How local intermediaries improve the effectiveness of public payment for ecosystem services programs: The role of networks and agri-environmental assistance

Sustainability (Switzerland)

Volumn 7, Issue 10, 2015, Pages 13856-13886

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

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

Author keywords

Agri environment measures; Land use conflict and governance; Local embeddedness; Payments for environmental services; Social capital

Indexed keywords

ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING; GOVERNANCE APPROACH; LAND USE CHANGE; LAND USE CONFLICT; SOCIAL CAPITAL; AGRI-ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; POLICY IMPLEMENTATION; SOCIAL NETWORK; STAKEHOLDER;

GERMANY;

EID: 84949575449     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20711050     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3390/su71013856     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Pirard, R.; Lapeyre, R. Classifying market-based instruments for ecosystem services: A guide to the literature jungle. Ecosyst. Serv. 2014, 9, 106-114.
2. Schomers, S.; Matzdorf, B. Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries. Ecosyst. Serv. 2013, 6, 16-30.
3. Baylis, K.; Peplow, S.; Rausser, G., Simon, L. Agri-environmental policies in the EU and the United States: A comparison. Ecol. Econ. 2008, 65, 753-764.
4. Scherr, S.; Milder, J.; Inbar, M. Paying farmers for stewardship. In Farming with Nature. The Science and Practice of Ecoagricultre; Scherr, S., McNeely, J.A., Eds.; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2007; pp. 378-399.
5. Prager, K.; Freese, J. Stakeholder involvement in agri-environmental policy making-Learning from a local- and a state-level approach in Germany. J. Env. Manag. 2009, 90, 1154-1167.
6. Hanley, N.; Whitby, M.; Simpson, I. Assessing the success of agri-environmental policy in the UK. Land Use Policy 1999, 16, 67-80.
7. Mettepenningen, E.; Verspecht, A.; van Huylenbroeck, G. Measuring private transaction costs of European agri-environmental schemes. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2009, 52, 649-667.
8. Uthes, S.; Matzdorf, B. Studies on agri-environmental measures: A survey of the literature. Environ. Manag. 2013, 51, 251-266.
9. Deumlich, D.; Kiesel, J.; Thiere, J.; Reuter, H.I.; Volker, L.; Funk, R. Application of the SIte COmparison Method (SICOM) to assess the potential erosion risk-A basis for the evaluation of spatial equivalence of agri-environmental measures. Catena 2006, 68, 141-152.
10. 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.
11. Kleijn, D.; Sutherland, W.J. How effective are agri-environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity. J. Appl. Ecol. 2003, 40, 947-969.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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, 1976-1087.
15. Smallshire, D.; Robertson, P.; Thompson, P. Policy into practice: The development and delivery of agri-environment schemes and supporting advice in England. Ibis 2004, 146, 250-258.
16. 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.
17. Matzdorf, B.; Biedermann, C.; Meyer, C.; Nicolaus, K.; Sattler, C.; Schomers, S. Was kostet die Welt? Payments for Ecosystem Services in der Praxis. Erfolgreiche PES-Beispiele aus Deutschland, Großbritannien und den USA; Oekom-Verlag: München, Germany, 2014.
18. Matzdorf, B.; Biedermann, C.; Meyer, C.; Nicolaus, K.; Sattler, C.; Schomers, S. Paying for Green? Payments for Ecosystem Services in Practice. Successful examples of PES from Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States. Available online: http://www.civilandzalf. org/download/PayingforGreen_PESinpractice.pdf (accessed on 2 October 2015).
19. Bosselmann, A.S.; Lund, J.F. Do intermediary institutions promote inclusiveness in PES programs? The case of Costa Rica. Geoforum 2013, 49, 50-60.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Farley, J.; Costanza, R. Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 2060-2068.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. Coleman, J.S. Foundations of Social Theory; The Belknap Press of Havard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA; London, UK, 1990.
26. Adler, P., Kwon, S. Social capital: The good, the bad, the ugly. In Knowledge and Social Capital: Foundations and Applications; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2000, pp. 89-115.
27. Woolcock, M. Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory Soc. 1998, 27, 151-208.
28. Fukuyama, F. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1996.
29. Portes, A.; Sensenbrenner, J. Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on the social determinants of economic action. Am. J. Soc. 1993, 98, 1320-1350.
30. Brehm, J.; Rahn, W. Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 1997, 41, 999-1023.
31. 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.
32. Ishihara, H., Pascual, U. Social capital in community level environmental governance: A critique. Ecol. Econ. 2009, 68, 1549-1562.
33. Granovetter, M. Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. Am. J. Soc. 1985, 91, 481-510.
34. Munasib, A.B.A.; Jordan, J.L. Are friendly farmers environmentally friendly? Environmental awareness as a social capital outcome. In Proceedings of the Annual Meetings, Southern Agricultural Economic Associations, Orlando, FL, USA, 5-8 February 2006.
35. Baumgart-Getz, A.; Prokopy, L.S.; Floress, K. Why farmers adopt best management practice in the United States: A meta-analysis of the adoption literature. J. Environ. Manag. 2012, 96, 17-25.
36. 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.
37. Sattler, C.; Nagel, U.J. Factors affecting farmer's acceptance of conservation measures-A case study from north-eastern Germany. Land Use Policy 2010, 27, 70-77.
38. Ducos, G.; Dupraz, P.; Bonnieux, F. Agri-environment contract adoption under fixed and variable compliance costs. J. Environ. Plan. Manag. 2009, 52, 669-687.
39. 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.
40. Falconer, K. Farm level constraints on agri-environmental scheme participation: A transactional perspective. J. Rural Stud. 2000, 16, 379-394.
41. Greiner, R.; Gregg, D. Farmers' intrinsic motivations, barriers to the adoption of conservation practices and effectiveness of policy instruments: Empirical evidence from northern Australia. Land Use Policy 2011, 28, 257-265.
42. Prager, K.; Posthumus, H. Socio-economic factors influencing farmers' adoption of soil conservation practices in Europe. In Human Dimensions of Soil and Water Conservation, A Global Perspective; Nova Science Publisher: New York, NY, USA, 2010; pp. 203-223.
43. 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. Naturschutz Landschaftsplanung 2013, 45, 315-321.
44. Prager, K. Agri-environmental collaboratives as bridging organisations in landscape management. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 161, 375-384.
45. Metzner, J. Landschaftspflegeverbände-Markenzeichen des kooperativen Naturschutzes in Deutschland: Struktur, Arbeitsweise und Potential. Naturschutz Landschaftsplanung 2013, 45, 299-305.
46. Prager, K.; Vanclay, F. Landcare in Australia and Germany: comparing structures and policies for community engagement in natural resource management. Ecol. Manag. Restor. 2010, 11, 187-193.
47. 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. Manag. 2013, 118, 96-105.
48. Prager, K. Agri-environmental collaboratives for landscape management in Europe. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2015, 12, 59-66.
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. Metzner, J.; Kaerlein, M. Hinweise zur Gründung eines kooperativen Landschaftspflegeverbandes. Naturschutz und Landschaftsplanung 2013, 45, 305-306.
51. Ingram, J. Agronomist-farmers knowledge encounters: An analysis of knowledge exchange in the context of best management practices in England. Agric. Hum. Values 2008, 25, 405-418.
52. Polman, N.B.P.; Slangen, L.H.G. Institutional design of agri-environmental contracts in te European Union: The role of trust and social capital. NJAS Wagening. J. Life Sci. 2008, 55, 413-430.
53. 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.
54. 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.
55. Mettepenningen, E.; van Huylenbroeck, G. Factors influencing private transaction costs related to Agri-environmental Schemes in Europe. In Multifunctional Rural Land Management: Economics and Policies; Routledge: London, UK, 2009; pp. 145-168.
56. Garbach, K.; Lubell, M.; DeClerck, F.A.J. Payment for Ecosystem Services: The roles of positive incentives and information sharing in stimulating adoption of silvopastoral conservation practices. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2012, 156, 27-36.
57. Regulation (EU) No 1305/2013 of the European Parliament and the Council of 17 December 2013 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Developmen (EAFRD) and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005. Available online: http://eurlex. europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L: 2013:347:0487:0548:EN:PDF (accessed on 2 October 2015).
58. Greiner, R. Motivations and attitudes influence farmers' willingness to participate in biodiversity conservation contracts. Agric. Syst. 2015, 137, 154-165.
59. Siebert, R.; Toogood, M.; Knierim, A. Factors affecting European farmers' participation in biodiversity policies. Sociol. Ruralis 2006, 46, 318-340.
60. Wilson, A.W. The Australian Landcare movement: Towards 'post-productivist' rural governance? J. Rural Stud. 2004, 20, 461-484.
61. Curtis, A.; Lockwood, M. Landcare and catchment management in Australia: Lessons for state-sponsored community participation. Soc. Nat. Resour. 2000, 13, 61-73.
62. Martin, P.; Halpin, D. Landcare as a politically relevant new social movement? J. Rural Stud. 1998, 14, 445-457.
63. Ducos, G.; Dupraz, P. Private provision of environmental services and transaction costs: Agro-environmental contracts in France. In Proceedings of the Environmental and Resource Economists 3rd World Confress, 3-7 July 2006, Kyoto, Japan.
64. Tamini, L.D. A nonparametric 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.
65. Page, G.; Bellotti, B. Farmers value on-farm ecosystem services as important, but what are the impediments to participation in PES schemes? Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 515-516, 12-19.
66. Meyer, C.; Reutter, M.; Matzdorf, B.; Sattler, C.; Schomers, S. Design rules for successful governmental payments for ecosystem services: Taking agri-environmental measures in Germany as an example. J. Env. Manag. 2015, 157, 146-159.
67. Prager, K. Adaptives Management in Naturschutz und Landschaftspflege-Die Rolle von Gruppen und Verbänden in Europa. Nat. Landsch. 2011, 86, 343-349.