Agri‐environmental schemes (AESs) are increasingly implemented to promote the adoption of environmentally friendly practices by farmers. We use a systematic review to explore the role of behavioural factors and opportunity costs in farmers' decisions to participate in AESs in Australia, Europe and North America. Behavioural factors influence how farmers value and perceive options, while opportunity costs relate to farmers' forgone utility when choosing to participate in schemes. We synthesise insights from 79 articles and over 700 factors explaining the participation in AESs. We find that a set of behavioural factors seem consistently connected to participation, including agricultural training, advice and having positive attitudes towards AESs. Moreover, several factors related to opportunity costs also have a rather consistent relationship with AES participation, including market conditions, implementation efforts, profitability, and management and contract flexibility. However, many relationships of behavioural factors and opportunity costs with AES participation are not as consistent and generalizable as sometimes portrayed and require context‐specific interpretation. Those factors with mixed results can still provide insights into farmers' participation decisions as several of them are either ‘positively and insignificantly’ or ‘negatively and insignificantly’ related to participation, such as environmental attitude, trust and farm size. These results suggest that their relationship with AES participation depends on other factors or the setting, highlighting interactions and raising important new research questions. Overall, our results provide several entry points for both researchers and policy‐makers, highlighting uncertainties in relationships between factors and participation that should be considered when designing policies.

Crop productivity is improved by ecosystem services, including pollination, but this should be set in the context of trade-offs among multiple management practices. We investigated the impact of pollination services on coffee production, considering variation in fertilization, irrigation, shade cover, and environmental variables such as rainfall (which stimulates coffee flowering across all plantations), soil pH, and nitrogen availability. After accounting for management interventions, bee abundance improved coffee production (number of berries harvested). Some management interventions, such as irrigation, used once to trigger asynchronous flowering, dramatically increased bee abundance at coffee trees. Others, such as the extent and type of tree cover, revealed interacting effects on pollination and, ultimately, crop production. The effects of management interventions, notably irrigation and addition of lime, had, however, far more substantial positive effects on coffee production than tree cover. These results suggest that pollination services matter, but managing the asynchrony of flowering was a more effective tool for securing good pollination than maintaining high shade tree densities as pollinator habitat. Complex interactions across farm and landscape scales, including both management practices and environmental conditions, shape pollination outcomes. Effective production systems therefore require the integrated consideration of management practices in the context of the surrounding habitat structure. This paper points toward a more strategic use of ecosystem services in agricultural systems, where ecosystem services are shaped by the coupling of management interventions and environmental variables.

Conceptual confusion revolves around how to define, assess, and overcome land, ecosystem, and landscape degradation. Common elements link degradation and recovery processes, offering ways to advance local, regional, and global initiatives to reduce degradation and promote the recovery of ecosystems and landscapes in forest biomes. Biophysical attributes of degradation and recovery can be measured, but the relevance of selected attributes across scales is subject to values that determine preferred states. Degradation defined in the context of a resilience-based approach is a state where the capacity for regeneration is greatly reduced or lost, recovery is arrested, core interactions and feedbacks are broken, and human intervention is required to initiate a trajectory of recovery. Another approach combines degradation and recovery processes through the concept of recovery debt, the cumulative lost benefits incurred, relative to a target state during phases of degradation and recovery. Degradation and recovery can also be described in terms of societal willingness to invest in improved management or restoration. Interventions can facilitate recovery to new stable or persistent states that provide multiple social and ecological benefits at land, ecosystem, and landscape scales. Multiple trajectories of recovery, as well as historic and ongoing chronic environmental change, might, however, mean that recovery to an original reference state is not possible.