An analytical framework for assessing the potential of intermediaries to improve the performance of payments for ecosystem services

Land Use Policy

Volumn 42, Issue , 2015, Pages 58-70

  Schomers, Sarah ^a   Sattler, Claudia ^a   Matzdorf, Bettina ^a  

^a LEIBNIZ CENTRE FOR AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPE RESEARCH ZALF   (Germany)

Author keywords

Agri environmental programs; Cost effectiveness; Environmental effectiveness; German Landcare Associations; Institutional arrangements; Transaction cost economics

Indexed keywords

AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DEVELOPING WORLD; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS; INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK; LAND USE CHANGE; TRANSACTION COST;

GERMANY;

EID: 84907494873     PISSN: 02648377     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.06.025     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Adler P., Kwon S. Social capital: the good, the bad, the ugly. Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundations and Applications 2000, 89-115. Butterworth-Heinemann, MA, USA. Lesser (Ed.).
2. Baker W.E. Market networks and corporate behavior. Am. J. Sociol. 1990, 96:589-625.
3. Bosselmann A.S., Lund J.F. Do intermediary institutions promote inclusiveness in PES programs? The case of Costa Rica. Geoforum 2013, 49:50-60.
4. Brehm J., Rahn W. Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 1997, 41:999-1023.
5. Coggan A., Buitelaar E., Whitten S., Bennett J. Factors that influence transaction costs in development offsets: who bears what and why?. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 88:222-231.
6. Coggan A., Buitelaar E., Whitten S., Bennett J. Intermediaries in environmental offset markets: actions and incentives. Land Use Policy 2013, 32:145-154.
7. Coggan A., Whitten S., Bennett J. Influences on transaction costs in environmental policy. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1777-1784.
8. Coleman J.S. Foundations of Social Theory 1990, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts/London, England.
9. Compton E., Beeton R.J.S. An accidental outcome: social capital and its implication for Landcare and the "status quo". J. Rural Stud. 2012, 28:149-160.
10. Curtis A., Lockwood M. Landcare and catchment management in Australia: lessons for state-sponsored community participation. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2000, 13:61-73.
11. Curtis A., De Lacy T. Landcare in Australia: does it make a difference?. J. Environ. Manage. 1996, 46:119-137.
12. Curtis A., De Lacy T. Landcare in Australia: beyond the expert farmer. Agric. Hum. Values 1996, 13:20-31.
13. Dahlman C.J. The problem of externality. J. Law Econ. 1979, 22:141-162.
14. Defrancesco E., Gatto P., Runge F., Trestini S. Factors affecting farmers' participation in agri-environmental measures: a Northern Italian perspective. J. Agric. Econ. 2008, 59:114-131.
15. Ducos G., Dupraz P., Bonnieux F. Agri-environment contract adoption under fixed and variable compliance costs. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 2009, 52:669-687.
16. Ducos G., Dupraz P. Private provision of environmental services and transaction costs: agro-environmental contracts in France. Proceedings of the Environmental and Resource Economists 3rd World Congress, 3rd-7th July, 2006 2006.
17. Falconer K. Farm level constraints on agri-environmental scheme participation: a transactional perspective. J. Rural Stud. 2000, 16:379-394.
18. Falconer K., Whitby M. The invisible costs of scheme implementation and administration. Countryside Stewardship: Farmers, Policies and Markets 1999, 67-88. Elsevier, Amsterdam. G. Van Huylenbroeck, M. Whitby (Eds.).
19. Farley J., Costanza R. Payments for ecosystem services: from local to global. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:2060-2068.
20. Farley J., Aquino A., Daniels A., Moulaert A., Lee D., Krause A. Global mechanisms for sustaining and enhancing PES schemes. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:2075-2084.
21. Ferraro P.J. Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65:810-821.
22. Folke C. Resilience: the emergence of a perspective for social-ecological systems analyses. Global Environ. Change 2006, 16:253-267.
23. Fukuyama F. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity 1995, Free Press, NY.
24. Gómez-Baggethun E., de Groot R., Lomas P.L., Montes C. The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: from early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1209-1218.
25. Granovetter M. Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness. Am. J. Sociol. 1985, 91:481-510.
26. Güthler W., Tschunko S. Landschaftspflegeverbände in Bayern. Zehn Jahre Erfahrung in der Kooperation von Naturschutz, Landwirtschaft und Kommunalpolitik. Nat.schutz Landsch.plan. 1999, 31:80-84.
27. Hanley N., Whitby M., Simpson I. Assessing the success of agri-environmental policy in the UK. Land Use Policy 1999, 16:67-80.
28. Harsanyi J.C. Individualistic and functionalistic explanations in the light of game theory: the example of the social status. Stud. Logic Found. Math. 1968, 49:305-348.
29. Huber-Stearns H.R., Goldstein J.H., Duke E.A. Intermediary roles and payments for ecosystem services: a typology and program feasibility application in Panama. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 6:104-116.
30. Ishihara H., Pascual U. Social capital in community level environmental governance: a critique. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68:1549-1562.
31. Kleijn D., Berendse F., Smit R., Gilissen N., Smit J., Brak B., Groeneveld R. Ecological effectiveness of agri-environment schemes in different agricultural landscapes in The Netherlands. Conserv. Biol. 2004, 18:775-786.
32. Martin P., Halpin D. Landcare as a politically relevant new social movement?. J. Rural Stud. 1998, 14:445-457.
33. Matzdorf B., Kaiser T., Rohner M.-S. Developing biodiversity indicator to design efficient agri-environmental schemes for extensively used grassland. Ecol. Indic. 2008, 8:256-269.
34. Mettepenningen E., Vandermeulen V., Delaet K., Van Huylenbroeck G., Wailes E.J. Investigating the influence of the institutional organisation of agri-environmental schemes on scheme adoption. Land Use Policy 2013, 33:20-30.
35. Mettepenningen E., Beckmann V., Eggers J. Public transaction costs of agri-environmental schemes and their determinants - analyzing stakeholders' involvement and perceptions. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70:641-650.
36. Mettepenningen E., Van Huylenbroeck G. Factors influencing private transaction costs related to agri-environmental schemes in Europe. Multifunctional Rural Land Management: Economics and Policies 2009, 145-168. Earthscan, UK. F. Brouwer, M. van der Heide (Eds.).
37. Mettepenningen E., Verspecht A., Van Huylenbroeck G. Measuring private transaction costs of European agri-environmental schemes. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 2009, 52:649-667.
38. Metzner J. Landschaftspflegeverbände - Markenzeichen des kooperativen Naturschutzes in Deutschland: Struktur Arbeitsweise und Potential. Nat.schutz Landsch.plan. 2013, 45:299-305.
39. Metzner J., Keller P., Kretschmar C., Krettinger B., Liebig N., Mäck U., Orlich I. Kooperativer Naturschutz in der Praxis: Umsetzungsbeispiele der Landschaftspflegeverbände und ihre Bewertung. Nat.schutz Landsch.plan. 2013, 45:315-321.
40. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis Report 2005, Island Press, Washington, DC, USA.
41. Morrison M., Durante J., Greig J., Ward J. Encouraging Participation in Market Based Instruments and Incentive Programs 2008, Land & Water Australia.
42. Munasib A.B.A., Jordan J.L. Are friendly farmers environmentally friendly? Environmental awareness as a social capital outcome. Presentation at the Annual Meetings, Southern Agricultural Economic Associations 2005.
43. Muradian R., Corbera E., Pascual U., Kosoy N., May P.H. Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1202-1208.
44. Nahapiet J., Ghoshal S. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Acad. Manage. Rev. 1998, 23:242-266.
45. Ostrom E., Schroeder L., Wynne S. Institutional Incentives and Sustainable Development: Infrastructure Policies in Perspectives 1993, Westview Press, Boulder, San Francisco, Oxford.
46. Pham T.T., Campbell B.M., Garnett S.T., Aslin H., Hoang M.H. Importance and impacts of intermediary boundary organizations in facilitating payment for environmental services in Vietnam. Environ. Conserv. 2010, 37:64-72.
47. Portes A., Sensenbrenner J. Embeddedness and immigration: notes on the social determinants of economic action. Am. J. Sociol. 1993, 98:1320-1350.
48. Posthumus H., Morris J. Implications of CAP reform for land management and runoff control in England and Wales. Land Use Policy 2010, 27:42-50.
49. Prager K., Reed M., Scott A. Encouraging collaboration for the provision of ecosystem services at a landscape scale - rethinking agri-environmental payments. Land Use Policy 2012, 29:244-249.
50. Prager K., Posthumus H. Socio-economic factors influencing farmers' adoption of soil conservation practices in Europe. Human Dimensions of Soil and Water Conservation, A Global Perspective 2010, 203-223. Nova Science Publisher, NY, USA. T. Napier (Ed.).
51. Prager K., Vanclay F. Landcare in Australia and Germany: comparing structures and policies for community engagement in natural resource management. Ecol. Manage. Restor. 2010, 11:187-193.
52. Prager K. Landschaftspflege durch Verbände in Australien und Deutschland. Nat.schutz Landsch.plan. 2009, 41:89-96.
53. Prager K., Freese J. Stakeholder involvement in agri-environmental policy making - learning from a local- and a state-level approach in Germany. J. Environ. Manage. 2009, 90:1154-1167.
54. Prager K. Akzeptanz von Maßnahmen zur Umsetzung einer umweltschonenden Landbewirtschaftung bei Landwirten und Beratern in Brandenburg 2002, 48. Margraf. Series Kommunikation und Beratung, Weikersheim.
55. Putnam R.D. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy 1993, Princeton University Press, Princeton.
56. Putnam R.D. Bowling alone: Americas declining social capital. J. Democracy 1995, 6:65-78.
57. Rorstad P.K., Vatn A., Kvakkestad V. Why do transaction costs of agricultural policies vary?. Agric. Econ. 2007, 36:1-11.
58. Sattler C., Trampnau S., Schomers S., Meyer C., Matzdorf B. Multi-classification of payments for ecosystem services: how do classification characteristics relate to overall PES success?. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 6:31-45.
59. Scherr S., Milder J., Inbar M. Paying farmers for stewardship. Farming with Nature: The Science and Practice of Ecoagriculture 2007, 378-399. Island Press, Washington D.C., USA. S. Scherr, J.A. McNeely (Eds.).
60. Schomers S., Matzdorf B. Payments for ecosystem services: a review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 6:16-30.
61. Simon H. Rationality as a process and as product of thought. Am. Econ. Rev. 1978, 68:1-16.
62. Sobels J., Curtis A., Lockie S. The role of Landcare group networks in rural Australia: exploring the contribution of social capital. J. Rural Stud. 2001, 17:265-276.
63. Sutherland L.-A., Mills A., Ingram J., Burton R.J.F., Dwyer J., Blackstock K. Considering the source: commercialisation and trust in agri-environmental information and advisory services in England. J. Environ. Manage. 2013, 118:96-105.
64. Szreter S., Woolcock M. Health by association? Social capital, social theory, and the political economy of public health. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2004, 33:650-667.
65. Tamini L.D. A nonparametic analysis of the impact of agri-environmental advisory activities on best management practice adoption: a case study of Quebec. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70:1363-1374.
66. Uthes S., Matzdorf B. Studies on agri-environmental measures: a survey of the literature. Environ. Manage. 2013, 51:251-266.
67. Uthes S., Matzdorf B., Müller K., Kaechele H. Spatial targeting of agri-environmental measures: cost-effectiveness and distributional consequences. Environ. Manage. 2010, 46:494-509.
68. Van der Horst D. Assessing the efficiency gains of improved spatial targeting of policy interventions; the example of an agri-environmental scheme. J. Environ. Manage. 2007, 85:1076-1087.
69. Vanslembrouck I., Van Huylenbroeck G., Verbeke W. Determinants of the willingness of Belgian farmers to participate in agri-environmental measures. J. Agric. Econ. 2002, 53:489-511.
70. Vatn A. Institutions and the Environment 2005, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltenham, UK.
71. Vatn A. Multifunctional agriculture: some consequences for international trade regimes. Eur. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2002, 29:309-327.
72. Williamson O.E. The economics of governance. AEA Papers and Proceedings, vol. 95 2005, 1-18.
73. Williamson O.E. Transaction cost economics and agriculture: an excursion. Role of Institutions in Rural Policies and Agriculture 2003, 19-39. Elsevier, Amsterdam. G. Van Huylenbroeck, W. Verbeke, L. Lauwers (Eds.).
74. Williamson O.E. The Mechanism of Governance 1996, Oxford University Press, New York, USA.
75. Williamson O.E. The institutions of governance. Am. Econ. Rev. 1998, 88:75-79.
76. Williamson O.E. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism 1985, Free Press, New York.
77. Williamson O.E. Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications 1975, Free Press, New York.
78. Wilson A.W. The Australian Landcare movement: towards 'post-productivist' rural governance?. J. Rural Stud. 2004, 20:461-484.
79. Wilson A.W. Factors influencing farmer participation in the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Schemes. J. Environ. Manage. 1997, 50:67-93.
80. Woolcock M. Social capital and economic development: toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory Soc. 1998, 27:151-208.
81. Woolcock M., Sweetser A.T. Bright ideas: social capital - the bonds that connect. ASB Rev. 2002, 34.
82. Wunder S. How do we deal with leakage?. Moving Ahead with REDD Issues, Options and Implications 2008, 65-77. Center for International Forestry Research, Bogor Barat, Indonesia. A. Angelsen (Ed.).
83. Wünscher T., Engel S., Wunder S. Spatial targeting of payments for environmental services. A tool for boosting conservation benefits. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65:822-833.