Ex-ante institutional compatibility assessment of policy options: Methodological insights from a case study on the nitrate directive in Auvergne, France

Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

Volumn 54, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 661-684

  Amblard, Laurence ^a   Mann, Carsten ^b  

^a UMR Territoires   (France)

^b TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

EU nitrate directive; Ex ante policy assessment; Institutional compatibility; Integrative methodology

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT METHOD; EUROPEAN UNION; IDENTIFICATION METHOD; NITRATE; POLICY IMPLEMENTATION; POLICY STRATEGY; POLLUTION POLICY;

AUVERGNE; FRANCE;

EID: 79957514413     PISSN: 09640568     EISSN: 13600559     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09640568.2010.527128     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. th Framework Programme, contract no. 010036-2. Available from: http://www.SEAMLESS-IP.org
2. Bäcklund, A.K., 2009. Impact assessment in the European Commission - a system with multiple objectives. Environmental science and policy, 12, 1077-1087.
3. Bickers, K. and Williams, J., eds., 2001. Public Policy analysis: a political economy approach. Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin.
4. Bovaird, T. and Löffler, E., 2003. Evaluating the quality of public governance: indicators, models and methodologies. International review of administrative sciences, 69 (3), 313-328.
5. Briassoulis, H., 2004. The institutional complexity of environmental policy and planning problems: the example of Mediterranean desertification. Journal of environmental planning and management, 47 (1), 115-135.
6. Brives, H., 1998. L'environnement, nouveau pré carré des Chambres d'agriculture? (The environment, the new private domain of Agricultural Chambers?). Ruralia 2. Available from: http://ruralia.revues.org/document30.html [Accessed 6 November 2009].
7. Brouwer, F., Heinz, I., and Zabel, T., eds., 2003. Governance of water-related conflicts in agriculture; new directions in agri-environmental and water policies in the EU. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
8. Davies, B.B. and Hodge, I.D., 2007. Exploring environmental perspectives in lowland agriculture: a Q methodology study in East Anglia, UK. Ecological economics, 61, 323-333.
9. European Commission, 2002. Implementation of Council Directive 91/676/EEC concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused by nitrates from agricultural sources [online]. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-nitrates/pdf/91_676_eec_en.pdf [Accessed 6 November 2009].
10. European Commission, 2009. Impact assessment guidelines [online]. European Commission, SEC (2009) 92. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/docs/iag_2009_en.pdf [Accessed 6 November 2009].
11. Fezzi, C., et al., 2008. Estimating the range of economic impacts on farms of nutrient leaching reduction policies. Agricultural economics, 39, 197-205.
12. Hagedorn, K., ed., 2002. Environmental cooperation and institutional change: theories and policies for European agriculture. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
13. Hagedorn, K., 2008. Particular requirements for institutional analysis in nature-related sectors. European review of agricultural economics, 35 (3), 357-384.
14. Hertin, J., et al., 2009. Rationalising the policy mess? Ex-ante policy assessment and the utilisation of knowledge in the policy process. Environment and planning A, 41 (5), 1185-1200.
15. Hodge, I. and McNally, S., 2000. Wetland restoration, collective action and the role of water management institutions. Ecological economics, 35 (1), 107-118.
16. Kleining, G., 1982. Umriss zu einer Methodologie Qualitativer Sozialforschung (Outline of a methodology for qualitative social research). Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialforschung (Cologne journal of sociology and social research), 24, 224-253.
17. Knack, S., Kugler, M., and Manning, N., 2003. Second-generation governance indicators. International review of administrative sciences, 69 (3), 345-364.
18. Krueger, A.R., 1994. Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
19. Lichtenberg, E., 2002. Agriculture and the environment. In: B.L. Gardner and G.C. Rausser, eds. Handbook of agricultural economics, Vol. 2A: Agriculture and its external linkages. New York: Elsevier, 1249-1313.
20. Lynggaard, K.S.C., 2001. The farmer within an institutional environment. Comparing Danish and Belgian organic farming. Sociologia ruralis, 41 (1), 85-111.
21. McCann, L., et al., 2005. Transaction cost measurement for evaluating environmental policies. Ecological economics, 52 (4), 527-542.
22. Michaelowa, A. and Jotzo, F., 2005. Transaction costs, institutional rigidities and the size of the clean development mechanism. Energy policy, 33 (4), 511-523.
23. Morgan, D.L., 1997. Focus groups as qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24. North, D.C., 1990. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press.
25. North, D.C., 1995. The new institutional economics and Third World development. In: J. Harris, J. Hunter, and C.M. Lewis, eds. The new institutional economics and Third World development. London and New York: Routledge, 17-26.
26. Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.
27. Rutherford, M., 2001. Institutional economics: then and now. Journal of economic perspectives, 15 (3), 173-194.
28. Scheibelhofer, E., 2005. A reflection upon interpretive research techniques: the problem-centred interview as a method for biographic research. In: N. Kelly, C. Horrocks, K. Milnes, B. Roberts, and D. Robinson, eds. Narrative, memory & everyday life. Huddersfield: Narrative & Memory Research Group, University of Huddersfield.
29. Schleyer, C., et al., 2007. Approach towards an operational tool to apply institutional analysis for the assessment of policy feasibility within SEAMLESS-IF. Report PD2.4.2, SEAMLESS integrated project, EU 6th Framework Programme, contract no. 010036-2. Available from: http://www.seamless-ip.org/Reports/Report_29_D2.4.2.pdf [Accessed 6 November 2009].
30. Schleyer, C., et al., 2008. First evaluation and suggestions for improvement of the Procedure for Institutional Compatibility Assessment (PICA) and integration of PICA into the third prototype of SEAMLESS-IF. Report PD6.5.5.1, SEAMLESS integrated project, EU 6th Framework Programme, contract no. 010036-2. Available from: http://www.SEAMLESS-IP.org
31. Schütze, F., 1977. Die Technik des narrativen Interviews in Interaktionsfeldstudien - dargestellt an einem Projekt zur Erforschung von kommunalen Machtstrukturen (Narrative interview techniques in interaction field studies - the example of surveying communication power structures). WP 01/77, School of Sociology, University of Bielefeld.
32. Seipel, C. and Rieker, P., 2003. Integrative Sozialforschung. Konzepte und Methoden der qualitativen und quantitativen empirischen Forschung (Integrative social research. Concepts and methods of quantitative and qualitative empirical research). Weinheim, München: Juventa.
33. Shortle, J.S. and Horan, R.D., 2001. The economics of nonpoint pollution control. Journal of economic surveys, 15 (3), 255-289.
34. Simon, H., 1979. Rational decision making in business organizations. American economic review, 69 (4), 493-513.
35. Smits, M.J., Driessen, P., and Glasbergen, P., 2008. Governing agri-environmental schemes: lessons to be learned from the new institutional-economics approach. Environment and planning C: government and policy, 26 (3), 627-643.
36. Spangenberg, J.H., Pfahl, S., and Deller, K., 2002. Towards Indicators for institutional sustainability: lessons from an analysis of Agenda 21. Ecological indicators 2 (2002), 61-77.
37. Theesfeld, I., Schleyer, C., and Aznar, O., 2010. The procedure for institutional compatibility assessment: ex-ante policy assessment from an institutional perspective. Journal of institutional economics, 6 (3), 377-399.
38. Turnpenny, J., et al., 2008. Why is integrating policy assessment so hard? A comparative analysis of the institutional capacities and constraints. Journal of environmental planning and management, 51 (6), 759-775.
39. Von Blottnitz, H., et al., 2006. Damage costs of nitrogen fertilizer in Europe and their internalization. Journal of environmental planning and management, 49 (3), 413-433.
40. Ward, N. and Munton, R., 1992. Conceptualizing agriculture-environment relations. Combining political economy and socio-cultural approaches to pesticide pollution. Sociologia ruralis, 32 (1), 127-145.
41. Williamson, O.E., 2004. Transaction cost economics and agriculture: an excursion. In: G. van Huylenbroeck, W. Verbeke, and L. Lauwers, eds. The role of institutions in rural policies and agricultural markets. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 19-39.
42. Wilson, G.A., Petersen, J.E., and Höll, A., 1999. EU member state responses to Agri-Environment Regulation 2078/92/EEC - towards a conceptual framework? Geoforum, 30 (2), 185-202.
43. Witzel, A., 2000. The problem-centered interview. Forum: qualitative social research 1 (1). Available from: http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1132/2522 [Accessed 6 November 2009].
44. Woolcock, M. and Narayan, D., 2000. Social capital: implications for development theory, research, and policy. The World Bank research observer, 15 (2), 225-249.
45. Zélie, P., 2002. Key choices in agri-environmental policy design. In: F.W. Gatzweiler, R. Judis, and K. Hagedorn, eds. Sustainable agriculture in Central and Eastern European countries. Aachen: Shaker Verlag.