Design rules for successful governmental payments for ecosystem services: Taking agri-environmental measures in Germany as an example

Journal of Environmental Management

Volumn 157, Issue , 2015, Pages 146-159

  Meyer, Claas ^a   Reutter, Michaela ^a   Matzdorf, Bettina ^a   Sattler, Claudia ^a   Schomers, Sarah ^a  

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

Author keywords

Common agricultural policy; Comparative institutional analysis; Environmental policy design; Management agreements; Qualitative comparative analysis

Indexed keywords

AGRICULTURE; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION;

COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY; COMPARATIVE INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSE; DESIGN RULES; ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY DESIGN; INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS; MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT; POLICY DESIGN; QUALITATIVE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS;

ECOSYSTEMS;

AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS; SUSTAINABILITY;

ARTICLE; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; EUROPEAN UNION; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; GERMANY; GOVERNMENT; MANAGEMENT; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUESTIONNAIRE; RESPONSIBILITY; SOIL QUALITY; UNITED STATES; WILDLIFE; AGRICULTURE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECONOMICS; HUMAN;

GERMANY;

AGRICULTURE; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; ECOSYSTEM; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; GERMANY; GOVERNMENT; HUMANS;

EID: 84928167380     PISSN: 03014797     EISSN: 10958630     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2015.03.053     Document Type: Article

References (76)

1. Ando A.W., Chen X. Optimal contract lengths for voluntary ecosystem service provision with varied dynamic benefit functions. Conserv. Lett. 2011, 4:207-218.
2. Beckmann V., Eggers J., Mettepenningen E. Deciding how to decide on agri-environmental schemes: the political economy of subsidiarity, decentralisation and participation in the European Union. J.Environ. Plan. Manag. 2009, 52:689-716.
3. Carey P.D., Short C., Morris C., Hunt J., Priscott A., Davis M., Finch C., Curry N., Little W., Winter M., Parkin A., Firbank L.G. The multi-disciplinary evaluation of a national agri-environment scheme. J.Environ. Manag. 2003, 69:71-91.
4. Corbera E., González Soberanis C., Brown K. Institutional dimensions of payments for ecosystem services: an analysis of Mexico's carbon forestry programme. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68:743-761.
5. Ekroos J., Olsson O., Rundlöf M., Wätzold F., Smith H.G. Optimizing agri-environment schemes for biodiversity, ecosystem services or both?. Biol. Conserv. 2014, 172:65-71.
6. Engel S., Pagiola S., Wunder S. Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: an overview of the issues. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65:663-674.
7. European Commission Agriculture and Rural Development. Agri-environment Measures 2014, Last access 01/26/2015. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/envir/measures/index_en.htm.
8. European Commission Agriculture and Rural Development. Rural Development Policy 2007-2013. Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework 2010, Last access 01/26/2015. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rurdev/eval/index_en.htm.
9. European Union Summaries of EU Legislation 2012, European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), Last access 01/26/2015. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/agriculture/general_framework/l60032_en.htm.
10. Falconer K., Dupraz P., Whitby M. An investigation of policy administrative costs using panel data for the english environmentally sensitive areas. J.Agric. Econ. 2001, 52:83-103.
11. Finn J., Bartolini F., Bourke D., Kurz I., Viaggi D. Ex post environmental evaluation of agri-environmental schemes using experts' judgements and multicriteria analysis. J.Environ. Plan. Manag. 2009, 52:717-737.
12. Fish R.D., Ioris A.A.R., Watson N.M. Integrating water and agricultural management: collaborative governance for a complex policy problem. Sci. Total Environ. 2010, 408:5623-5630.
13. Fisher B., Turner R.K., Morling P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68:643-653.
14. Garrod G. Greening the CAP: how the improved design and implementation of agri-environment schemes can enhance the delivery of environmental benefits. J.Environ. Plan. Manag. 2009, 52:571-574.
15. Garforth C., Angell B., Archer J., Green K. Fragmentation or creative diversity? Options in the provision of land management advisory services. Land Use Policy 2003, 20:323-333.
16. Haaren C.v., Bathke M. Integrated landscape planning and remuneration of agri-environmental services: results of a case study in the Fuhrberg region of Germany. J.Environ. Manag. 2008, 89:209-221.
17. Hanley N., Whitby M., Simpson I. Assessing the success of agri-environmental policy in the UK. Land Use Policy 1999, 16:67-80.
18. Hespelt S.-K., Bertke E. Ergebnisorientierte Honorierung ökologischer Leistungen der Landwirtschaft. Nova Acta Leopold. 2003, 328:343-346.
19. Hodge I. Beyond agri-environmental policy: towards an alternative model of rural environmental governance. Land Use Policy 2001, 18:99-111.
20. Hole D.G., Perkins A.J., Wilson J.D., Alexander I.H., Grice P.V., Evans A.D. Does organic farming benefit biodiversity?. Biol. Conserv. 2005, 122:113-130.
21. Ingram J., Morris C. The knowledge challenge within the transition towards sustainable soil management: an analysis of agricultural advisors in England. Land Use Policy 2007, 24:100-117.
22. Kemkes R.J., Farley J., Koliba C.J. Determining when payments are an effective policy approach to ecosystem service provision. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:2069-2074.
23. Khanna M., Ando A.W. Science, economics and the design of agricultural conservation programmes in the US. J.Environ. Plan. Manag. 2009, 52:575-592.
24. Kirschke D., Häger A., Jechlitschka K., Wegener S. Distortions in a multi-level co-financing system: the case of agri-environmental programme of Saxony-Anhalt. Agrarwirtschaft 2007, 56:297-304.
25. Klimek S., Richter gen.Kemmermann A., Steinmann H.-H., Freese J., Isselstein J. Rewarding farmers for delivering vascular plant diversity in managed grasslands: a transdisciplinary case-study approach. Biol. Conserv. 2008, 141:2888-2897.
26. Knuth U., Knierim A. Characteristics of and challenges for advisors within a privatized extension system. J.Agric. Educ. Ext. 2013, 19:223-236.
27. Kosoy N., Corbera E. Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1228-1236.
28. Kosoy N., Corbera E., Brown K. Participation in payments for ecosystem services: case studies from the Lacandon rainforest, Mexico. Geoforum 2008, 39:2073-2083.
29. Labarthe P. Extension services and multifunctional agriculture. Lessons learnt from the French and Dutch contexts and approaches. J.Environ. Manag. 2009, 90:193-202.
30. LANUV NRW, State Agency for Nature, Environment and Consumer Protection Vertragsnaturschutz Nordrhein-Westphalen 2014, Last access 01/26/2015. http://www.naturschutzinformationen-nrw.de/vns/de/einleitung.
31. Latacz-Lohmann U., Hodge I. European agri-environmental policy for the 21st century. Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 2003, 47:123-139.
32. Marggraf R. Comparative assessment of agri-environment programmes in federal states of Germany. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2003, 98:507-516.
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. Matzdorf B., Lorenz J. How cost-effective are result-oriented agri-environmental measures? An empirical analysis in Germany. Land Use Policy 2010, 27:535-544.
35. Matzdorf B., Meyer C. The relevance of the ecosystem services framework for developed countries' environmental policies: a comparative case study of the US and EU. Land Use Policy 2014, 38:509-521.
36. Matzdorf B., Sattler C., Engel S. Institutional frameworks and governance structures of PES schemes. For. Policy Econ. 2013, 37:57-64.
37. 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.
38. Mettepenningen E., Verspecht A., Van Huylenbroeck G. Measuring private transaction costs of European agri-environmental schemes. J.Environ. Plan. Manag. 2009, 52:649-667.
39. Meyer C., Matzdorf B., Müller K., Schleyer C. Cross compliance as payment for public goods? Understanding EU and US agricultural policies. Ecol. Econ. 2014, 107:185-194.
40. Meyer C., Thiel A. Institutional change in water management collaboration: implementing the European water framework directive in the German Odra river basin. Water Policy 2012, 14:625-646.
41. Mickwitz P. A framework for evaluating environmental policy instruments. Context and key concepts. Evaluation 2003, 9:415-436.
42. Monsees J. Governancestrukturen für Fließgewässer. Eine Vergleichende Institutionenanalyse Gewässerunterhaltender Verbände und Behörden. Neue Studien zur politischen Ökonomie 2008, Nomos, Baden-Baden.
43. Moxey A., White B., Ozanne A. Efficient contract design for agri-environment policy. J.Agric. Econ. 1999, 50:187-202.
44. Muradian R., Corbera E., Pascual U., Kosoy N., May P. Reconciling theory and practice: an alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69:1202-1208.
45. Parkin M. Priming. Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods 2008, 612-613. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. P. Lavrakas (Ed.).
46. Pirard R. Market-based instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services: a lexicon. Environ. Sci. Policy 2012, 19-20:59-68.
47. Polman N.B.P., Slangen L.H.G. Institutional design of agri-environmental contracts in the European Union: the role of trust and social capital. NJAS Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2008, 55:413-430.
48. Prager K., Freese J. Stakeholder involvement in agri-environmental policy making - learning from a local- and a state-level approach in Germany. J.Environ. Manag. 2009, 90:1154-1167.
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(1):244-249.
50. Primdahl J., Vesterager J.P., Finn J.A., Vlahos G., Kristensen L., Vejre H. Current use of impact models for agri-environment schemes and potential for improvements of policy design and assessment. J.Environ. Manag. 2010, 91:1245-1254.
51. Purvis G., Louwagie G., Northey G., Mortimer S., Park J., Mauchline A., Finn J., Primdahl J., Vejre H., Vesterager J.P., Knickel K., Kasperczyk N., Balázs K., Vlahos G., Christopoulos S., Peltola J. Conceptual development of a harmonised method for tracking change and evaluating policy in the agri-environment: the agri-environmental footprint index. Environ. Sci. Policy 2009, 12:321-337.
52. Ragin C.C. Redesigning Social Inquiry. Fuzzy Sets and Beyond 2008, University of Chicago Press, USA.
53. Ragin C.C. Set relations in social research: evaluating their consistency and coverage. Polit. Anal. 2006, 14:291-310.
54. Ragin C.C. The Comparative Method. Moving beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies 1987, University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, London.
55. Ragin C.C., Kriss A., Drass S.D. Fuzzy-Set/Qualitative Comparative Analysis 2.5 2009, Department of Sociology, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona.
56. Redford K.H., Adams W.M. Payment for ecosystem services and the challenge of saving nature. Conserv. Biol. 2009, 23:785-787.
57. Ruto E., Garrod G. Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach. J.Environ. Plan. Manag. 2009, 52:631-647.
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. Schader C., Lampkin N., Muller A., Stolze M. The role of multi-target policy instruments in agri-environmental policy mixes. J.Environ. Manag. 2014, 145:180-190.
60. Schleyer C., Plieninger T. Obstacles and options for the design and implementation of payment schemes for ecosystem services provided through farm trees in Saxony, Germany. Environ. Conserv. 2011, 38:454-463.
61. Schneider C.Q. The Consolidation of Democracy. Comparing Europe and Latin America 2009, Routledge, New York.
62. Schneider C.Q., Wagemann C. Set-theoretic methods for the social sciences. A guide to qualitative comparative analysis. Strategies for Social Inquiry 2012, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York. C. Elman, J. Gerring, J. Mahoney (Eds.).
63. Schneider C.Q., Wagemann C. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). Ein Lehrbuch für Anwender und jene, die es werden wollen 2007, Verlag Barbara Budrich, Opladen, Farmington Hills.
64. Schomers S., Matzdorf B. Payments for ecosystem services: a review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 6:16-30.
65. Schomers S., Sattler C., Matzdorf B. An analytical framework for assessing the potential of intermediaries to improve the performance of payments for ecosystem services. Land Use Policy 2015, 42:58-70.
66. Schroeder L.A., Isselstein J., Chaplin S., Peel S. Agri-environment schemes: farmers' acceptance and perception of potential 'Payment by Results' in grassland - a case study in England. Land Use Policy 2013, 32:134-144.
67. Siebert R., Toogood M., Knierim A. Factors affecting european farmers' participation in biodiversity policies. Sociol. Rural. 2006, 46:318-340.
68. Sutherland A.-L., Mills J., 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. Manag. 2013, 118:96-105.
69. Tacconi L. Redefining payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 2012, 73:29-36.
70. Tamini L.D. Anonparametric analysis of the impact of agri-environmental advisory activities on best management practice adoption: a case study of Québec. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70:1363-1374.
71. Tuomisto H.L., Hodge I.D., Riordan P., Macdonald D.W. Does organic farming reduce environmental impacts? - A meta-analysis of European research. J.Environ. Manag. 2012, 112:309-320.
72. Unipark, 2014. Last access 01/26/2015. http://www.unipark.com/en/.
73. Uthes S., Matzdorf B., Müller K., Kaechele H. Spatial targeting of agri-environmental measures: cost-effectiveness and distributional consequences. Environ. Manag. 2010, 46:494-509.
74. van der Horst D. Assessing the efficiency gains of improved spatial targeting of policy interventions; the example of an agri-environmental scheme. J.Environ. Manag. 2007, 85:1076-1087.
75. Vatn A. An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69(6):1245-1252.
76. Wunder S., Engel S., Pagiola S. Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65:834-852.