This is an Accepted Manuscript of the article Albizua, A., Pascual, U., & Corbera, E. (2019) Large-scale Irrigation Impacts Socio-cultural Values: An Example from Rural Navarre, Spain. Ecological Economics, in press, available online at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.12.017. ©2019. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Supplementary material Table 1. Correspondence between nature contributions (NCP), ecosystem services (ES) and their connection with human wellbeing Human Source wellbeing dimension to Ecosyste Human NCP Type Statement Benefit which m service wellbein Effect Literature of Intervie category of ES ecosystem Scale g Scale ES w service contributes Non- material Agrarian soils are Inspiration; (Calvet-Mir et important because Subjective physical Outdoo al., 2012; Klain they offer a happiness and r Landscap Individua et al., 2014; relaxing and Activity Solastalgia Direct √ psychologic recreati e l MEA, 2005a; leisure space: for (distress by al on Swinton et al., walks, birds environment) experiences 2007) tourism Supporting identities Non- material (De Groot et Inspiration; Agrarian soils are Subjective al., 2002; physical Outdoo Collectiv important because happiness Kremen, 2005; and r Landscap e they offer unique Aesthetic Solastalgia Direct MEA, 2005a; √ psychologic recreati e /Individu and attractive (distress by Swinton et al., al on al landscapes environment) 2007; Zhang et experiences al., 2007) Supporting identities Non- Agrarian soil is Subjective material (Calvet-Mir et important because happiness Inspiration; Inspiratio Individua al., 2012; Klain it offers an Artistic Solastalgia All Direct √ physical n l et al., 2014; inspiration source (distress by and MEA, 2005a) (art, culture…) environment) psychologic -2- al experiences Non- Subjective Agrarian soil is material Educati happiness (Calvet-Mir et important because Inspiration; on and Affection and Collectiv al., 2012; K. it offers an ideal physical cognitiv Knowled respect: being e All Direct Chan et al., √ source of and e ge part of /Individu 2012; MEA, education (about psychologic develop environment al 2005a) natural cycles etc.) al ment Freedom to experiences choose Subjective Agrarian soil is happiness Educati important because Affection and on it keeps and Non- respect: we are Collectiv through Knowled (Calvet-Mir et exposes traditional material part of Landscap e traditio ge and Direct al., 2012, √ land activities, Supporting environment; e /Individu nal identity MEA, 2005b) there is a culture, identities Social relations al knowle richness and Mutual respect; dge knowledge Ability to help others Place Non- for material creatin Social relations Agrarian soil is Inspiration; Social Collectiv g and Social cohesion; important because physical capital Landscap e (Calvet-Mir et enhanci Mutual respect; Direct √ it creates social and and e /Individu al., 2012; ng Ability to help relations psychologic cohesion al social others al relation experiences s Agrarian soil is Non- Self- Spiritual important because material Freedom to Individua fulfilme and Plot Direct √ it makes you Inspiration; choose l nt identity surpass yourself, it physical -3- is constructive, it and gives illusion and psychologic strength to keep al working experiences Supporting identities Non- material Inspiration; Soil quality is physical Health important since and Food Plot & Individua (Calvet-Mir et Material Access to clean Direct √ food quality psychologic quality landscape l al., 2012) food and water depends on it al experiences Supporting identities Agrarian soil is (De Groot et Basic material important although Collectiv al., 2002b; Material for good life & not essential since Plot & e& MEA, 2005a; Food and Food Material Security Direct √ technology makes landscape Individua Swinton et al., feed Food; Access to possible crops l 2007; Zhang et goods without soil al., 2007) Agrarian soil is Basic material Collectiv important because Material Raw (De Groot et for good life & Plot & e& it provides with raw Food and materia Material Direct al., 2002b; √ Security landscape Individua materials for feed l MEA, 2005a) Access to goods l industry and cattle Agrarian land is (De Groot et important because Security Secure al., 2002b; Regulating Climate Existenc it captures CO2 resource access; Collectiv Indire Kremen, 2005; Regulation regulati e/ All scales √ and it helps to Security from e ct MEA, 2005a; of climate on Option mitigate climate disasters Weber, 2007; change Zhang et al., -4- 2007) It is important (Barrios, 2007; when there are Regulating Daily, 1997; insects in the Regulation Security & De Groot et agrarian soil of Biologic Health Secure Collectiv al., 2002b; Existenc because of their detrimental al resource access Microscopi e& Kremen, 2005; e/ Direct √ biological organisms regulati (clean food and c Individua MEA, 2005a; Option regulation function. and on water); Security l Sandhu et al., They contribute to biological from disasters 2010; Weber, balance in the processes 2007; Zhang et system al., 2007) (Barrios, 2007; De Groot et Regulating Many agrarian soil al., 2002b; Regulation cannot filtrate Water Security Secure Collectiv Kremen, 2005; of Existenc water properly and quantity resource access; e& Lavelle et al., freshwater e/ Plot Direct √ they don’t help on regulati Security from Individua 2006; MEA, quantity, Option water quantity on disasters l 2005a; location and regulation Sandhu et al., timing 2010; Zhang et al., 2007) Regulating (Kremen, Agrarian soil is Security & Regulation 2005; MEA, important because Water Health Secure Collectiv of Existenc 2005a; it acts as a filter quality resource access e& freshwater e/ Plot Direct Swinton et al., √ that cleans water, regulati (clean food and Individua and coastal Option 2007; Weber, and contributes on water); Security l water 2007; Zhang et necessary salts from disasters quality al., 2007) Agrarian soil is Regulating Security Secure Collectiv (Barrios, 2007; Erosion Existenc important because Formation, resource access; Plot & e& Indire De Groot et prevent e/ √ it regulates the protection Security from landscape Individua ct al., 2002b; ion Option erosion caused by and disasters l Kremen, 2005; -5- water decontamin Lavelle et al., ation of 2006; MEA, soils and 2005a; sediments Sandhu et al., 2010) Regulating (Calvet-Mir et Formation, Agrarian soil is al., 2012; protection Polluta Collectiv important because Existenc Daily, 1997; and nt Security & Plot & e& Indire it absorbs wastes e/ De Groot et √ decontamin regulati Health landscape Individua ct that otherwise may Option al., 2002b; ation of on l be problematic Kremen, 2005; soils and MEA, 2005a) sediments Regulating Agrarian soil is Habitat Material / Collectiv important because creation Existenc Security & Basic e& (Turner and Life All Direct √ it supports and e/ material for life Individua Daily, 2008) terrestrial life maintenanc Option l e Regulating Agrarian soil is Habitat Material / Collectiv (De Groot et important because creation Existenc Security & Basic Landscap e& al., 2002b; Habitat Direct √ it is a shelter for and e/ material for life e Individua MEA, 2005a; fauna maintenanc Option l Weber, 2007) e Regulating Pollination Agrarian soil is and Collectiv (Calvet-Mir et Existenc important because dispersal of Fertility Security & Basic Plot & e& al., 2012; e/ Direct √ its nutrients make seeds and material for life landscape Individua Kremen, 2005; Option possible the crops other l MEA, 2005a) propagules Regulation -6- of detrimental organisms and biological processes Maintenanc e of options -7- Fig 1. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of farmers’ elicited values about NCP1 Table 2. Factor loadings of the PCA Dim.1 Dim.2 Dim.3 Dim.4 Dim.5 Food.production -0.68507 -0.45918 0.233832 0.039682 0.019769 Water.quality.quantity.regulation 0.260141 -0.04565 -0.18836 -0.60423 -0.45665 Climate.regulation 0.559867 -0.02112 0.006602 -0.05236 -0.32822 Plagues.regulation 0.476441 0.083043 0.099485 -0.07499 0.450088 Erosion.regulation 0.34984 -0.07283 0.081491 0.49209 -0.38688 Soils.remediation.capacity -0.05791 0.016987 -0.59281 0.254316 0.305165 Soils.biodiversity 0.428815 -0.09287 0.50737 -0.08476 0.329634 Habitat.creation 0.12228 0.059083 0.637002 -0.03581 0.144404 Soils.fertility 0.490882 -0.23092 -0.3458 0.134349 0.119724 Education -0.17023 0.449296 0.250718 0.076596 -0.36788 Cultural.traditions -0.12078 0.680747 0.060012 -0.08348 0.049629 T.Knowledge -0.08175 0.518187 -0.23261 -0.3892 0.211526 Landscape 0.076795 0.560432 0.005929 0.493622 -0.0318 Eigenvalue 1.70 1.54 1.36 1.12 1.09 Variability (%) 13.07 11.84 10.47 8.59 8.38 Cumulative variability (%) 13.07 24.91 35.38 43.97 52.35 1 NCP have been simplified for a better visualization -8- I. Template for the first round of semi-structured interviews2 The study encompasses diverse views about land ecosystem services for human wellbeing and how such values are influenced by modern irrigation. The information obtained from the interviews will be used confidentially. Personal information is only retained for potential follow-up procedures in the future, if necessary. The interview lasts approximately one and a half hours. I ask for your permission to record the interview. Thank you. Interview number: Sector: Place: Following questions includes only the introductory questions since this article is part of a broader project Could you please tell me? 1. Your name and birth year (I also indicated gender): 2. Literacy level of number of years studied: 3. Your profession: 4. How do you connect your work to the agrarian sector? 5. How long have you been working in the agrarian sector? 6. How would you classify farmers in this area? 7. Could you tell me four types of agrarian practices common in the area? 8. Which are the services or benefits that the agrarian ecosystem provides you with? How would you relate such benefits with your wellbeing and/or wellbeing in general (for the whole society)3? 9. How happy would you say you are regarding your livelihood? Why? Please tell me your opinion about the questions; what would you change and why? Who else would you suggest to speak with? 2 Though the interviews were conducted in Spanish, We are publishing the final questions as translated to English. If interested in reviewing the originals, they are available via the author. 3 Farmers were encourage to think why they had chosen such profession, what (beyond the crop) was the ecosystem providing them with -9- II. Participants in the first round of interviews The following Table describes the participants’ profiles of the first-round interviews. Listed first are diverse farmers, followed by mixed stakeholders’ profiles. Farmers were selected according to time invested in agriculture, type of crops, management approach, gender and age. ‘Other’ stakeholders were selected in relation to their involvement within the transformation to modern irrigation. Land management system (If Age Gender Area/zone Profile applicable) Part-time; Southern I.1 Middle Female cereal ecologic Rainfed Zone system Medium Full-time; wine I.2 Middle Male Irrigated and rainfed area farm/vineyard Northern I.3 Young Male New farmer Irrigated and rainfed area Northern I.4 Middle Male Full time Irrigated and rainfed area Northern I.5 Middle Male Full time Irrigated and rainfed area Northern I.6 Old Male Full time Cooperative president area Northern Irrigated system without I.7 Middle Male Part time area installation Southern I.8 Middle Male Full time Irrigated area Southern I.9 Old Male Retired Small plot area Medium I.10 Middle Female Part time Rainfed area Medium I.11 Middle Female Part time Traditional irrigated system area Conventional and ecological Southern I.12 Middle Male Full time farming under irrigated and area rainfed systems I.13 Young Female n/a n/a Technician of AguaCanal Responsible of lands I.14 Middle Male n/a n/a concentration of INTIA Responsible of agrarian farms I.15 Middle Female n/a n/a training of INTIA Responsible of Projects and I.16 Middle Male n/a n/a direction of canal work Head of agricultural production I.17 Middle Male n/a n/a (I+D) of INTIA Technician of the negotiated of I.18 Middle Male n/a n/a soils and climatology of Navarre Government I.19 Middle Male n/a n/a Head of re-parceling negotiation - 10 - Land management system (If Age Gender Area/zone Profile applicable) of Rural development and environment department of Navarre Government Member of Nueva cultura del I.20 Middle Female n/a n/a agua NGO I.21 Middle Male n/a n/a Manager of Artajona cooperative Technical head of the CPAEN I.22 Middle Female n/a n/a Ecological Agriculture Council of Navarre Northern Worker of a city council, I.23 Middle Male Part time area councilor of agriculture I.24 Young Female n/a n/a Member of a consumption group I.25 Young Male n/a n/a Member of a consumption group Technician of UAGN agrarian I.26 Middle Male n/a n/a union in Navarre Technician of EHNE agrarian I.27 Middle Male n/a n/a union in Navarre Member of a traditional irrigation I.28 Middle Female n/a n/a community Agrarian economist professor at I.29 Middle Male n/a n/a the University of Navarre <35: Young; 35-55: Middle-aged; >55: Old - 11 - III. Focus groups template Focus group discussion session was divided in two terms. In the first term the lead author provided a brief presentation of the results about farmers’ valuation of NCP. The aim here was to check whether participants agreed with the results. She reminded the methods used and the questions asked, as well as the different types of farmers participating in the case study. A discussion about those results followed. Specially, we wanted to understand the reasons of some services being highly valued whereas others were more disregarded. Then we discussed which factors (e.g. age, policies, and technology) might influence their visions about NCP valuation. We made a break where those conversations continued in a more informal way. In the second term of the discussion, NCP valuation results were presented aggregated by groups of farmers. Then we asked focus groups participants to guess which type of farmers corresponded with the different bundles of values about NCP. Results were then presented and contrasted with their guess, as a way to open up the discussion about the underlying reasons for such results. Finally, we concluded and discussed how such values and groups of farmers will evolve in the future. - 12 - IV. Participants in Artajona focus group The following Table describes the participants’ profiles of Artajona focus group. Farmers were selected according to time invested in agriculture, type of crops, management approach, gender and age. Age Gender Area/zone Profile FG1.1 Young Male Artajona Large-scale intensive FG1.2 Old Male Artajona Large-scale intensive Medium-scale FG1.3 Young Male Mendigorria organic Small-scale FG1.4 Old Male Artajona diversified FG1.5 Middle Female Artajona Large-scale intensive Small-scale FG1.6 Old Male Artajona diversified FG1.7 Middle Male Artajona Large-scale intensive Medium-scale FG1.8 Young Male Mendigorria organic Old Male Artajona Small-scale FG1.9 diversified - 13 - V. Participants in Miranda de Arga focus group The following Table describes the participants’ profiles of Miranda de Arga focus group. Farmers were selected according to time invested in agriculture, type of crops, management approach, gender and age. Age Gender Area/zone Profile Medium-scale cereal FG2.1 Middle Male Peralta intensive Medium-scale vine FG2.2 Middle Male Olite and cereals Small-scale FG2.3 Middle Male Miranda de Arga diversified Small-scale FG2.4 Middle Male Miranda de Arga diversified FG2.5 Middle Male Miranda de Arga Small-scale organic Small-scale FG2.6 Old Male Miranda de Arga diversified FG2.7 Young Male San Martin Small-scale organic Medium-scale FG2.8 Middle Female Peralta organic - 14 -