Farmers' ecosystem services values and knowledge.

<p>Conceptual representation based on farmers' discourses on values and knowledge about the relationship between ES and land-management practices. Rectangle boxes indicate practices and ellipses indicate ES. Dashed arrows indicate links between practices and ES and plain arrows indicate links between ES. Grey arrows indicate a negative effect and black arrows a positive effect. Except for the effect of litter quantity on forage quantity, farmers agree on all the relationships. Note that ES in grey are seen as final ES by farmers while the others are considered as intermediate ES <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0107572#pone.0107572-Fisher1" target="_blank">[40]</a>.</p

Socio-cognitive conceptual model of ecosystem services feedbacks on farmer behavior.

<p>Feedback from changes in ES supply to farmers' cognitions and behaviors can be either direct, affecting only the perceived parameters of decision, or indirect, affecting the different cognitive components underlying the behavior <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0107572#pone.0107572-Meyfroidt1" target="_blank">[5]</a>.</p

Summary of the statistical analyses at parcel level (excluding alpine meadows).

<p>Variables used in each analysis are depicted by “X”. The three behavioral variables (manuring, mowing and mowing date) are dependent variables, the others are explanatory variables. ANOVA and Chi-square tests discriminate pairs of variables depicted by “X”. Regression results presented for each variables are parameter estimates and p-value. Significance levels:</p><p>* (0.05);</p><p>** (0.01);</p><p>*** (0.001), N = 217 parcels.</p><p>Data sources:</p>1a<p>Land managements and ^1b field functions from participatory photo mapping;</p>2<p>Digital elevation model;</p>3<p>Land use map;</p>4<p>ArcGIS Euclidian distance based on Land use and topographic maps.</p><p>Summary of the statistical analyses at parcel level (excluding alpine meadows).</p

Factors influencing farmers' decisions to adopt a practice during the “feedback game”, according to farmers accounts and discussions.

<p>The first part of the table presents ecosystem services, with a X when a given service is said to influence a given practice (manuring, mowing, late mowing). The second part presents other contextual factors, with their positive (+) or negative (−) influence on the decision to adopt a behavior corresponding to alternative hypotheses.</p><p>Factors influencing farmers' decisions to adopt a practice during the “feedback game”, according to farmers accounts and discussions.</p

Farmers' behaviors in reality and in each scenario (“feedback game” session) for each type of grasslands: Mown terraces; Grazed terraces, Mown unterraced grassland, Grazed unterraced grasslands.

<p>“–“ means: no information. “Y” means they adopted the behavior and “N” they didn't. Y/N indicates that both behaviors were adopted by farmers of the area.</p><p>Farmers' behaviors in reality and in each scenario (“feedback game” session) for each type of grasslands: Mown terraces; Grazed terraces, Mown unterraced grassland, Grazed unterraced grasslands.</p

Data collection and analysis of the different components of the conceptual model of the farmer decision-making process (Figure 1).

<p>Data collection and analysis of the different components of the conceptual model of the farmer decision-making process (<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0107572#pone-0107572-g001" target="_blank">Figure 1</a>).</p

Ecosystem services with their values attributed by farmer (number indicates the number of farmers giving this value to a service), sorted by decreasing order of average value.

<p>Ecosystem services with their values attributed by farmer (number indicates the number of farmers giving this value to a service), sorted by decreasing order of average value.</p

Drivers and related assumptions describing the four scenarios combining climatic and socio-economic alternatives (adapted from [61]).

<p>Drivers and related assumptions describing the four scenarios combining climatic and socio-economic alternatives (adapted from <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0107572#pone.0107572-Lamarque4" target="_blank">[61]</a>).</p