# How do farmers’ representations influence landscapes? A multi-scale approach combining mental models and forest monitoring in southwestern France

Julien Blanco, Anne Sourdril, Marc Deconchat, Sylvie Ladet, Emilie Andrieu

► To cite this version:

Julien Blanco, Anne Sourdril, Marc Deconchat, Sylvie Ladet, Emilie Andrieu. How do farmers' representations influence landscapes? A multi-scale approach combining mental models and forest monitoring in southwestern France. IALE 2017 European Congress, Sep 2017, Ghent, Belgium., 2017. hal-01604583

HAL Id: hal-01604583

https://hal.science/hal-01604583

Submitted on 5 Jun 2020

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# How do farmers' representations influence landscapes?

*A multi-scale approach combining mental models and forest monitoring in southwestern France*

Julien Blancoª, Anne Sourdrilᵇ, Marc Deconchatª, Sylvie Ladetª, Emilie Andrieuª

ªDynafor, Université de Toulouse, INRA, INPT, INPT - EI PURPAN, Castanet-Tolosan, France / ᵇCNRS, UMR 7533 Ladyss, Université Paris Ouest - Nanterre

Corresponding author: julien.blanco@inra.fr

## RURAL FORESTS: a key social-ecological component of rural landscapes

Rural forests are **woodlands and trees outside forests** — including in France groves, hedgerows and scattered trees — that constitute substantial components of agricultural systems. They provide a vast range of **provisioning, regulating and cultural ecosystem services**.

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

## What are the dynamics of rural forests in southwestern France?

In Europe, rural forests have declined during the last decades, mainly because of the intensification of agriculture and the separation of forest and agricultural systems. But beyond global trends, little is known about small-scale dynamics and factors affecting rural forests. In the Long-Term Social-Ecological Research (LTSER) platform *Vallées et Coteaux de Gascogne*, we combined **GIS monitoring, ethnographic investigations** and **mental models** to understand rural forests dynamics and related anthropogenic factors.

## Linking landscape patterns & social norms

*Rural forests, social organization, and agriculture modernization*

### Methods

**GIS analysis:** photo-interpretation on ca. 14,000 ha was used to digitize rural forests from 4 forest maps (1962, 1979, 1993 and 2010) from the National Institute of Geographic and Forest Information. Rural forest components were classified into woodlands, groves, hedgerows and scattered trees.

**Ethnographic investigations:** conducted since 2003 in the LTSER through (i) interviews with farmers, forest owners and other forest users, (ii) participative observation and (iii) land registries analysis.

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

⇒ Farmers tend to be self-sufficient in diversifying the types of lands they own. This **social practice resulted in the presence of fragmented woodlands throughout the landscape.** The local house-centered system associated with a single heir inheritance system contributed to **the maintenance of farmers' real estate and of the woodlands.**

⇒ The intensification of agriculture caused the decline of hedgerows. But **boundary hedgerows were reinforced** as they enable farmers to delimit their estates, while **in-farm hedgerows declined** as they obstruct mechanization.

⇒ **Scattered trees** declined as they obstruct mechanization. The recent increase was explained by **bush encroachment** of the least fertile lands, which leads to the development of scattered trees in a first step.

## Conclusion & perspectives

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

⇒ Coupling social sciences and natural sciences is crucial for understanding **landscape changes and their drivers.** However, the development of innovative frameworks, tools & methods is necessary to conduct an effective multi-scale and multidisciplinary research.

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

⇒ The **ecosystem services framework** is relevant to analyze local managers perceptions & decisions, but a **more systematic integration of ecosystem disservices is required** to fully grasp people's perceptions and decision making process.

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

⇒ Network analysis from mental models could provide significant outputs for a better coupling between social and ecological data.

## Linking farm-scale forest mapping & mental models

*Rural forests: a source of perceived ecosystem services & disservices*

### Methods

**GIS analysis:** photo-interpretation of rural forests on 19 farms (ca. 2,600 ha) from the IGN BD Topo high resolution photographs (2010, 1/1500ᵉ).

**Mental models:** interviews with the 19 farmers using a direct elicitation method for establishing individual mental models of rural forest management, and perceived ecosystem services and disservices.

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /><figcaption>Example of digitized farmers' rural forests (including hedgerows and forest edge surrounding farmlands).</figcaption></figure>

Farmers own **4.1 ha (± 3.7) of woodlands and rural forests occupy 11.7% (± 8.4) of farmlands.**

The proportion of rural forest is not significantly different between mixed farms (with cattle and crops) and other farms.

Farmers identified a total of **28 ecosystem services (ES) and 14 disservices (EDS) associated with 9 types of rural forest components.** Each single farmer cited 7.1 (± 1.7 SD) ES and 3.1 (± 0.7) EDS. A total of 19 stakeholders were playing a direct or indirect role on rural forest management.

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /><figcaption>Example of mental model with perceived rural forest components (grey), stakeholders (blue), ES (green) and EDS (red).</figcaption></figure>