The ecosystem service approach port

The ecosystem service approach portrays natural ecosystems as
stocks of natural capital that provide flows of benefits for human wellbeing
(Costanza and Daly, 1992). Such benefits span from tangible
goods like wood, clean water, or agricultural products to non-material
benefits like landscapes’ aesthetic features, climate regulation, and
maintenance of soil fertility (Daily, 1997; de Groot et al., 2002; Kumar,
2010; MA, 2003). Besides natural ecosystems (e.g. unconverted forests
and wetlands), converted ecosystems (e.g. pastures and croplands)
can also play a critical role in the delivery of global ecosystem services
(Bjorklund et al., 1999; Porter, 2003). Furthermore, since converted
ecosystems account for 24% to 38% of the Earth's land area (Swinton
et al., 2007), it is not surprising that international initiatives endorsing
the ecosystem service approach, such as the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (MA) and The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
(TEEB), recognize cultivated farmlands, or agroecosystems, as a distinct
kind of service-providing ecosystem (Kumar, 2010; MA, 2003; Power,
2010).
Ecosystem service research suggests that the social benefits that
agroecosystems provide generally transcend those related to production
services (Jackson et al., 2007a; Pascual and Perrings, 2007;
Perrings et al., 2006; Porter et al., 2009; Sandhu et al., 2010a; Turner
et al., 2004). According to this literature, in addition to the provisioning
of food, fuel, and fiber (Swinton et al., 2007), particular types of
agroecosystems provide important supporting, cultural, and regulating
services, such as maintenance of soil fertility, regulation of pests and
pathogens, wildlife protection, water quality supply, carbon sequestration,
maintenance of rural landscapes and rural lifestyles, and maintenance
of recreational areas for hunting and tourism (Sandhu et al.,
2010b; Swinton et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2007)
Research suggests that agroecosystems’ capacity to deliver ecosystem
services depends on the intensity of use and on the diversity of
croplands. For example, Sandhu et al. (2010b) attribute a larger
flow of ecosystem services to organic than to conventional agriculture,
defined here as agriculture based on monoculture and intensive
use of agrochemicals, fuel, and machinery. On the same line, Altieri
(1999) and Jackson et al. (2007a) argue that agriculture based on traditional
practices like intercropping, agroforestry, or shifting cultivation
delivers more ecosystem services than conventional agriculture
for various reasons. First, traditional agriculture largely relies on
the maintenance of agrobiodiversity (Altieri, 1999; Jackson et al.,
2007a, 2007b), thereby combining agricultural productivity with the

Results (Indonesian) 1:

The ecosystem service approach portrays natural ecosystems asstocks of natural capital that provide flows of benefits for human wellbeing(Costanza and Daly, 1992). Such benefits span from tangiblegoods like wood, clean water, or agricultural products to non-materialbenefits like landscapes’ aesthetic features, climate regulation, andmaintenance of soil fertility (Daily, 1997; de Groot et al., 2002; Kumar,2010; MA, 2003). Besides natural ecosystems (e.g. unconverted forestsand wetlands), converted ecosystems (e.g. pastures and croplands)can also play a critical role in the delivery of global ecosystem services(Bjorklund et al., 1999; Porter, 2003). Furthermore, since convertedecosystems account for 24% to 38% of the Earth's land area (Swintonet al., 2007), it is not surprising that international initiatives endorsingthe ecosystem service approach, such as the Millennium EcosystemAssessment (MA) and The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity(TEEB), recognize cultivated farmlands, or agroecosystems, as a distinctkind of service-providing ecosystem (Kumar, 2010; MA, 2003; Power,2010).Ecosystem service research suggests that the social benefits thatagroecosystems provide generally transcend those related to productionservices (Jackson et al., 2007a; Pascual and Perrings, 2007;Perrings et al., 2006; Porter et al., 2009; Sandhu et al., 2010a; Turneret al., 2004). According to this literature, in addition to the provisioningmakanan, bahan bakar, dan serat (Swinton et al., 2007), jenis tertentulintas agroekosistem menyediakan pendukung penting, budaya, dan mengaturLayanan, seperti pemeliharaan kesuburan tanah, peraturan hama danpatogen, perlindungan satwa liar, kualitas air pasokan, penyerapan karbon,pemeliharaan daerah pedesaan dan gaya hidup pedesaan, dan pemeliharaanKawasan-kawasan rekreasi untuk berburu dan pariwisata (Sandhu et al.,2010b; Swinton et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2007)Penelitian menunjukkan lintas agroekosistem yang kapasitas untuk memberikan ekosistemLayanan tergantung pada intensitas penggunaan dan keragamancroplands. Sebagai contoh, Sandhu et al. (2010b) atribut yang lebih besaraliran jasa ekosistem untuk organik daripada konvensional pertanian,didefinisikan di sini sebagai pertanian yang didasarkan pada monokultur dan intensifpenggunaan agrokimia, bahan bakar, dan mesin. Pada baris yang sama, Altieri(1999) dan Jackson et al. (2007a) berpendapat bahwa pertanian yang didasarkan pada tradisionalpraktek-praktek seperti tumpangsari, agroforestry, atau perladangan berpindahmemberikan jasa ekosistem lain dari pertanian konvensionaluntuk berbagai alasan. Pertama, tradisional pertanian sebagian besar bergantung padapemeliharaan agrobiodiversity (Altieri, 1999; Jackson et al.,2007A, 2007b), dengan demikian menggabungkan produktivitas pertanian dengan