The proposed network was then modified according to the nine farmers’ questionnaires collected in the final stage of the participatory process. In this phase, 4 factors were omitted because they were not linked to any other factor by the interviewees, and 21 factors were added or modified. Thirty-nine factors were finally retained for the FCM of the PNE pastoral system. The factor ‘Upland grassland biomass increase’ was added as it was considered consistent as much as the biomass decrease with the increase of temperature and linked to important consequences on grass phenology and thus grazing management. Similarly, flocks arriving from other areas (factor ‘Acceptance of new farmers’) was added as it was considered a potential threat to the pastoral system as a vector of livestock diseases. In one specific case, the whole cause-effect mechanism between ‘Variation of lambing period’ and increase of ‘Meat price’ was added. That mechanism was in particular linked to a general intensification trend of the pastoral system, connected to the need for hay and forage crops, indoor breeding, and related administrative burdens.

The FCM network was composed of a total 116 cause-effect connections. Thus, it was characterized by a relatively low average number of connections per factor (ratio Connections / Factors = 3) and a rather low density (0.076)[2]. This usually indicates sparse networks featuring a relevant number of factors among which a few have relevant impacts in driving the system. Four factors resulted as the most connected and characterized by a higher relevance in the network (i.e. centrality index; Table 1): ‘CAP subsidies’, ‘Predation’, ‘Experienced shepherd hiring’ and ‘Upland grassland quality reduction’. Nonetheless, these factors were driven by a range of different connections in the FCM. Specifically, agricultural subsidies featured a cumulative weight of outgoing connections (indicating impacts on other factors, so called out-degree) that was seven times higher than the cumulative weight of incoming connections (indicating impacts from other factors, so called in-degree). This, together with the fact that the subsidies factor was characterized by the overall highest out-degree, pointed to its role as a central driver in the system. Wolf predation, hiring of shepherds, and grass quality outlined a more balanced ratio between out-degree and in-degree in the network (ratio: 2, 1, and 1.6 respectively) and therefore these factors were affected by several cause-effect feedbacks in the FCM. The factor with the overall highest in-degree value in the network was “Abandonment of upland pastures” which was indeed the effect of farmers’ management decisions targeted by the study and on which the stakeholders were mostly focusing.

Table 1

PNE pastoral system network: Factors are presented in order of perceived relevance according to their out-degree and in-degree weight. Out-degree is the total weight of impacts on other factors (i.e. relevance as a causal factor), in-degree is the total weight of impacts from other factors (i.e. relevance as an effect factor), centrality is the sum of out-degree and in-degree (Özesmi & Özesmi, 2004).
Factors	Out-degree	In-degree	Centrality
CAP subsidies	7.78	1.10	8.88
Predation	5.93	2.80	8.73
Experienced shepherd hiring	4.25	4.05	8.30
Upland grassland quality reduction	5.00	3.20	8.20
Search for alternative forage resources	1.30	4.87	6.17
Investments	0.65	5.50	6.15
Abandonment	0.00	5.98	5.98
Meat price	3.85	1.55	5.40
Improved grassland management	2.35	3.00	5.35
Hay buying	0.20	5.08	5.28
Upland grassland biomass reduction	3.75	0.80	4.55
Improved infrastructures	2.60	1.88	4.48
CERPAM	4.35	0.00	4.35
Wolfdogs	1.20	2.78	3.98
Work charge	1.20	2.50	3.70
Livestock pests	0.60	3.05	3.65
Climate variability	3.30	0.00	3.30
Municipality	3.11	0.00	3.11
Indoor breeding	1.00	2.10	3.10
Variation of grazing season	0.30	2.75	3.05
Forage crops	1.30	1.50	2.80
Administrative burden	0.70	2.03	2.73
Variation of lambing period	0.80	1.75	2.55
Overgrazing	0.90	1.45	2.35
Drought in bottom valleys	1.53	0.60	2.13
Pluriactivity	0.52	1.50	2.02
The national park	1.70	0.20	1.90
Drought in uplands	0.87	0.80	1.67
Tourism	0.00	1.38	1.38
Early frost	1.10	0.00	1.10
Upland grassland biomass increase	0.00	1.10	1.10
Need of shepherds	0.00	1.00	1.00
Chambre d’Agriculture	0.90	0.00	0.90
Snow reduction	0.80	0.00	0.80
Late frost	0.80	0.00	0.80
Late snowing	0.70	0.00	0.70
Land planning administration	0.50	0.00	0.50
Acceptance of new farmers	0.30	0.00	0.30
Diversification	0.15	0.00	0.15

To outline prospective effects on pasture abandonment, the FCM inference that was discussed with the local stakeholders during the validation workshop focused on three main factors: Intense climate variability, high level of predation, and higher subsidies, as these were discussed with particular attention during the whole participatory process. Concerning the abandonment of pastoral activity, it was not surprising that ‘CAP subsidies’ and ‘Predation’ outlined contrasting effects in the FCM results (Fig. 5): while the impact of predation was related to abandonment, the subsidies were related to the increase of upland pasture utilization. According to the FCM, however, a less trivial result concerned the role of the CAP subsidies as a factor that maintains pastoral activity in upland pastures even at relatively higher predation rates. Indeed, in a scenario of a progressive increase of both CAP subsidies and predation (CAP from low to high in Fig. 5), the level of abandonment level did not increase. This result confirmed the relevance of the CAP subsidies as an effective tool to ensure the presence of the pastoral activity in the upland pastures even in presence of very limiting factors such as wolf predation.

A noteworthy impact on the pastoral system linked to climate variability also emerged (Fig. 6). Under high rates of climate variability, grass quality and the need of hay reserves were expected to be the most critical factors (Appendix E). These impacts were linked to the necessity to adapt the current farm management in case of drought events during the summer season, such as the need of external inputs (hay), and the relevance of planning for alternative forage resources such as buffer grazing areas. However, it was evident that ‘wolf predation’ was definitely the most serious factor affecting the utilization of upland grasslands. Abandonment was indeed the most evident result induced by a relevant increase of predation. Besides that, an important increase of farmers’ workload and the shift towards indoor breeding were also noticeable. This dynamics highlighted the tendency to shift towards more intensive systems to reduce the risk of incurring in economic damages (indoor breeding is a solution that ensures protection from predation) and to optimize important production factors such as labor (flock guarding is a relevant time-consuming activity). As reported above, higher CAP subsidies were effective in reducing a range of stress factors for the local pastoral systems. This was linked with the reduction of abandonment, hay purchase, and the need of alternative resources. Nevertheless, subsidies were linked to negative impacts on farmers’ workload. In a scenario characterized by the concomitant effects of higher climate variability, predation, and subsidies, the role of the CAP as a tool able to counterbalance the negative effects of climate and predation on the utilization of upland pastures was evident. However, the impact of these different stressors highlighted a scenario where the sustainability of the local pastoral system was jeopardized by a reduction in quality of grasslands, entailing a need for alternative forage resources. Further, excessive workload for farmers emerged. Therefore, the availability of expert shepherds resulted as a strategic factor to cope with the expected several challenges of the local pastoral system.

The first outcome of our research confirms the efficacy of CAP subsidies in contrasting the abandonment of upland pastures in the case study area. That is not surprising because the share of subsidies on the overall farm revenue is high, which strongly influences the farmers’choices in farm management practice (Bernues et al., 2011). Nevertheless, CAP subsidies tend to favor the development of large flocks (Delattre et al., 2020), which potentially decreases the effectiveness of protection efforts from predation. Furthermore, as guardian dogs are less effective in protecting large flocks from a wolf, CAP subsidies could also increase the exposure of pastoral farms to the predation risk (Rossi et al., 2012).

Although the impact of climate change, particularly climate variability, is perceived by farmers, it is considered as less relevant in comparison to predation. This can be related to two different aspects: Firstly, pasture-based farming is a human activity that is used to adapt to climate conditions. Therefore, farmers believe to have ‘room for maneuver’ and a range of different strategies at their disposal to adapt (Lamarque et al., 2014). For instance, some adaptation strategies like adjusting the grazing season to the availability of semi-natural forage resources are part of the traditional know-how of pastoral farmers (Maru et al., 2014). Secondly, climate change is perceived as happening in a rather long-time frame that will need year-by-year adjustments (Asseng and Pannell, 2013). On the contrary, predation is the current most unpredictable threat that causes significant stress and economic loss, despite compensation schemes. The consideration of climate variability as the most relevant climate-related factor confirms on the other hand that unpredictability is an important aspect with strong consequences on pasture management, fodder quality on pastures, and consequently the need for hay. Indeed, increased uncertainty about available forage resources is a huge organizational constraint for pastoral farmers that have to cope with management decisions such as renting pastoral areas, booking trucks for flocks’ transportation and so on. In this respect, climate variability and predation bring primary uncertainties to the system and the result of this uncertainty is linked to abandonment of high mountain lots and an increased demand of hay stock to feed animals.

Analytical frameworks concerning the study of pastoral systems take very often little account of the net cumulative effects of the interplay of drivers such as subsidies, predation or climate, and the reinforcing or compensating mechanisms that are established. In line with what is reported by Hinojosa at al. (2016a, 2016b), our study shows that abandonment trends linked to stress factors are certainly present, but full abandonment of mountain pastoral areas is not be expected, as long as CAP incentives will be present. Nonetheless, the combination of CAP and predation effects generates intensification dynamics in the case study area. The trend towards intensification consists of increasing herd sizes (to reduce the cost per head of shepherd hiring[3]) and a progressive abandonment of marginal/smaller grazing lots (larger flocks need larger pastures and remote areas are hard to defend against predation), with more reliance on hay and low valley forage resources. This trend that reproduces the "lowland" system on mountain pastures is indirectly facilitated by CAP incentives, which aim to improve labor productivity through process intensification (increasing herd size, reduction of the capping of the size of pastures per farm, etc.). These aspects concur to reduce the elasticity of the pastoral system and eventually its capacity to cope with the unpredictable impacts of predation and climate variability. Intensification trends can also be considered as a climate change adaptation mechanism of pastoral practices to reduce the system dependence on aleatory semi-natural forage resources (Marshall et al., 2014). However, that involves negative consequences on grazing resources such as over-grazing and other related negative impacts on mountain biodiversity (Schmeller et al., 2022). Therefore, in a long-term perspective, we can assume that the intensification dynamic will not reduce the vulnerability of mountain breeding systems. Agreeing with Bernues et al. (2017), this is especially true if we consider, that intensification trends triggered by the CAP generate excessive farm dependency on incentives.

Our results clearly support that CAP subsidies – even though necessary for farm viability – limit the ‘‘flexibility” that is essential for the management of the pastoral system under increasing uncertainty. Even though incentives are overall crucial, additional monetary support to compensate for wolf predation or climate constraints would not be effective. We provide evidence that, under the interaction of different stressors, a limiting factor that emerges is additional workload. This evidence is relevant as workload is particularly important in driving the pastoral farmers’ management decisions (Aubron et al., 2016). These aspects support that the current policy framework, based on prescribed management practices, cannot fully embrace the diversity and complexity of mountain grassland systems (Darnhofer et al., 2017). Indeed, main current policy frameworks prescribe specific management practices, but alpine pastoral systems differ widely in terms of the use of resources, degree of intensification, orientation of production, socio-economic-cultural and market contexts (Bernues et al., 2011). This points to the need for a shift towards higher policy flexibility based on the indication of the environmental results to be achieved and less on prescribed practices.

The above considerations point to result-based agri-environmental schemes as efficient solutions for mountain grassland systems. While the implementation of result-based schemes is complicated (Bartkowski et al., 2021), several examples adapted to pasture-based farming do exist (e.g. Fleury et al., 2015; Zabel 2019; Pinto-Correia et al., 2022) and their application should be encouraged. In this perspective, in a scenario where the pastoral system is affected by several stressors like predation and climate variability, our analysis highlights that the availability of skilled shepherds and alternative forage resources become the most relevant factors to reduce mountain farming vulnerability and improve climate change adaptation. The more competent the shepherds are, the lesser farmers’ intervention during the season is required. A significant gain in reducing farmers’ workload can thus be achieved. As also indicated in the EU Farm to Fork Strategy (EC 2020), a reinforced support of advisory services together with higher availability of skilled shepherds are to be considered factors that lead towards ‘knowledge-intensive’ pastoral systems. Yet, an issue that remains in debate is whether the time needed to develop knowledge-based practice adaptations will fit to the expected time-scale of climate change impacts on the pastoral system.

This work developed a participatory-based FCM aimed at identifying the drivers of vulnerability and adaptation strategies of the PNE pastoral system. Our study supports that wolf presence and the CAP subsidies are among the main factors that drive the management of the pastoral system management. On one hand, wolf predation is a clear factor inducing the abandonment of upland grasslands. On the other hand, the CAP is effective in counterbalancing that impact. However, preserving uplands grazing is not trivial because important cause-effect chains are generated by the interaction between the CAP, predation and climate variability.

The FCM results show that impacts on farmers’ workload is relevant. This supports the evidence reported in other research concerning the drivers of change of pastoral systems in the French Alps (e.g. Aubron et al., 2016). These aspects should be considered attentively for the future sustainability of the local pastoral system and policy design. The availability of skilled shepherds resulted as an effective tool to contrast the abandonment of mountain grasslands. Indeed, the possibility to rely on expert shepherds allows the farmers to devote their time to forage crops, secondary/diversified activities, etc. On the contrary, increased problems for the management of upland grasslands (e.g. predation, grass quality) will very likely trigger dynamics towards farming systems less affected by unpredictability such as indoor breeding. Therefore, resources and infrastructure needed by shepherds as well as the skill up-grading of shepherds on protection against wildlife predation, as well as on techniques to mitigate climate uncertainty, emerge as important factors to enhance the adaptive capacity of the local pastoral system. Other alternative strategies like increasing the availability of alternative forage resources were also important but their effectiveness resulted as less relevant in comparison to the role of shepherds. This is likely linked to predation risks (for instance more wooded areas are prone to higher predation), and to the need of a relatively high rate of working units required for the utilization of such resources.

Acknowledgments

The present work was granted by the EC LIFE programme for the Environment and Climate Action (2014-2020) in the framework of the Project LIFE PASTORALP ‘Pastures vulnerability and adaptation strategies to climate change impacts in the Alps’ (LIFE16/CCA/IT/000060). The authors wish to thank all the stakeholders that attended the meetings and the staff at the Parc National des Ecrins for their support.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interests

Acosta-Michlik, L., Kelkar U., Sharma U. (2008). Editorial / Global Environmental Change 18, 539–542. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.10.001
Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 268–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006
Asseng, S., & Pannell, D. J. (2013). Adapting dryland agriculture to climate change: Farming implications and research and development needs in Western Australia. Climatic Change, 118(2), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0623-1
Aubron, C., Noël, L., & Lasseur, J. (2016). Labor as a driver of changes in herd feeding patterns: Evidence from a diachronic approach in Mediterranean France and lessons for agroecology. Ecological Economics, 127, 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.02.013
Bartkowski, B., Droste, N., Ließ, M., Sidemo-Holm, W., Weller, U., & Brady, M. v. (2021). Payments by modelled results: A novel design for agri-environmental schemes. Land Use Policy, 102(August 2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.105230
Belliveau S., Smit B., Bradshaw B. (2006). Multiple exposures and dynamic vulnerability: Evidence from the grape industry in the Okanagan Valley, Canada, Global Environmental Change, 16, 4, 364-378.
Berkes, F., Colding, J., & Folke, C. (2000). Rediscovery of Traditional Ecological Knowledge As Adaptive Management. Ecological Applications, 10(October), 1251–1262.
Bernués, A., Ruiz, R., Olaizola, A., Villalba, D., & Casasús, I. (2011). Sustainability of pasture-based livestock farming systems in the European Mediterranean context: Synergies and trade-offs. Livestock Science, 139(1–2), 44–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2011.03.018
Bernués, A., Tello-García, E., Rodríguez-Ortega, T., & Ripoll-Bosch, R. (2016). Agricultural practices, ecosystem services and sustainability in High Nature Value farmland: Unraveling the perceptions of farmers and nonfarmers. Land Use Policy, 59, 130–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.08.033
Berrouet, L. M., Machado, J., & Villegas-Palacio, C. (2018). Vulnerability of socio—ecological systems: A conceptual Framework. Ecological Indicators, 84, 632–647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.07.051
Brien. P. (2018). Analyse de l’évoluton de l’utilsaton des alpages sur le territoire du Parc National des Écrins (1996-2012). perceptions Perceptions des tendances en cours et des enjeux à venir. L’exemple de la prédation et du changement climatique en alpage. Rapport de stage en entreprise. Master SEAM-EPGM. Université Savoie Mont-Blanc.
Brilli, L., R. Martin, G. Argenti, M. Bassignana, M. Bindi, R. Bonet, P. Choler et al. (2023). "Uncertainties in the adaptation of alpine pastures to climate change based on remote sensing products and modelling." Journal of Environmental Management 336: 117575.
Brooks N. et al. 2005. The determinants of vulnerability and adaptive capacity at the national level and the implications for adaptation. Global Environmental Change, volume 15, Issue 2, Pages 151-163
Choler. P.,. A. Bayle. , B. Z. Carlson. , C. Randin. , G. Filippa. and E. Cremonese. 2021. The tempo of greeningC in the European Alps: Spatial variations on a common theme. Global Change Biology 27:5614-5628.
Darnhofer, I., Schermer, M., Steinbacher, M., Gabillet, M., & Daugstad, K. (2017). Preserving permanent mountain grasslands in Western Europe: Why are promising approaches not implemented more widely? Land Use Policy, 68(August), 306–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.08.005
Debolini, M., Maraccini, E., Dubeuf, J. P., Geijzendorffer, I. R., Guerra, C., Simon, M., Targetti, S., & Napoléone, C. (2018). Land and farming system dynamics and their drivers in the Mediterranean Basin. Land Use Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.07.010
Delattre, L., et al. (2020). "Understanding the Relationships between Extensive Livestock Systems, Land-Cover Changes, and CAP Support in Less-Favored Mediterranean Areas." Land 9(518).
Dentoni, D., C. Cucchi, M. Roglic, R. Lubberink, R. Bender-Sala-zar, T. Manyise (2022). Systems Thinking, Mapping and Change in Food and Agriculture. Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(4): 277-301. doi: 10.36253/bae-13930
Dibari, C., Bindi, M., Moriondo, M., Staglianò, N., Targetti, S., & Argenti, G. (2016). Spatial data integration for the environmental characterization of pasture macrotypes in the Italian Alps. Grass and Forage Science, 71(2). https://doi.org/10.1111/gfs.12168
Dobremez, L., Nettier, B., Legeard, J.-P., Caraguel, B., Garde, L., Vieux, S., Lavorel, S., & Della-Vedova, M. (2014). Les alpages sentinelles. Revue de Géographie Alpine, 102–2. https://doi.org/10.4000/rga.2165
Dong, S., L. Wen, S. Liu, X. Zhang, J. P. Lassoie, S. Yi, X. Li, J. Li, and Y. Li. 2011. Vulnerability of worldwide pastoralism to global changes and interdisciplinary strategies for sustainable pastoralism. Ecology and Society 16(2): 10.
Eakin H.C. and Patt A. (2011). Are adaptation studies effective,and what can enhance theirpractical impact? WIREs Climate ChangeVolume 2, Issue 2, Pages141-308
Eakin, H., Bojórquez-Tapia, L. A., Diaz, R. M., Castellanos, E., & Haggar, J. (2011). Adaptive capacity and social-environmental change: Theoretical and operational modeling of smallholder coffee systems response in mesoamerican pacific rim. Environmental Management, 47(3), 352–367. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-010-9603-2
European Commission, 2020. A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally-friendly food system. COM(2020) 381 final, Brussels, 20.5.2020
Felix, G., Nápoles, G., Falcon, R., Froelich, W., Vanhoof, K., & Bello, R. (2017). A review on methods and software for fuzzy cognitive maps. Artificial Intelligence Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-017-9575-1
Fleury, P., Seres, C., Dobremez, L., Nettier, B., & Pauthenet, Y. (2015). Land Use Policy “ Flowering Meadows ”, a result-oriented agri-environmental measure : Technical and value changes in favour of biodiversity. Land Use Policy, 46, 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.02.007
Fraser, E. D. G., Dougill, A. J., Hubacek, K., Quinn, C. H., Sendzimir, J., & Termansen, M. (2011). Assessing vulnerability to climate change in dryland livelihood systems: Conceptual challenges and interdisciplinary solutions. Ecology and Society, 16(3), 01. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03402-160303
Gobiet, A., Kotlarski, S., Beniston, M., Heinrich, G., Rajczak, J., Stoffel, M., 2014. 21st century climate change in the European Alps - A review. Science of the Total Environment 493, 1138-1151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.07.050
Gray, S. A., Zanre, E., & Gray, S. R. J. (2014). Fuzzy Cognitive Maps for Applied Sciences and Engineering. Intelligent Systems Reference Library, 54(December), 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39739-4
Gray, S. A., S. Gray, L. J. Cox, and S. Henly-Shepard. 2013. Mental modeler: a fuzzy-logic cognitive mapping modeling tool for adaptive environmental management. Proceedings of the 46th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Piscataway, New Jersey, USA. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2013.399
Hinkel, J. (2011). Indicators of vulnerability and adaptive capacity”: Towards a clarification of the science–policy interface. Global Environmental Change, volume 21, Issue 1, Pages 198-208
Hinojosa, L., Napoléone, C., Moulery, M., & Lambin, E. F. (2016a). The “mountain effect” in the abandonment of grasslands: Insights from the French Southern Alps. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 221, 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2016.01.032
Hinojosa, L., et al. (2016b). "Place attachment as a factor of mountain farming permanence: a survey in the French Southern Alps." Ecological Economics 130: 308-315.
Huber, R., Briner, S., Peringer, A., Lauber, S., Seidl, R., Widmer, A., Gillet, F., Buttler, A., Le, Q. B., & Hirschi, C. (2013). Modeling social-ecological feedback effects in the implementation of payments for environmental services in pasture-woodlands. Ecology and Society, 18(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05487-180241
IPCC, 2022. Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 3056 pp., doi:10.1017/9781009325844.
IUCN, 2022. Scaling-up Mountain Ecosystem-based Adaptation: building evidence, replicating success, and informing policy. IUCN Series on scaling-up mountain ecosystem-based adaptation. Information Brief 1. https://www.iucn.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/oct_30_2022_introduction-information-brief.pdf
Jetter, A. J., & Kok, K. (2014). Fuzzy Cognitive Maps for futures studies-A methodological assessment of concepts and methods. Futures. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2014.05.002
Kosko, B. (1986). Fuzzy cognitive maps. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 24: 65-75.
Lamarque, P., Meyfroidt, P., Nettier, B., & Lavorel, S. (2014). How ecosystem services knowledge and values influence farmers’ decision-making. PLoS ONE, 9(9). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0107572
Lebacq, T., Baret, P. v., & Stilmant, D. (2013). Sustainability indicators for livestock farming. A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 33(2), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-012-0121-x
MacDonald, D., Crabtree, J. R., Wiesinger, G., Dax, T., Stamou, N., Fleury, P., Gutierrez Lazpita, J., & Gibon, A. (2000). Agricultural abandonment in mountain areas of Europe: Environmental consequences and policy response. Journal of Environmental Management, 59(1), 47–69. https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1999.0335
Marchant, R. (2020). IPCC WGII Sixth Assessment Report Cross-Chapter Paper 5: Mountains. In IPCC AR6 Cambridge University Press.
Marshall, N. A., Stokes, C. J., Webb, N. P., Marshall, P. A., & Lankester, A. J. (2014). Social vulnerability to climate change in primary producers: A typology approach. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 186, 86–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2014.01.004
Maru, Y. T., Pinho, P. F., Dube, O. P., Sparrow, A., & Stafford Smith, M. (2014). A linked vulnerability and resilience framework for adaptation pathways in remote disadvantaged communities. Global Environmental Change, 28, 337–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.12.007
Metzger, M. J., Rounsevell, M. D. A., Acosta-Michlik, L., Leemans, R., & Schröter, D. (2006). The vulnerability of ecosystem services to land use change. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 114(1), 69–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2005.11.025
Murungweni, C., van Wijk, M. T., Andersson, J. A., Smaling, E. M. A., & Giller, K. E. (2011). Application of Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping in Livelihood Vulnerability Analysis. Ecology and Society. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04393-160408
Norberg, J., Cumming, G.S. (Eds.), 2008. Complexity Theory for a Sustainable Future. Columbia University Press, USA:NY
Özesmi, U., & Özesmi, S. L. (2004). Ecological models based on people’s knowledge: A multi-step fuzzy cognitive mapping approach. Ecological Modelling. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2003.10.027
Pinto-Correia, T., Ferraz-De-oliveira, I., Helena Guimarães, M., Sales-Baptista, E., Pinto-Cruz, C., Godinho, C., & Vieira Santos, R. (2022). Result-based payments as a tool to preserve the High Nature Value of complex silvo-pastoral systems: Progress toward farm-based indicators. Ecology and Society, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12973-270139
Polsky, C., D. Schröter, S. Gaffin, M. L. Martello, R. Neff, A. Pulsipher, and H. Selin. (2003). Assessing vulnerabilities to the effects of global change: an eight-step approach. Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Reed, M. S., Graves, A., Dandy, N., Posthumus, H., Hubacek, K., Morris, J., Prell, C., Quinn, C. H., & Stringer, L. C. (2009). Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(5), 1933–1949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.01.001
Rossi, A. et al. (2012). Les moyens de protection des troupeaux domestiques contre le loup dans les nouveaux contextes de prédation. Rapport ACTEON Environment – https://www.auvergne-rhone-alpes.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/acteon_loup_contextes_nouveaux_et_mesures_rapport_final_version_2.0.pdf
Schaller, L., Targetti, S., Villanueva, A. J. A. J., Zasada, I., Kantelhardt, J., Arriaza, M., Bal, T., Fedrigotti, V. B. V. B., Giray, F. H. H., Häfner, K., Majewski, E., Malak-Rawlikowska, A., Nikolov, D., Paoli, J. C. J.-C., Piorr, A., Rodríguez-Entrena, M., Ungaro, F., Verburg, P. H. P. H., van Zanten, B., & Viaggi, D. (2018). Agricultural landscapes, ecosystem services and regional competitiveness-Assessing drivers and mechanisms in nine European case study areas. Land Use Policy, 76, 735–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.03.001
Smit, B., & Wandel, J. (2006). Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Global environmental change, 16(3), 282-292.
Soler, L. S., Kok, K., Camara, G., & Veldkamp, A. (2012). Using fuzzy cognitive maps to describe current system dynamics and develop land cover scenarios: A case study in the Brazilian Amazon. Journal of Land Use Science, 7(2), 149–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2010.542495
Stylios CD, Groumpos PP (2004) Modeling complex systems using fuzzy cognitive maps. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 34(1), 155-162
Targetti, S., Schaller, L. L., & Kantelhardt, J. (2021). A fuzzy cognitive mapping approach for the assessment of public-goods governance in agricultural landscapes. Land Use Policy, 107, 103972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.04.033
Tasser, E., Tappeiner, U., & Cemusca, A. (2005). Ecological Effects of Land-use Changes in the European Alps. http://botany.uibk.ac.atJ
Thiault, L, Gelcich, S, Cinner, JE, Tapia-Lewin, S, Chlous, F, Claudet, J. Generic and specific facets of vulnerability for analysing trade-offs and synergies in natural resource management. People Nat. 2019; 1: 573– 589. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10056
Tuvendal, T., Elmqvist, T., (2012). Response strategy assessment: a tool for evaluating resilience for the management of social-ecological systems. in Plieninger, T. and Bieling, C. (eds.) Resilience and the Cultural Landscape. Cambridge Univ. Press.
van Velden, J. L., Moyo, B. H., Ross, H., & Biggs, D. (2020). Understanding the bushmeat hunting crisis in African savannas using fuzzy cognitive mapping and stakeholder knowledge. Ecology and Society, 25(3), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-11873-250321
van Vliet, M., Kok, K., & Veldkamp, T. (2010). Linking stakeholders and modellers in scenario studies: The use of Fuzzy Cognitive Maps as a communication and learning tool. Futures, 42(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2009.08.005
Voinov, A., & Bousquet, F. (2010). Modelling with stakeholders. Environmental Modelling and Software. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2010.03.007
Voinov, A., Kolagani, N., McCall, M. K., Glynn, P. D., Kragt, M. E., Ostermann, F. O., Pierce, S. A., & Ramu, P. (2016). Modelling with stakeholders - Next generation. In Environmental Modelling and Software (Vol. 77, pp. 196–220). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2015.11.016
Zabel, A. (2019). Land Use Policy Biodiversity-based payments on Swiss alpine pastures. Land Use Policy, 81(October 2018), 153–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.035

https://cals.arizona.edu/oals/ALN/aln53/orrside1.html; the maps were validated on the field by a team of researchers and the PNE Park staff before the expert meeting.
Network density is defined as the number of connections in comparison to all possible connections; Özesmi and Özesmi, (2004).
Also, the French pastoral law (Loi Pastoral) supports the organisation of pastoral collectives.

APPENDIX.docx

Download PDF

Version 1

posted

You are reading this latest preprint version

Drivers and mechanisms of pastoral system adaptation to climate change: An assessment in a French Alps case study region

Status:

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Material and methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Declarations

References

Footnotes

Supplementary Files

Status:

Version 1