Bio -based and A ppl ied Economics BAE Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(4): 351-371, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6e172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12843 Copyright: © 2022 S. Targetti, V. Marconi, M. Raggi, A. Piorr, A.J. Villanueva, K. Häfner, M. Kurttila, N. Letki, M. Costica, D. Nikolov, D. Viaggi. Open access, article published by Firenze University Press under CC-BY-4.0 License. Firenze University Press | www.fupress.com/bae Citation: S. Targetti, V. Marconi, M. Raggi, A. Piorr, A.J. Villanueva, K. Häfner, M. Kurttila, N. Letki, M. Cos- tica, D. Nikolov, D. Viaggi (2022). Provi- sion of public goods and bads by agriculture and forestry. An analysis of stakeholders’ perception of factors, issues and mechanisms. Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(4): 351-371. doi: 10.36253/bae-12843 Received: February 28, 2022 Accepted: February 27, 2023 Published: May 3, 2023 Data Availability Statement: All rel- evant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files. Competing Interests: The Author(s) declare(s) no conflict of interest. Editor: Donato Romano. ORCID ST: 0000-0002-2154-546X VM: 0000-0002-9607-8528 MR: 0000-0001-6960-1099 AP: 0000-0002-6936-5118 AJV: 0000-0002-1384-8372 KH: 0000-0001-6413-4540 MK: 0000-0001-5290-4771 NL: 0000-0001-8778-1126 MC: 0000-0002-0789-0910 DN: 0000-0002-4030-4645 DV: 0000-0001-9503-2977 Provision of public goods and bads by agriculture and forestry. An analysis of stakeholders’ perception of factors, issues and mechanisms Stefano Targetti1,*, Valentina Marconi1, Meri Raggi2, Annette Piorr3, Anastasio José Villanueva4, Kati Häfner3, Mikko Kurttila5, Natalia Letki6, Mihai Costica7, Dimitre Nikolov8, Davide Viaggi1 1 Department of Agricultural and Food Sciences, University of Bologna, viale Fanin, 50 - 40127 Bologna, Italy 2 Department of Statistical Sciences, University of Bologna, via Belle Arti 41 - 40126 Bologna, Italy 3 Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF), Institute of Socio-Econom- ics, Eberswalder Str. 84,15374 Muencheberg, Germany 4 IFAPA-Institute of Agricultural and Fisheries Research and Training, Camino de Purchil PO Box 2027, Granada, Spain 5 Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Bio-based Business and Industry, FI-80101 Joensuu, Finland 6 Institute of Sociology, University of Warsaw, 00-927 Warszawa, ul. Karowa 18, Poland 7 Department of Economics and International Relations, “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” Univer- sity of Iași, Carol I Boulevard 22, Iaşi RO – 700505, Romania 8 Institute of Agricultural Economics, Zarigradsko shose 125, Bl.1, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria *Corresponding author. E-mail: stefano.targetti@unibo.it. Abstract. The provision of public goods by agriculture and forestry has been a major topic of the agricultural policy debate in the EU. The objective of this paper is to inves- tigate local stakeholder perceptions regarding the cause-effect relations between agri- culture and forestry activities and a broad set of public goods and bads, and hence to contribute to the identification of improved policy options for a more efficient deliv- ery of public goods from rural areas. The study presents an assessment based on 71 stakeholder questionnaires collected from seven case study regions in different EU countries. The survey was based on a list of the most relevant public goods and bads developed with the local stakeholders, and aimed to collect stakeholder perception of positive and negative impacts of agriculture and forestry on a range of environmental assets and their relationship with local drivers, socio-economic and cultural features, and policy mechanisms. The analysis shows that the role of agriculture and forestry in the provision of public goods is perceived as generally positive across the selected case study regions. Stakeholder opinions concerning the negative impacts on the environ- ment were more divergent. In particular, differences regarding the impact of differ- ent socio-economic and cultural features, and policy mechanisms are evidenced. The results outline the importance of regulations. Also, payments for environmental ser- vices are considered relevant in particular for biodiversity, landscape, and water quality. Beside that, aspects such as expectations of society and the attitude of farmers towards the environment resulted noteworthy. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode 352 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(4): 351-371, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12843 Stefano Targetti et al. Keywords: Common Agricultural Policy, Ecosystem services, public goods, stakeholders, transdisciplinary approach. JEL codes: Q18, Q20. HIGHLIGHTS · The paper presents an analysis based on 71 stake- holder questionnaires collected from seven case study regions in the EU · The study concerns the relation between public goods and factors, issues and policy mechanisms · Results outline that in particular issues and mecha- nisms are influenced by the perception of public goods · Regulations, payments for environmental services and environmental attitude of farmers and society result as the most relevant mechanism. 1. INTRODUCTION Agriculture and forestry are the dominant forms of land-use, respectively covering 38% and 31% of the world’s land surface (FAO, 2021). Beside the provision of raw materials such as food and timber, the society is increasingly demanding environmental and cultural ser- vices, most of which displaying public goods character- istics, from agriculture and forestry (Muradian & Rival, 2012; OECD, 2015). Also, ‘disservices’ (public bads) that are defined as ecosystem functions or attributes that generate negative impacts on human wellbeing, affect the wider society (Shackleton et al., 2016). These negative impacts can result from agricultural and forestry activi- ties (and in that case they overlap with the concept of negative externality) or might be related to natural pro- cesses (e.g. shrub encroachment, crop pests, pollen aller- gens cfr. Shackleton et al., 2016 for a comprehensive defi- nition of ecosystem disservices). A wide range of policy tools (including incentives, regulations, information and training, etc.) can be used to induce farmers to adopt practices able to enhance the provision of services and reduce the generation of disservices from agri-ecosystems (Kuehne et al., 2017). Nonetheless, the identification of efficient mechanisms in the context of the complex range of relationships between policy, institutions and actors, requires tak- ing into account different factors that are often related to local-scale socio-economic and cultural features (Zasada et al., 2012). Indeed, a consistent body of litera- ture reports that the complex cause-effect relationships between the management of agri-ecosystems and the generation of benefits linked to public goods are con- nected to local-scale contexts (Hart et al., 2011; Schaller et al., 2018). The provision of public goods by agriculture and forestry has been one of the main topics in the debate concerning the agricultural policy in the recent decades. The new programming period of the Common Agricul- tural Policy (CAP 2023-2027) of the European Union (EU) has confirmed the growing attention towards the environment: The CAP new “Green Architecture” aims to improve the effectiveness of EU agriculture in deliver- ing public goods from rural areas through different tools such as enhanced conditionality, Agri-Environment-Cli- mate Measures (AECM) and the Eco-schemes. The latter is a relevant novelty of the reformed CAP, introducing a set of measures that the Member States should include in Pillar I and that would work on a voluntary basis for farmers. The Eco-schemes, together with the enhanced conditionality, substitute the so-called ‘greening’ of the previous programming period and are aimed at harmo- nizing the mechanisms and the objectives of the Pillars I and II and -to some extent- should facilitate the uptake of agri-environment-climate practices by farmers (Runge et al., 2022). One relevant principle strongly underlined in the new CAP programming period is that a more effective design of AECM requires an adaptation fitting to the local contexts (EC 2021). Therefore, the role of national and sub-national institutions in the design and imple- mentation of Eco-schemes and AECMs has been boost- ed in the CAP reform to facilitate a better targeting of agri-environmental policies based on the physical and ecological features of different areas. Nevertheless, the inclusion of the different socio-institutional structures (i.e. actors, networks, authorities, policy, etc.), their boundaries and interplay would allow a more compre- hensive account of local needs and opportunities (Zas- ada et al., 2017). Consequently, aspects related to the stakeholder perception of factors and issues affecting the generation of public goods in rural areas would poten- tially allow to increase the efficiency of the policy design by integrating the local-scale biophysical context with the complex socio-ecological processes affecting the pro- vision of public goods (Lebel & Bennett, 2008; Schaller et al., 2018). The assessment of socio-ecological processes, that on one hand influence the supply of ecosystem services 353 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(4): 351-371, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12843 Provision of public goods and bads by agriculture and forestry and on the other hand determine their demand (van Zanten et al., 2014; Wolff et al., 2015), can follow differ- ent analytical approaches. Biophysical approaches aim to assess public goods and bads through physical measures that can be spatially explicit. The results of such analy- ses are often characterized by a combination of very specific information that is difficult to scale-up on the aggregate (Marconi et al., 2015). That hampers the policy design and reduces considerably its efficiency in particu- lar when multiple public goods and bads are considered (Armsworth et al., 2012). Despite there are methods and approaches of combining multiple public goods in the same area, examples of implementation are scarce and limited to case studies (e.g. Ungaro et al., 2021). Other approaches try to attach values to public goods provision to support related decision-making, using either mon- etary (Tienhara et al., 2021; Tyllianakis & Martín-Orte- ga, 2021) or non-monetary techniques (Targetti et al., 2018). However, generalizations about value-generation processes and the identification of societal and stake- holder demands for multiple public goods and ecosys- tem services in a spatial explicit manner are very often complicate (Schwartz et al., 2021). In addition, value assessments should include demand and supply that are difficult to observe separately one from each other (Wolff et al., 2015). In practice, the relevance of public goods tends to mix up with the discrepancy between the desired level of public goods and the actual supply, but the quantitative assessment is challenging due to their cognitive and subjective nature1 (Faccioli et al., 2020), to the different types of use and non-use values perceived by people (Targetti et al., 2021a) and to their variation at different spatial scales (Granado-Díaz et al., 2020). In this sense, the sociocultural evaluation is an approach that is getting momentum (Martin-Lopez et al., 2012). This approach is hinged on assessing how different peo- ple perceive and value the environment and the cogni- tions of wellbeing stemming from landscape. It therefore targets the relationship between society, public goods generation, and environment (Targetti et al., 2021b). By embracing the complexity of human-nature relations, the sociocultural evaluation is less prone to incur in a mechanistic simplification of processes and institutions existing between society and nature and therefore is able to provide a more comprehensive assessment in compar- ison to other approaches (Muradian & Baggethum, 2021; Norgaard, 2010). Nonetheless, the heterogeneity of pub- 1 Public goods perception is typically heterogeneous and depends on individual attitudes, experience and values. Also, cognitive processes such as beliefs and knowledge of ecological processes have a relevant influence on the perception and are therefore important aspects to be considered when assessing public goods (Adams, et al., 2003). lic goods perceptions involves the need of analyses able to identify typologies of such perceptions for supporting the design of policies (Soini et al., 2012). The objective of the study is to investigate local stakeholder perceptions regarding the cause-effect rela- tions between agriculture and forestry activities and a broad set of public goods and bads (PGBs) relevant to society in seven case study regions (CSR). We do so by providing a cross country comparison of perception from a sample of stakeholders based on a common ana- lytical framework. In this paper, the concept of public bads is introduced to consider both positive and negative impacts of agricultural activities on a range of environ- mental assets such as landscape, water quality, biodi- versity, etc. The analysis is based on the identification of groups of stakeholders featuring different PGB percep- tions and the characterization of the group dissimilari- ties in terms of: i) drivers and/or forces that impact PGB provision (hereafter ‘factors’), ii) local socio-economic and cultural features (hereafter ‘issues’) and iii) policy and governance mechanisms (hereafter ‘mechanisms’). More specifically, the paper aims to: a) finding relations between PGB perceptions and stakeholder opinions regarding issues, factors and mechanisms that are con- sidered able to foster public goods and/or reduce public bads; b) finding groups of stakeholders with convergent perception of PGBs; and c) discuss the potential of that information for the identification of improved govern- ance options for rural areas. The paper is structured as follows: the methodology and the description of the CSRs are reported in section 2. Section 3 illustrates the results and section 4 presents the discussion including the study implications for the design of agri-environmental policies. Section 5 con- cludes. 2. CASE STUDY REGIONS AND METHODS 2.1. Description of the case study regions The CSRs were located in seven Member States (Finland, Spain, Italy, Germany, Romania, Bulgaria and Poland) to cover different geographical areas of the EU (North, South, West and East EU). Based on information collected from local stakeholders, one CSR was identified in each country to investigate areas featuring a relevant supply of public goods (cfr. § 2.2). The Finnish CSR was North Ostrobothnia, in Northern Finland, featuring 88% of the land covered by forests. Typical elements of landscape are hills in the northeastern side, rivers and valleys in the western side, and flat peatland areas in the center of the region. 354 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(4): 351-371, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12843 Stefano Targetti et al. The Spanish CSR was Andalusia, in southern Spain, which hosts a wide variety of agroforestry landscapes, especially including olive groves (with more than 1.5 million ha), ‘dehesas’ agroforestry and livestock systems (around 1 million ha), winter rainfed cereal systems and different types of irrigated agricultural systems. While there are several hotspots related to PGs (e.g. biodiversi- ty in dehesas) and bads (e.g. soil erosion in certain olive grove areas), there is a significant potential for improv- ing PGB provision by agroforestry systems. The Italian CSR was Emilia-Romagna, located in the north-eastern side of Italy. Agricultural areas cover around 60% of the region, which is mainly cultivated with intensive arable crops (42% of the utilized agricul- tural area). Agricultural systems in Emilia-Romagna are mostly oriented towards high-quality traditional and intensive production systems and have been character- ized by a process of farm concentration (abandonment of small and marginal farms and increase in average farm size). Given the heterogeneity of the region, a wide range of PGB (e.g. biodiversity, amenities, water quality etc.) are relevant in relation to the different agricultural systems and practices. The German CSR was located in the County of Märkisch-Oderland, Federal State of Brandenburg. The CSR is a natural park where forested areas are under nature conservation measures and are surrounded by agricultural areas. Relevant environmental aspects con- cern water scarcity, soil functionality (water retention and wind erosion), loss of habitats and biodiversity, and soil carbon stock linked to water management. The Romanian CSR is the North-East Region, which is characterized by low productivity due to fragmenta- tion of farmland ownership, aging workforce, migra- tion of young people to urban areas and a high degree of poverty for small farmers. The main environmental problems are linked to deforestation, with implications on landslides and soil erosion issues. The Bulgarian CSR is the South Central Region, where 48% of the land is represented by agricultural areas (main- ly arable and grasslands) and 45% by forest areas. The region features a developed livestock sector and agriculture delivers many public goods which are highly valued in the region: agricultural landscapes, farmland biodiversity, water quality and availability. However, also public bads such as soil erosion affects 80% of agricultural areas. The Poland CSR is the Podlasie region, where agri- cultural areas constitute 53% of the area and forests cover 31% of the territory. The region is predominantly rural and a significant number of municipalities include Nat- ura 2000 sites. The number of farms recently declined by a rate of 14%. The farms are, on average, small and ori- ented towards high quality production. Environmental issues that are important include water quality pollution and biodiversity losses due to the recent intensification of agriculture and urban expansion. 2.2. Stakeholder survey and analysis The survey was carried out to collect information regarding the perception of PGB provision from local agriculture and forestry systems across Europe, and identify the most relevant factors, issues, and the most useful policy mechanisms from the point of view of local stakeholders. The selection of stakeholders was made in all the CSRs following the same procedure. First, a list of relevant stakeholder types was defined, involving farmers and/or foresters, consultants and technicians assisting agricultural and forestry farms, public officers and decision-makers, NGO technicians, and research- ers, with all of them focusing their working expertise on PGBs provided by agriculture and forestry. Second, according to the stakeholder types, a list of relevant stakeholders was identified. The list of public goods and bads linked to agri- culture and forestry was selected and refined through stakeholder workshops carried out in the seven selected Member States and in one EU-level workshop organized in Brussels. The workshops were aimed at gathering the views of regional and EU-level stakeholders regard- ing the notion and the ranking of public goods and bads from agriculture and forestry systems, and issues affecting their provision and demand. A list of 29 differ- ent public goods and bads was developed in the work- shops. Public bads were, in general, not considered as something conceptually different from public goods and were referred to low or inadequate supply levels of pub- lic goods (e.g. for instance, the public bad related to bio- diversity was ‘biodiversity loss’). In other cases, public bads referred to aspects which could be understood as activities or actions generating public bads, such as pol- lution. The list of 29 PGBs was afterwards refined taking also into account the typology of most relevant public goods linked to the agricultural sector in the EU as pro- posed by Cooper and colleagues (2009; cfr. also ENRD, 2010). Accordingly, eight PGB types related to ecosys- tem capital (Rural landscape, farmland biodiversity, water quality and availability, soil functionality, climate stability, air quality, resilience to flooding and fire) and two related to social capital (rural vitality, and animal health) were selected among the 29 PGBs (Table 1; cfr. Annex A; Novo et al., 2016). A further objective of the country-level workshops was to map and delimit the CSRs in which to carry out 355 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(4): 351-371, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12843 Provision of public goods and bads by agriculture and forestry the subsequent stakeholder survey focusing on PGBs and outline a list of issues, factors and mechanisms affect- ing the public good delivery. To this end, areas featur- ing relevant supply of public goods were mapped during the workshops to identify ‘hotspots’ areas and the main issues in terms of public goods supply and demand, and the potential related criticalities (Tindale et al., 2018). A questionnaire was developed to be submitted to local stakeholders in the 7 selected CSRs. In the ques- tionnaire, the stakeholders were asked to score the rel- evance of the ten selected PGBs in their CSR. First of all, the relevance of the public goods delivered by agri- culture and forestry systems was assessed on a 0-9 scale, then they were asked to score on the same scale the public bads. Thus, each stakeholder provided an overall 20 scores for the relevance of PGBs. For each PGB, the stakeholders were then asked to indicate whether the different factors, issues, and mechanisms were relevant or not in their CSR (Table 2). One-hundred-one local stakeholders were invited in the 7 CSRs to participate to the survey with a request to fill-in a multiple-choice questionnaire. The survey was filled-in by a total number of 71 respondents in the seven CSRs 68% out of which indicated ‘agriculture’ as their area of expertise, whereas 32% indicated ‘forestry’. The composition of the sample according to the profes- sional categories represented by the respondents is syn- thetized in Table 3, showing that stakeholders are mostly researchers working in the field of agriculture and for- estry or related (38% of the total sample) or public offic- ers from regional or national agencies (30%) (Table 3). Concerning the composition of the sample, the Ital- ian CSR, Emilia-Romagna region, was the most repre- sented region (23% of the total sample), followed by the Romanian (21%), Bulgarian and Spanish (14% each), Pol- ish and German (10% each) and Finnish CSRs (8%). 2.3. Statistical analysis The identification of a typology of stakeholder per- ception towards PGBs was carried out performing a hierarchical cluster analysis based on the scores attrib- uted by the stakeholders to the 20 PGBs. The cluster analysis was preceded by a principal component analysis (PCA). The output of the PCA (scores on the PCA axes) was employed for the cluster analysis (Ward agglomera- tion method, Manhattan distance metric). This analysis is often employed to explore heterogeneous opinions of respondents (e.g. Soini et al., 2012). Previous applications of such an approach have also shown its useful applica- tion in studies focusing on agri-environmental policy (e.g. Maton et al., 2005; Gómez-Limón et al., 2013)2. The identification of the clusters was supported by the analysis of the dendrogram structure (Appendix B) to identify how the cases (i.e. the stakeholders) grouped together. An inertia analysis was employed to support the visual identification of the optimal number of clus- ters. That analysis is based on the within-cluster sum-of- squares calculated for each partition and indicates the partitioning of the dendrogram with the higher relative loss of inertia (inertia of cluster n+1/ inertia of cluster n). According to that, the inertia analysis identifies the 2 Analyses combining PCA with a hierarchical clustering is often used in social sciences to identify the main variables ‘explaining’ a database variability and describe groups of cases accordingly. In particular, the PCA outlines the variables able to explain the major part of the vari- ance on the different axes, the cluster analysis is then performed on the scores attributed to these variables. The approach is therefore able to reduce considerably the ‘noise’ that is usually present in database con- cerning individuals’ perceptions. Regarding the use of such approaches in perception-related surveys, some examples are reported in Husson et al., 2010; Soini et al., 2012; Targetti et al., 2020 and 2021a. The objective is reducing the ‘noise’ which generally affects database regarding opin- ions or cognitive-related processes and outline trends or tendencies in the dataset. That procedure is usually at the base of the interpretation of the information conveyed or formulation of policy recommendations. Table 1. List of public goods and bads considered in the survey (cfr. Annex A). Public goods Public bads Landscape and scenery Landscape degradation Farmland biodiversity (animal and vegetal) Biodiversity losses Water quality and availability Water resources pollution and depletion Air quality Air pollution Soil functionality Soil erosion Climate stability Climate degradation Resilience to flooding, landslides and fire Increase of flood and wildfire risk Rural viability and vitality Degradation of abandoned land Production quality and security (food, timber, energy) Poor productions quality and distribution Farm animal health and welfare Degradation of animal health and welfare 356 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(4): 351-371, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12843 Stefano Targetti et al. classification where a further cluster formation does not provide an advantage in terms of data description. The information regarding the relevance of factors, issues and mechanisms was analyzed with the Shannon- Weaver indicator (H index) as following: H=-∑pi×lnpi (1) Where pi indicates the frequency with which a varia- ble (factor, issue or mechanism) was rated as relevant for a specific PGB in that cluster. The H index is a measure of the information entropy and was employed to indi- cate if specific factors, issues or mechanisms were con- sidered relevant for specific PGBs (i.e. highlighting a low entropy) or otherwise there was not specific indications emerging from the stakeholders (i.e. high entropy: all factors, issues or mechanisms considered relevant). 3. RESULTS 3.1. Relevance of public goods and bads In general, public goods linked to agricultural and forestry systems were perceived as relevant in the CSRs (Figure 1). Indeed, the average score ranged between Table 2. List of factors, issues and mechanisms devised in the local and EU-level stakeholder workshops and considered in the survey. Factors Issues Mechanisms Public goods are a direct results of land management by farmers and foresters complying with the environmental regulations Public goods and bads are still theoretical concepts, society has no perception of the role of farmers and foresters as land managers Increase financial support to farmers and foresters Public goods are direct result of agriculture and forestry fostered by CAP funding Inadequate funding for compensation of farmers and foresters adopting sustainable practices Implement payments for environmental services Public goods are direct result of the increasing pressure and control exerted by society on farmers and foresters Conflicts of interest and uses between different stakeholders Implement new market-based incentives Public goods are direct result of market demand for healthier, more sustainable agricultural and forestry products Development and trade-offs between different land uses Promote farmers’ and foresters’ education to sustainability Public goods are direct result of technological advancement and innovation in agriculture and forestry Problems related to the urban sprawling, rural land abandonment Adapt compensation schemes and regulations to the global market Public bads are mostly unintended by-products from agricultural and forestry activities, (direct result only in absence of compliance with the law) Public access to public goods; land tenure and property issues Adopt more efficient land use plans Public bads s are never a direct result of agriculture and forestry, which do not pollute the environment or to damage the society intentionally Pioneer/foster cross-compliance in all public subsidies Public bads are a direct result of land management choices exerted by farmers and foresters (e.g. practicing intensive agriculture) Public bads are a consequence of the absence of adequate compensation schemes to farmers and foresters Public bads are caused by the rising land- abandonment in rural areas Public bads emerge from the competition between regions/ countries forcing farmers and foresters to lower the sustainability of productions Table 3. Composition of the sample of stakeholders and shares of job categories. N. % Research/ academics 27 38% Public officers 21 30% NGOs 9 13% Consultant/ agronomists 8 11% Farmers/foresters (incl. agri-food firms and representatives of producers associations) 6 8% 357 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(4): 351-371, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12843 Provision of public goods and bads by agriculture and forestry 6.34 for ‘Resilience to Flooding, Landslides and Fire’ and 7.31 for ‘Water Quality and availability’ (out of a maximum of 9). Perception of public bads was lower in comparison to public goods. In particular, public bads related to ‘Rural viability and vitality’ and ‘Productions quality and security’ were considered the least important (range 4.8-4.9). On the contrary, the relevance of public bads linked to the reduction of ‘Farmland biodiversity’, ‘Soil functionality’ and ‘Resilience to environmental risks’ was signifi cant. As evidenced in Figure 1, a greater variability characterized the scores attributed to public bads. Th at is also outlined by higher standard deviations for public bads (range 2.15-2.83) in comparison to public goods (range 1.67-2.37) (Appendix C). Public goods per- ceptions across the CSRs did not result signifi cantly dif- ferent. On the other hand, public bads perception were signifi cantly diff erent across the CSRs (with p<0.05) for all the PGBs considered in the study except for ‘Degra- dation of rural viability and vitality’, ‘Reduction of cli- mate stability’ and ‘Reduction of resilience to environ- mental risks’. 3.2. Factors, issues, and mechanisms linked to public goods and bads Th e results about the most important factors consid- ered as relevant for the diff erent PGBs across the seven CSRs are shown in Figure 2. Th e results show that the most important factors relate to the complying of farm- ers and foresters to the environmental regulations for public goods and the land management decisions taken by farmers and foresters for public bads (with an across- CSRs average of 30% and 25% of all PGBs impacted by these factors respectively). Specifi c PGBs that were con- sidered particularly related to regulations were farm- land biodiversity and water quality (54% of stakeholders indicated regulation as a relevant factor for these PGBs; Appendix D). Similarly, the CAP funding was considered a signifi cant and positive factor for biodiversity protection and maintenance of rural viability and vitality by 54% of stakeholders. On the other hand, production choices were indicated as a factor specifi cally related to farmland biodiversity depletion by 56% of stakeholders. Th e stake- holders’ opinions concerning the factors were not signifi - cantly diff erent across the CSRs. Two notable exceptions were ‘Public goods are direct result of market demand for healthier, more sustainable agricultural and forestry prod- ucts’ that was signifi cantly diff erent with p<0.01 and the factor ‘Public bads emerge from the competition between regions/countries forcing farmers and foresters to reduce the sustainability of productions‘ with p<0.05. Th e relevance of the issues for the ten PGBs was rated between an average of 18% and 33% (Figure 3). In particular, the perception of the role of farmers and foresters as land managers was considered the most rel- Landscape and scenery Farmland biodiversity Water Quality and availability Air quality Soil functionality Climate stability Resilience to environmental risks Rural viability and vitality Productions quality and security Animal welfare 4 5 6 7 8 4 5 6 7 8 PU BL IC B AD PUBLIC GOOD Figure 1. Stakeholders’ perception of public goods and public bads provided by agricultural and forestry systems in the 7 CSRs. Th e rating is reported on a 9 point scale and related to the ten environ- mental categories included in the study. 0 10 20 30 40 50 re gu la tio n co m pl ia nc e CA P fu nd in g so ci et y de m an d m ar ke t d em an d te ch no lo gy % a: Factors related to public goods 0 10 20 30 40 50 un in te nd ed b y- pr od uc ts in di re ct re su lt of pr ac tic es pr od uc tio n ch oi ce s ab se nc e of a de qu at e co m pe ns at io n ab an do nm en t co m pe tit io n % b: Factors related to public bads Figure 2. Perception of the stakeholders concerning the relevance of the factors linked to PGBs across the 7 CSRs and for the 10 PGBs: Boxplot of factors related to public goods (a) and public bads (b) provision from agricultural and forestry systems. Grey points in each plot represent 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles, bot- tom to top. 358 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(4): 351-371, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12843 Stefano Targetti et al. evant issue, whereas issues linked to land tenure and access were considered on average the least important. Even though urban sprawling and land abandonment was not considered among the most relevant issues for PGBs, that issue was the most important affecting ‘Landscape and scenery’ (Appendix E). In the case of public bads, ‘Inadequate funding’ was perceived as the most important issue and in particular 45% of stake- holders considered that as relevant for biodiversity deg- radation3. Likewise for factors, stakeholders’ opinions over the issues considered were quite homogeneous across CSRs, except for ‘Urban sprawling and abandon- ment’ and ‘Development and trade-offs between differ- ent land uses’ for which statistical significant differences were found between the CSRs (at 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively). According to the stakeholders, the most relevant mechanisms to improve public goods and reduce pub- lic bads were the implementation of payments for envi- ronmental services (PES) and the promotion of farmers’ and foresters’ awareness of sustainability (education). These mechanisms were considered effective for a range of different PGBs, but PES were rated as particularly effective for biodiversity and landscape (62% and 53% of stakeholders on average rated PES as relevant for bio- diversity and landscape; Appendix F). Interestingly, the mechanism ‘Adapt compensation schemes and regula- tions to the global market’ was considered as the least effective mechanism to foster public goods and reduce public bads. Concerning the difference between regions, PES and ‘Adopt more efficient land use plans’ were sig- 3 More details concerning the differences between the stakeholder per- ception have been reported in the discussion section. nificantly different across the seven CSRs considered (p<0.05; Appendix G). 3.3. Cluster analysis. Finding groups of stakeholders with convergent perception of PGBs The cluster analysis performed on the PCA scores outlined four clusters (Appendix B). The largest cluster (Cluster 2) included 37% of stakeholders characterized by stating high scores for all PGBs (with overall aver- age scores of around 8 out of 9 for both public goods and public bads; Table 4). Noteworthy, public bads were relevant and higher than in the other clusters. The sec- ond largest cluster (Cluster 3) grouped 25% of stakehold- ers was characterized by the perception of landscape as the most relevant public good (average score of 7.7) and biodiversity depletion as the most important public bad (scoring 6.9) connected to agricultural and forestry sys- tems. Also, PGBs linked to resilience to flooding, land- slides and fire and air quality were considered the least relevant, with scores within the range of 3.6-4.6. The third largest cluster (Cluster 4; 24% of stakeholders) was composed by stakeholders who stated the overall lowest scores for PGBs (5.5 for public goods and 4.2 fo public bads), considering rural viability as the most relevant public good and soil erosion as the most critical public bad (scoring 6.7 and 6.2, respectively). In this cluster, water and production quality were considered the least relevant public good and public bad respectively (scor- ing 4.3 and 5.1). Finally, Cluster 1 included 18% of stake- holders. In that cluster, the stakeholders perceived a high relevance of public goods (7.2) compared to bads (4.5), indicating soil functionality as the most relevant public 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% so ci et y pe rc ep tio n in ad eq ua te fu nd in g co nf lic ts o f i nt er es t la nd -u se tr ad e- of fs ur ba n sp ra w lin g/ ab an do nm en t la nd te nu re /a cc es s Figure 3. Boxplot of issues related to PGB provision from agricul- tural and forestry systems: Average stakeholder perception concern- ing the relevance of the issues across the seven CSRs and for the ten PGBs. Grey points in each plot represent 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles, bottom to top. 0 10 20 30 40 50 In cr ea se fi na nc ia l s up po rt to fa rm er s a nd fo re st er s Im pl em en t p ay m en ts fo r en vi ro nm en ta l s er vi ce s (P ES ) Im pl em en t n ew m ar ke t- ba se d in ce nt iv es Pr om ot e fa rm er s’ a nd fo re st er s’ e du ca tio n to su st ai na bi lit y Ad ap t c om pe ns at io n sc he m es a nd re gu la tio ns to th e gl ob al m ar ke t Ad op t m or e ef fic ie nt la nd us e pl an s Pi on ee r/ fo st er c ro ss - co m pl ia nc e in a ll pu bl ic su bs id ie s % Figure 4. boxplot of mechanisms related to PGBs provision from agricultural and forestry systems . Average perception of the stake- holders concerning the relevance of the mechanisms across the sev- en CSRs and for the ten PGBs. Grey points in each plot represent 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 90th percentiles, bottom to top. 359 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(4): 351-371, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12843 Provision of public goods and bads by agriculture and forestry good (scoring 8.2) and the deterioration of climate sta- bility as the most relevant public bad (scoring 6.4) pro- duced by agriculture and forestry systems. In cluster 1 on the contrary, public bads related to landscape and production quality were perceived as the least important (both scoring 3.3). Considering the results, we propose the following cluster labelling: C1-Positivists, C2-Holis- tics, C3-Naturalists and C4-Agrarians. The four clusters outlined a relation with some of the CSRs as presented in Appendix G. In particular, cas- es from the German and Spanish CSRs were more often classified in C3-Naturalists and C4-Agrarians, respec- tively. C1-Positivists and C2-Holistics, on the contrary, showed a less clear relation with a specific CSR, though stakeholders from the Italian CSR were more likely C1-Positivists and Romanian CSRs were more likely C2-Holistics. Figure 5 shows the Shannon-Weaver index of infor- mation entropy for factors, issues, and mechanisms for the different clusters. The classification provided by the cluster analysis allowed to reduce the information entro- py and therefore provided indications about the rele- vance of specific issues and mechanisms for the different PGBs: As shown in figure 5, the uncertainty conveyed by the stakeholders concerning issues and mechanisms in connection with the different PGBs was significantly decreased. On the contrary, the information entropy regarding the factors linked to PGBs was not affected significantly with the cluster analysis. According to the Shannon-Weaver index, C2-Holistics showed the highest entropy for issues and mechanisms, indicating a lower capacity to discriminate between these for the improve- ment of PGB provision from agriculture and forestry. The cluster analysis enhanced the information quality in particular for C1-Positivists and, to a lesser extent, C3-Naturalists and C4-Agrarians, which recorded a sig- nificant lower entropy of the information across issues and mechanisms in comparison to C2. 4. DISCUSSION In general, the average scoring of public goods linked to agricultural and forestry systems in the 7 CSRs was higher than the perception of public bads. That points to an overall positive perception of the role of agriculture and forestry activities in providing envi- ronmental services, but that was also linked to the selec- tion of CSRs with relevant levels of public goods supply. In particular in the selected CSRs, public goods such as production quality and quantity, and rural vital- ity clearly prevail compared to the public bad one. This may reflect a general perceived efficiency of agriculture and forestry in providing those public goods (Villanueva et al., 2014; Novo et al., 2016). The results also indicate that the rating of public goods such as biodiversity, soil functionality, and resilience to environmental hazards, was very close to the rating of public bads. That denotes contrasting impacts for these environmental categories that are likely linked to different agricultural practices or systems and therefore highlights aspects where agri- environmental policies may play a more relevant role. Even though public bads perception was generally low, its variability across the CSRs was more promi- Table 4. Average scores of PGBs in the four identified clusters. The PGBs that in each cluster were reported more frequently as relevant in the stakeholder opinion are in bold. Variable Cluster 1-“Positivists” Cluster 2-“Holistics” Cluster 3-“Naturalists” Cluster 4-“Agrarians” % of stakeholders 18 37 24 21 PGs PBs PGs PBs PGs PBs PGs PBs Landscape and scenery 6.6 3.3 7.6 8.0 7.7 5.4 5.8 4.3 Farmland biodiversity 7.8 4.8 7.7 8.2 7.4 6.9 4.6 5.4 Water quality and availability 8.1 4.2 8.7 8.3 7.4 6.6 4.3 5.1 Air quality 6.8 5.7 8.5 8.2 4.6 3.9 5.4 3.5 Soil functionality 8.2 3.8 8.7 8.0 5.8 5.9 4.5 6.2 Climate stability 7.5 6.4 8.3 7.9 5.5 5.1 5.5 4.5 Resilience to flooding landslides and fire (%) 7.8 4.8 7.9 8.2 3.6 3.8 5.6 4.1 Rural viability and vitality 6.1 4.5 8.0 7.3 6.4 2.8 6.7 3.7 Quality and security of products (food. timber. energy) 6.8 3.3 8.1 7.3 6.1 3.5 6.5 2.6 Farm animal health and welfare 6.6 4.2 7.9 7.6 5.9 4.4 5.6 3.0 Overall average score 7.2 4.5 8.1 7.9 6.0 4.8 5.5 4.2 360 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(4): 351-371, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12843 Stefano Targetti et al. nent in comparison to public goods. In other words, the analysis indicates that agriculture and forestry systems are perceived as relevant “providers” of a wide range of public goods, whereas differences across the CSRs are more evident when considering the negative impacts. That points to an appropriate consideration of public bads and supports the stream of literature highlighting the usefulness of ecosystem disservice analyses for dis- entangling the dynamics taking place in different rural regions (Blanco et al., 2019; Targetti et al., 2021b; Zabala et al., 2021). Nonetheless, the inclusion of CSRs featur- ing agricultural systems that provide significant public bads would be necessary to bring clearer insights in that respect. The selectd CSRs were characterized by differ- ent agricultural and forestry systems, but that did not implicate siginificant differences related to PGBs. In that respect, the classification based on the cluster analysis allowed to increase the informative value conveyed by the stakeholders and highlighted significant differences across the clusters concerning issues and mechanisms. On the contrary, the perception of factors linked to PGBs was rather homogenous between the clusters. That evidence highlights how issues and mechanisms may have a different relevance even though the factors linked to PGBs are rather similar. For instance, the important role of factors such as regulations and the CAP in pro- moting public goods was a clear outcome of the analysis. In contrast, the implementation of mechanisms such as payments for environmental services was rated as par- ticularly effective for public goods such as biodiversity and landscape. Similarly, inadequate funding was con- sidered as an issue with negative consequences for spe- cific public goods such as farmland biodiversity, rural viability, and production. That confirms that the design of large scale policies for PGBs is complicate because of the different local-scale and socioeconomic features as supported by a range of studies (e.g. Armsworth et al., 2012; Schaller et al., 2018). Our results show that the consideration of mechanisms and issues would help to target the PGBs that are at stake in the different regions and improve the implementation of agri-environmental policies. Indeed, some general trends regarding mecha- nisms can be highlighted. For instance, the promotion of farmers’ and foresters’ awareness of sustainability issues resulted as a very effective mechanism for a range of different PGBs. If on one hand the stakeholders under- lined aspects related to human and social capital like education, on the other hand they highlighted a scarce belief in market-related mechanisms such as adapting PGB schemes and regulations to the global market and market-based incentives. The latter, though, was rated as a relevant mechanism for improving production qual- ity. In a nutshell, market-related mechanisms link better to specific PGBs that are considered more relevant for consumers (e.g. food production and animal welfare), other PGBs relating for instance to water, soil, landscape etc. require more refined mechanisms such as PES and cross-compliance of public subsidies. Contrarily, the scope of mechanisms designed to enhance education to 0 1 2 3 4 Cluster1 Cluster2 Cluster3 Cluster4 all H' Factors ns 0 1 2 3 4 Cluster1 Cluster2 Cluster3 Cluster4 all H' Issues ** 0 1 2 3 4 Cluster1 Cluster2 Cluster3 Cluster4 all H' Mechanisms *** Figure 5. Shannon-Weaver index of information entropy. Box- plot of the clusters and ANOVA: Boxplots with different letters indicate significant differences of H’ between the clusters with p<0.05 (Tukey HSD test for significant difference between clusters with**=p<0.01; *** p=<0.001; ns= not significant; i.e. cluster indi- cated with ‘a’ is different from ‘b’, cluster indicated with ‘ab’ are not different from ‘a’ and ‘b’). 361 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(4): 351-371, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12843 Provision of public goods and bads by agriculture and forestry sustainability of farmers and foresters is rated as effec- tive on a more general level. Concerning the issues connected to PGBs, tools tar- geting human capital were confirmed as important. For instance, societal perception of the role of farmers and foresters was considered the most relevant issue. That reiterates the opportunity to consider “soft” aspects like education ,social benefits and the acknowledgment of the role of land managers in environmental protection. Other issues that reached a high ratings in connection to specific PGBs was urban sprawling and land abandon- ment for their impacts on landscape and rural viability. On the contrary, the issue ‘Public access to public goods, land tenure and property’ was usually included among the least relevant issues. Concerning the perception of factors, regulations were acknowledged as the most important for the deliv- ery of public goods. CAP funding was also perceived as very relevant in particular for specific PGBs such as bio- diversity and rural viability. On the other hand, the role of farmers’ decisions and the unintended effects of those decisions were perceived as the most important factors. Those results outline a very traditional view of agri-eco- systems where farming activities generate externalities that policies need to tackle through classical stick-and- carrot tools. Technology, on the contrary, was not per- ceived as a factor able to improve the provision of PGB from rural areas. Exceptions concerned water and pro- duction quality. That is likely linked to the availability of technologies like for instance drip irrigation that are well-known for their potential positive effects, whereas for other public goods like biodiversity the potential of technology in helping the transition towards agro-eco- logical solutions is still less palpable (Bellon-Maurel & Huyghe, 2017). In terms of policy implications, the limited num- ber of stakeholders and regions that were included in the survey (71 stakeholders in 7 CSRs) makes difficult to generalise the results. Though, the work was carried out in a good range of different agricultural and forestry areas, located in North, East and Southern parts of the EU. Even though with limitations, the study can there- fore highlight some trends and interesting aspects on the connection between agriculture and forestry, and the supply of PGBs in EU. The results support the use- fulness of mixing different tools taking into considera- tion their different capacity to deal with different PGBs. On one hand regulations seem to guarantee high levels of efficiency, on the other hand a mix with tools target- ing information and education are also necessary. Beside the importance of policy mix, that result also confirms that the configuration and design of the different tools together is important (Fraser and Campbell, 2019). Nev- ertheless, this work cannot provide insights on aspets related to the design of different policy mixes as the study focused on the relevance of the mechanisms for the different PGBs and not on the configuration of dif- ferent mechanisms together. A further interesting aspect regards the reflection on the temporal dimension. Even though the survey did not explicitly consider the time range, the results outline a dicrepancy between issues, factors and mechanims that accrue in the long term (e.g. human capital related) and others that denote a more immediate impact (such as regulations and payments for environmental services). However, that observa- tion would need confirmation through an ad-hoc study focused on these aspects. From a governance perspective, several considera- tions can be raised. First of all with specific reference to sectorial policies like the CAP, the relevance of incen- tives to support (reduce) the supply of public goods (bads) results as paramount. Indeed, a general skepti- cism emerges concerning the possibility to improve public goods such as biodiversity or other environmen- tal services relying on market-related mechanisms only. Likely, the importance of supporting (e.g. biodiversity) and regulating services are considered too complex to fit easily to society awareness. That involves the perceived necessity to intervene with subsidies to complement the rationale of the market demand-supply mechanism. In that regard, the new CAP architecture (REG 2021/2115)4 could tackle that aspect. For instance, the higher rate of funding earmarked for environmental objectives (e.g. the eco-schemes) and the enhanced conditionality requirement could match with increasing the CAP tar- geting towards environmental objectives. Beside incen- tives, the role of regulations as necessary tools to ensure an adequate level of public goods supply is also reported. However, it seems obvious in the stakeholder perception that the availability of budget for incentives and regula- tions for PGBs is not enough without a more ‘horizontal’ approach of the policy design (Hodge, 2001). Fostering cross-compliance of public subsidies was for instance a mechanism that was rated as very important for several PGBs. In other words, the adequacy of a policy frame- work focusing on environmental objectives is necessary but not sufficient if a local-scale dialogue with other land-use-planning institutions and a wider range of local economic sectors is not established. 4 Regulation (EU) 2021/2115 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 December 2021 establishing rules on support for strate- gic plans to be drawn up by Member States under the common agri- cultural policy (CAP Strategic Plans); https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/ reg/2021/2115/oj - access in all EU languages 362 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(4): 351-371, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12843 Stefano Targetti et al. The study also highlights that a more efficient gov- ernance of PGBs is forcedly related to human capital. Knowledge, perception, ability, are for instance some of the farmers’ and foresters’ education objectives that need to be considered and promoted in consideration of long- term goals (Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007). The difficul- ty is clearly related to the necessity to focus short-term targets taking also into account the long-term objectives (Janssen and Anderies, 2007). For instance, the devel- opment of new PES schemes was considered relevant. But the implementation of innovative payment types also needs to take into account the socioeconomic con- text. In other words, if innovative solutions will be more and more necessary their success also depends on the capacity, interest and motivation of farmers to uptake such solutions (Raina et al., 2021). Tools fitting to the improvement of human capital are therefore relevant, but the time range needed is usually long and a constant adaptation and coordination with regulations and incen- tives is needed. 5. CONCLUSIONS The work presents the results of a survey carried-out in 7 CSRs and collecting opnions from 71 stakeholders. The work covered a range of different agricultural/for- estry systems located in North, East and Southern parts of the EU that were selected for their particular supply of public goods. Even though with limitations, the study can therefore highlights some trends and interesting aspects on the connections between agriculture and for- estry, and PGBs in EU. Overall, the perceived impacts on PGBs linked to agriculture and forestry were positive: this is consistent across regions and stakeholders, whereas more remarka- ble differences between the stakeholders were evident for public bads. On one hand, that outcome confirms that the selected CSRs were ‘hotspots’ of public goods. On the other hand, assessing aspects related to public bads is a potential pathway of research to shed light on dif- ferences and opportunities for the design of local-scale agri-environmental policies (Blanco et al., 2019; Tar- getti et al., 2021a). In that regard, the selection of CSRs denoting a significant supply of public goods is however a limitation of the study. The inclusion of CSRs featuring a wider set of PGB supply would therefore be necesssary to deepen the aspects related to public bads. The results clearly point to regulation compliance and subsidies as relevant factors for the maintenance and improvement of a range of public goods. The CAP in particular is confirmed among the most relevant fac- tors but the opinion of the stakeholders is rather dif- ferentiated according to the different PGBs. This can be related to a less clear perception of effectiveness of vol- untary schemes, but in part it is also very likely associ- ated to the higher complexity of that policy approach and the consequent difficulty in assigning clear impacts on specific PGBs. That is consistent with current debates that concerns for instance the role and design of subsi- dies for the conservation and promotion of farmland biodiversity (Pe’er et al., 2022). A general convergence regards the impact of fac- tors on PGBs. Conversely, a different consideration of mechanisms and issues was evidenced and related to the different perception of stakeholders towards PGBs. The classification provided by the clusters analysis allowed to understand the configuration of issues and mechanisms that were considered relevant in con- nection with the different PGBs. For instance, market processes and society demand were more relevant for specific public goods such as production quality and security, and animal welfare, whereas to a lesser extent to climate stability. This in part explains the relevance attributed to market-related mechanisms for those PGBs. Instead, more articulated tools such as payments for environmental services were considered necessary for public goods such as landscape, biodiversity, water quality, etc. The disconnection between society demand and supply of environmental services is fundamentally an issue that involves awareness of processes underpin- ning such services, the adequacy of markets to stimu- late specific services, and the trade-offs that inevita- bly incur between levels of ecosystem services supply (Adams, 2014). In this study, we have evidenced that different stakeholders have different views and opinions but further evidence would be necessary to understand whether such differences might be related to CSR fea- tures or agricultural systems. Beside regulation and subsidies, soft aspects lev- eraging on the environmental attitude of farmers and society are considered important across the different CSRs and for the different public goods. Surely, these aspects accrue on longer time ranges but likely their perceived relevance denotes a scarce attention or ineffi- ciencies of the current agrienvironmental policy frame- work towards those topics. Even though the study did not evaluate different policy mixes, a message emerg- ing from the analysis supports the need of considering instruments addressing different temporal and spatial scales. On the one hand regulations are considered effec- tive for a wide set of public goods and across the differ- ent CSRs. On the other hand, the effectiveness of incen- tives depends on the type of public goods and local scale 363 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(4): 351-371, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12843 Provision of public goods and bads by agriculture and forestry issues. The role of knowledge, awareness and education in general is considered relevant for enhancing the adap- tation capacity of a socio-ecological system (Janssen and Anderies, 2007). Therefore, tools targeting social and human capital should also be taken into account even though their impact will likely span in the long-term. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The work has been supported by the EU-H2020 PROVIDE Project ‘Providing a smart delivery of pub- lic goods by EU agriculture and forestry”, grant num- ber-633838. This work does not necessarily reflect the view of the EU and in no way anticipates the Commis- sion’s future policy. REFERENCES Adams, W.M., Brockington, D., Dyson, J., Vira, B., 2003. Managing Tragedies: Understanding Conflict over Common Pool Resources. Science, 302, 1915–1916. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1087771 Adams W.M. 2014. The value of valuing nature. Science, 346, 549-550. Armsworth, P.R., Acs, S., Dallimer, M., Gaston, K.J., Hanley, N., Wilson, P., 2012. The cost of policy sim- plification in conservation incentive programs. Ecol. Lett. 15, 406–414. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461- 0248.2012.01747.x Bellon-Maurel, V., Huyghe, C., 2017. Putting agricul- tural equipment and digital technologies at the cut- ting edge of agroecology. OCL - Oilseeds fats, Crop. Lipids 24. https://doi.org/10.1051/ocl/2017028 Blanco, J., Dendoncker, N., Barnaud, C., Sirami, C., 2019. Ecosystem disservices matter: Towards their system- atic integration within ecosystem service research and policy. Ecosyst. Serv. 36, 100913. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2019.100913 Cooper, T., Hart, K. y Baldock, D. (2009). Provision of public goods through agriculture in the European Union. Institute for European Environmental Policy, London. doi: 10.1016/j.jrurstud.2003.08.004 EC, 2021. Political agreement on new Common Agricul- tural Policy: fairer, greener, more flexible. European Commission – Press release. Brussels, 25 June 2021. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/ en/IP_21_2711; accessed February 2022 ENRD (2010) Public Goods and Public Intervention, Final Report of Thematic Working Group 3, Decem- ber 2010, Brussels Faccioli, M., Czajkowski, M., Glenk, K., Martin-Ortega, J., 2020. Environmental attitudes and place identity as determinants of preferences for ecosystem services. Ecol. Econ. 174, 106600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2020.106600 FAO. 2021. Land cover statistics. Global, regional and country trends, 2000–2019. FAOSTAT Analytical Brief Series No. 37. Rome. Fraser, E.D.G., Campbell, M., 2019. Agriculture 5.0: Reconciling Production with Planetary Health. One Earth 1, 278–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. oneear.2019.10.022 Gómez-Limón, J.A.; Arriaza, M.; Villanueva, A.J. (2013). Typifying irrigated areas to support policy design and implementation: The case of the Guadalquivir river basin. Irrigation and Drainage, 62(3), 322–329. DOI: 10.1002/ird.1747 Granado-Díaz, R.; Gómez-Limón, J.A.; Rodríguez- Entrena, M.; Villanueva, A.J. (2020). Spatial analysis of demand for sparsely-located ecosystem services using alternative index approaches. European Review of Agricultural Economics. 47(2), 752–784. DOI: 10.1093/erae/jbz036 Hart, K., Baldock, D., Weingarten, P., Osterburg, B., Pov- ellato, A., Vanni, F., Pirzio-Biroli, C. & Boyes, A. 2011. What tools for the European Agricultural Pol- icy to encourage the provision of public goods? Lux- embourg: Commission of the European Communi- ties. Hodge, I., 2001. Beyond agri-environmental policy: Towards an alternative model of rural environmental governance. Land Use Policy 18, 99–111. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0264-8377(01)00002-3 Husson, F., Le, S. and Pages, J. 2010. Exploratory multi- variate analysis by example using R. Chapman and Hall. Janssens M., Anderies J.M. 2007. Robustness Trade-offs in Social-Ecological Systems. International Journal of the Commons, 1, 43-65. Knowler, D., Bradshaw, B., 2007. Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: a review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy 32, 25–48. https://doi. org/ 10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.01.003. Kuehne, G., Llewellyn, R., Pannell, D.J., Wilkinson, R., Dolling, P., Ouzman, J., Ewing, M., 2017. Predicting farmer uptake of new agricultural practices: A tool for research, extension and policy. Agric. Syst. 156, 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2017.06.007 Lebel, L., Bennett, E., 2008. Participation in building sce- narios of regional development. In Norberg, J., Cum- ming, G.S. (eds.) Complexity Theory for a Sustain- able Future. Columbia University Press, NY. 364 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(4): 351-371, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12843 Stefano Targetti et al. Marconi, V., Raggi, M., Viaggi, D., 2015. Assessing the impact of RDP agri-environment measures on the use of nitrogen-based mineral fertilizers through spatial econometrics: The case study of Emilia- Romagna (Italy). Ecol. Indic. 59, 27–40. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.02.037 Martín-López, B., Iniesta-Arandia, I., García-Llorente, M., Palomo, I., Casado-Arzuaga, I., Del Amo, D.G., Gómez-Baggethun, E., Oteros-Rozas, E., Palacios- Agundez, I., Willaarts, B., González, J.A., Santos- Martín, F., Onaindia, M., López-Santiago, C., Montes, C., 2012. Uncovering ecosystem service bundles through social preferences. PLoS One 7. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038970 Maton L, Leenhardt D, Goulard M, Bergez J. 2005. Assess- ing the irrigation strategies over a wide geographi- cal area from structural data about farming systems. Agricultural Systems 86(3): 293–311. DOI: 10.1016/j. agsy.2004.09.010 Muradian, R., Gómez-Baggethun, E., 2021. Beyond ecosystem services and nature’s contributions: Is it time to leave utilitarian environmentalism behind? Ecol. Econ. 185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecolecon.2021.107038 Muradian, R., Rival, L., 2012. Between markets and hierar- chies: The challenge of governing ecosystem services. Ecosyst. Serv. 1, 93–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecos- er.2012.07.009 Norgaard, R.B., 2010. Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder. Ecol. Econ. 69, 1219– 1227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.009 Novo, P.; Slee, B.; Byg, A.; Creaney, R.; Faccioli, M.; Vil- lanueva, A.J.; Piorr, A.; Juutinen, A.; Viaggi, D.; Bareille, F.; Zasada, I.; Kantelhardt, J.; Gómez-Limón, J.A.; Haefner, K.; Tafel-Viia, K., Schaller, L.; Zavallo- ni, M.; Kurttila, M.; Verburg, P.; Lassur, S.; Hujala, T.; Ratinger, T.; Marconi, V.; Desjeux, Y. (2016). Concep- tual paper on the ‘unpacked’ notion of public goods. PROVIDE Project (no. 633838). OECD. 2015. Public goods and externali-ties: Agri-envi- ronmental policy measures in selected OECD coun- tries. OECD Publishing, Paris. Pe’er, G., J.A. Finn, M. Díaz, M. Birkenstock, S. Lakner, N. Röder, et al. (2022). How can the European Common Agricultural Policy help halt biodiversity loss? Rec- ommendations by over 300 experts. Conserv. Lett. (2022), p. e12901, 10.1111/conl.12901 Raina, N., Zavalloni, M., Targetti, S., D’Alberto, R., Raggi, M., Viaggi, D., 2021. A systematic review of attributes used in choice experiments for agri-environmental contracts. Bio-Based and Applied Economics, DOI: 10.13128/bae-9678 Runge, T.; Latacz-Lohmann, U.; Schaller, L.; Todorova, K.; Daugbjerg, C.; Termansen, M.; Liira, J.; Le Gloux, F.; Dupraz, P.; Leppanen, J.; et al. 2022. Implementation of Eco-schemes in Fifteen European Union Member States. EuroChoices, 21, 19–27. Shackleton, C.M., Ruwanza, S., Sinasson Sanni, G.K., Bennett, S., De Lacy, P., Modipa, R., Mtati, N., Sachikonye, M., Thondhlana, G., 2016. Unpacking Pandora’s Box: Understanding and Categorising Eco- system Disservices for Environmental Management and Human Wellbeing. Ecosystems 19, 587–600. htt- ps://doi.org/10.1007/s10021-015-9952-z 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-Raw- likowska, 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 land- scapes, ecosystem services and regional competitive- ness. Assessing drivers and mechanisms in nine Euro- pean case study areas. Land Use Policy 76, 735–745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.03.001 Schwartz, C., Shaaban, M., Bellingrath-Kimura, S.D., Piorr, A., 2021. Participatory mapping of demand for ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes. Agric. 11, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11121193 Soini, K., Vaarala, H., Pouta, E., 2012. Residents’ sense of place and landscape perceptions at the rural-urban interface. Landsc. Urban Plan. 104, 124–134. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.10.002 Targetti, S.; Villanueva, A.J.; Parra-López, C.; Viaggi, D. 2018. The use of the Analytic Network Process for the analysis of public goods supply from agricultural systems: Advances and challenges ahead. En: Berbel, J., Borunaris, T., Manos, B., Matsatsinis, N., Viaggi, D. (eds.) Multicriteria analysis in agriculture. Spring- er. pp. 99-132. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-76929-5_4 Targetti, S., Raggi, M., Viaggi, D., 2020. Benefits for the local society attached to rural landscape: An analy- sis of residents’ perception of ecosystem services. Biobased and Applied Economics. DOI: 10.13128/ bae-8340 Targetti, S., Raggi, M., Zavalloni, M., Viaggi, D., 2021a. Perceived benefits from reclaimed rural landscapes: Evidence from the lowlands of the Po River Delta, Italy. Ecosyst. Serv. 49, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ecoser.2021.101288 Targetti, S., Schaller, L.L., Kantelhardt, J., 2021b. A fuzzy cognitive mapping approach for the assessment of public-goods governance in agricultural land- scapes. Land Use Policy 107, 103972. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.04.033 365 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(4): 351-371, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12843 Provision of public goods and bads by agriculture and forestry Tienhaara, A., Ahtiainen, H., & Pouta, E. (2021). Hetero- geneous preferences of citizens towards agricultural ecosystem services: the demand relevance in a choice experiment. Ecosystems and People, 17(1), 114-127. Tindale, S., Roberts, M., Koseoglu, N., Novo, P., Kyle, C. Byg, A., Faccioli, M., Komossa, F., Schaller, L., Slee, B., Villanueva, A.J., Zasada, I., Viaggi, D. 2018. Evalu- ation of the co-construction research process (Deliv- erable 2.5). PROVIDE Project (no. 633838). Tyllianakis, E., & Martin-Ortega, J. 2021. Agri-environ- mental schemes for biodiversity and environmen- tal protection: How we are not yet “hitting the right keys”. Land Use Policy, 109, 105620 Ungaro, F., Schwartz, C., Piorr, A., 2021. Ecosystem ser- vices indicators dataset for the utilized agricultural area of the Märkisch-Oderland District-Branden- burg, Germany. Data Br. 34, 106645. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.dib.2020.106645 Villanueva, A.J.; Gómez-Limón, J.A.; Arriaza, M.; Nekhay, O. 2014. Analysing the provision of agricul- tural public goods: The case of irrigated olive groves in Southern Spain. Land Use Policy, 38, 300-313. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.11.018 Wolff, S., Schulp, C.J.E., Verburg, P.H., 2015. Mapping ecosystem services demand: A review of current research and future perspectives. Ecol. Indic. 55, 159– 171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2015.03.016 Zabala, J. A., Martínez-Paz, J. M., & Alcon, F. 2021. A comprehensive approach for agroecosystem ser- vices and disservices valuation. Science of The Total Environment, 768, 144859. doi:10.1016/j.scito- tenv.2020.1448 van Zanten, B.T., Verburg, P.H., Espinosa, M., Gomez- Y-Paloma, S., Galimberti, G., Kantelhardt, J., Kapfer, M., Lefebvre, M., Manrique, R., Piorr, A., Raggi, M., Schaller, L., Targetti, S., Zasada, I., Viaggi, D., 2014. European agricultural landscapes, Common Agricul- tural Policy and ecosystem services: A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 34, 309–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s13593-013-0183-4 Zasada, I., Piorr, A., Ungaro, F. 2012. D3.15: Report on mechanisms. EU-FP7 CLAIM Project. Zasada, I., Häfner, K., Schaller, L., van Zanten, B.T., Lefebvre, M., Malak-Rawlikowska, A., Nikolov, D., Rodríguez-Entrena, M., Manrique, R., Ungaro, F., Zavalloni, M., Delattre, L., Piorr, A., Kantelhardt, J., Verburg, P.H., Viaggi, D., 2017. A conceptual model to integrate the regional context in landscape policy, management and contribution to rural development: Literature review and European case study evidence. Geoforum 82, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geofo- rum.2017.03.012 366 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(4): 351-371, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12843 Stefano Targetti et al. APPENDIX A List and description of PGBs as developed with the stakeholders. Category Related Public Goods Related Public Bads 1 Rural Landscape Beauty access Naturalness (sounds & scents) Health & wellbeing Tranquility Tourism Educational & recreational values Connectedness & spiritual values Landscape degradation Land fragmentation Barriers to recreation Clear-cut forest areas 2 Farmland Biodiversity Pollination Habitats Wild berries and mushrooms Games Local varieties of plants and animals Protection against pests Picking fruits Pest & diseases Increase of dangerous wild animals Pollination reduction 3 Water availability Sustainable land management Resilience to drought Intensification Natural resources consumption Water quality Sustainable land management Intensification Water Pollution Intensification Health problems 4 Air quality Health, & wellbeing Sustainable land management Intensification Air pollution Health problems 5 Soil functionality Sustainable land management Carbon storage Water retention Geodiversity Climate change adaptation and mitigation Soil erosion Soil pollution Intensification 6 Climate stability Carbon storage GHG emissions Carbon Sink Intensification 7 Resilience to flooding, landslide and wildfire Sustainable land management Water flows regulation Climate change adaptation Flooding Resilience to fire Sustainable land management Climate change adaptation Wild fire 8 Rural viability/vitality Cultural heritage Local identity Land & Infrastructure maintenance Creation of rural jobs Land stewardship Connectedness & spiritual values Land abandonment Culture loss Poverty Poor land management Safety / vandalism 9 Food, energy and timber security and quality (local supply) Energy supply Food security & quality Sustainable land management Employment Forest quality Poor food quality & distribution Outsourcing production Deforestation Natural resources exploitation 10 Farm Animal health/welfare Foraging & hunting Pasture and grasslands Sustainable land management Intensification Health problems 367 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(4): 351-371, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12843 Provision of public goods and bads by agriculture and forestry APPENDIX B Cluster dendrogram. APPENDIX C Average perception of PGBs relevance and standard deviation. Public goods perception Public bads perception were significantly different across the CSRs (with p<0.05) for all the PGBs considered in the study except for ‘Degradation of rural viability and vitality’, ‘Reduction of climate stability’ and ‘Reduction of resilience to environmental risks’. Public goods perception* Public bads perception** Average score St. dev. Average score St. dev. Landscape and scenery 7.01 1.67 5.79 2.68 Farmland biodiversity (animal and vegetal) 6.92 1.97 6.70 2.25 Water quality and availability 7.31 2.21 6.65 2.33 Air quality 6.59 2.33 5.51 2.83 Soil functionality 6.99 2.29 6.77 2.15 Climate stability 6.83 2.15 5.80 2.56 Resilience to flooding, landslides and fire 6.34 2.37 5.97 2.79 Rural viability and vitality 6.93 1.89 4.84 2.76 Productions quality and security (food, timber, energy) 7.00 2.00 4.92 2.73 Farm animal health and welfare 6.68 1.98 5.28 2.55 *Difference between case study regions not significant ** difference between case study regions significant with p<0.05 except for ‘Degradation of rural viability and vitality’, ‘Reduction of climate stability’ and ‘Reduction of resilience to environmental risks’. 368 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(4): 351-371, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12843 Stefano Targetti et al. APPENDIX D Heathmap of the perception of relevant factors for the different PGBs. Relevant for public goods Regulation compliance CAP funding Technology Society demand Market demand Productions quality and security (food, timber, energy) 42% 41% 39% 34% 61% Farmland biodiversity (animal and vegetal) 54% 54% 23% 24% 24% Farm animal health and welfare 44% 35% 25% 37% 46% Resilience to Flooding, Landslides and Fire 42% 25% 18% 17% 8% Water Quality and availability 54% 28% 38% 27% 17% Landscape and scenery 32% 39% 15% 24% 21% Soil functionality 48% 34% 31% 15% 14% Rural viability and vitality 18% 54% 24% 17% 23% Climate stability 28% 23% 13% 18% 7% Air quality 34% 15% 31% 25% 13% Relevant for public bads Production choices Nnintended by-products Absence of adequate compensation Competition Abandonment Indirect result of practices Productions quality and security (food, timber, energy) 31% 15% 24% 31% 14% 14% Farmland biodiversity (animal and vegetal) 56% 48% 34% 25% 13% 15% Farm animal health and welfare 30% 21% 23% 23% 7% 13% Resilience to Flooding, Landslides and Fire 32% 31% 14% 7% 18% 8% Water Quality and availability 45% 31% 20% 30% 3% 7% Landscape and scenery 44% 51% 24% 15% 23% 14% Soil functionality 48% 44% 24% 25% 17% 7% Rural viability and vitality 15% 15% 17% 10% 30% 10% Climate stability 25% 38% 27% 15% 11% 18% Air quality 25% 32% 14% 14% 7% 13% 369 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(4): 351-371, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12843 Provision of public goods and bads by agriculture and forestry APPENDIX E Heathmap of the perception of issues related to the different PGBs. PGs relevance PBs relevance so ci et y pe rc ep tio n in ad eq ua te fu nd in g co nfl ic ts o f in te re st la nd -u se tr ad e- off s ur ba n sp ra w lin g/ ab an do nm en t la nd te nu re / ac ce ss so ci et y pe rc ep tio n in ad eq ua te fu nd in g co nfl ic ts o f in te re st la nd -u se tr ad e- off s ur ba n sp ra w lin g/ ab an do nm en t la nd te nu re / ac ce ss Productions quality and security (food, timber, energy) 42% 42% 35% 46% 46% 45% 42% 39% 38% 37% 42% 25% Farmland biodiversity (animal and vegetal) 37% 46% 48% 49% 31% 21% 37% 45% 38% 32% 35% 18% Resilience to Flooding, Landslides and Fire 39% 25% 46% 32% 23% 27% 28% 30% 28% 32% 18% 20% Water Quality and availability 38% 23% 18% 11% 18% 10% 25% 23% 13% 10% 15% 13% Air quality 38% 34% 30% 34% 35% 14% 31% 35% 30% 32% 18% 10% Soil functionality 46% 30% 25% 28% 14% 10% 37% 30% 15% 20% 14% 14% Climate stability 39% 28% 34% 37% 28% 20% 25% 20% 23% 20% 18% 14% Landscape and scenery 31% 30% 28% 17% 56% 18% 24% 31% 27% 18% 41% 30% Rural viability and vitality 25% 30% 34% 23% 15% 14% 20% 30% 14% 13% 15% 15% Farm animal health and welfare 20% 23% 34% 13% 6% 10% 23% 27% 20% 8% 8% 8% 370 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(4): 351-371, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12843 Stefano Targetti et al. APPENDIX F Heathmap of the perception of mechanisms able to foster PGs and reduce PBs. Fostering public goods In cr ea se fi na nc ia l su pp or t t o fa rm er s an d fo re st er s Im pl em en t pa ym en ts fo r en vi ro nm en ta l se rv ic es (P ES ) Im pl em en t n ew m ar ke t- ba se d in ce nt iv es Pr om ot e fa rm er s’ an d fo re st er s’ ed uc at io n to su st ai na bi lit y A da pt c om pe ns at io n sc he m es a nd re gu la tio ns to th e gl ob al m ar ke t A do pt m or e effi ci en t la nd u se p la ns Pi on ee r/ fo st er c ro ss - co m pl ia nc e in a ll pu bl ic su bs id ie s Production quality and security (food, timber, energy) 34% 23% 42% 38% 32% 23% 28% Farmland biodiversity (animal and vegetal) 48% 59% 32% 42% 20% 37% 39% Resilience to Flooding, Landslides and Fire 31% 35% 13% 45% 8% 28% 32% Water Quality and availability 30% 49% 25% 42% 21% 37% 39% Air quality 23% 30% 15% 35% 13% 23% 35% Soil functionality 28% 48% 17% 46% 14% 45% 39% Climate stability 28% 45% 17% 39% 25% 24% 34% Landscape and scenery 38% 59% 24% 44% 10% 37% 41% Rural viability and vitality 42% 24% 30% 30% 28% 31% 27% Farm animal health and welfare 31% 31% 37% 38% 20% 20% 31% Reducing public bads In cr ea se fi na nc ia l su pp or t t o fa rm er s an d fo re st er s Im pl em en t pa ym en ts fo r en vi ro nm en ta l se rv ic es (P ES ) Im pl em en t n ew m ar ke t- ba se d in ce nt iv es Pr om ot e fa rm er s’ an d fo re st er s’ ed uc at io n to su st ai na bi lit y A da pt c om pe ns at io n sc he m es a nd re gu la tio ns to th e gl ob al m ar ke t A do pt m or e effi ci en t la nd u se p la ns Pi on ee r c ro ss - co m pl ia nc e in a ll pu bl ic su bs id ie s Production quality and security (food, timber, energy) 32% 20% 38% 35% 28% 21% 24% Farmland biodiversity (animal and vegetal) 46% 65% 37% 52% 20% 44% 51% Resilience to Flooding, Landslides and Fire 23% 35% 15% 35% 14% 27% 28% Water Quality and availability 35% 46% 28% 49% 15% 37% 46% Air quality 24% 38% 15% 46% 14% 20% 37% Soil functionality 31% 44% 17% 54% 13% 37% 42% Climate stability 28% 44% 24% 48% 24% 30% 35% Landscape and scenery 54% 46% 27% 46% 18% 42% 41% Rural viability and vitality 37% 27% 20% 34% 18% 35% 24% Farm animal health and welfare 30% 32% 42% 39% 27% 13% 37% 371 Bio-based and Applied Economics 11(4): 351-371, 2022 | e-ISSN 2280-6172 | DOI: 10.36253/bae-12843 Provision of public goods and bads by agriculture and forestry APPENDIX G Correlogram outlining the relation between clusters and CSRs. The intensity of the blue colour is related to a positive relation, whereas red color indicates negative relations. The dimension of the bubble is proportional to the rate of the relation. Volume 11, Issue 4 - 2022 Firenze University Press Systems Thinking, Mapping and Change in Food and Agriculture Domenico Dentoni1,*, Carlo Cucchi2, Marija Roglic1, Rob Lubberink3, Rahmin Bender-Salazar4, Timothy Manyise5 Vulnerability and resilience to food and nutrition insecurity: A review of the literature towards a unified framework Pierluigi Montalbano1, Donato Romano2,* The local economic impact of climate change mitigation in agriculture Cathal Geoghegan1,2,*, Cathal O’Donoghue1,3, Jason Loughrey2 Dealing with endogeneity in risk analysis within the stochastic frontier approach in agricultural economics: a scoping review Simone Russo1,2,*, Lerato Phali3, Maurizio Prosperi1 Provision of public goods and bads by agriculture and forestry. An analysis of stakeholders’ perception of factors, issues and mechanisms Stefano Targetti1,*, Valentina Marconi1, Meri Raggi2, Annette Piorr3, Anastasio José Villanueva4, Kati Häfner3, Mikko Kurttila5, Natalia Letki6, Mihai Costica7, Dimitre Nikolov8, Davide Viaggi1