Institutional incentives for managing the landscape: Inducing cooperation for the production of ecosystem services

Goldman, Rebecca L.; Thompson, Bruce; Daily, Gretchen C.

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.01.012

Cited by 173 publications

(132 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

123

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to barriers at the individual level, patterns of land ownership and tenure create further complications when administrative, ownership and ecosystem boundaries diverge, and this can increase transaction costs for coordinated landscape management (Goldman et al, 2007;Young, 2002).…”

Section: Overcoming Challenges To Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To avoid the burden of administering more complex schemes with higher associated transaction costs, input-based agri-environmental schemes in the EU and elsewhere make a number of simplifications, some of which have been criticised, for example: tying payments to management inputs or actions rather than actual delivery of desired outputs (Armsworth et al, 2012); using standardised payment rates that may not reflect spatial variations in biophysical conditions, management costs or ecosystem service values (Armsworth et al, 2012); and focusing on individual land management units when some ecosystem services may operate at a greater scale that requires linkages between separate land management units (Moxey et al, 1999;Marggraf, 2003;Groth, 2005;Goldman et al, 2007;Engel et al, 2008;Wunscher et al, 2008;Klimek et al, 2008;ECA, 2011). Although it may appear cheaper to administer input-based schemes, these simplifications may offer a false economy; for example, working in UK uplands, Armsworth et al (2012) estimated that common simplifications in agri-environment schemes (in particular failing to spatially target payments) resulted in a 49-100% reduction in biodiversity benefits.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Improving the link between payments and the provision of ecosystem services in agri-environment schemes

Moxey²,

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

. 2014. Improving the link between payments and the provision of ecosystem services in agri-environment schemes.Contact CEH NORA team at noraceh@ceh.ac.ukThe NERC and CEH trademarks and logos ('the Trademarks') are registered trademarks of NERC in the UK and other countries, and may not be used without the prior written consent of the Trademark owner.Improving the link between payments and the provision of ecosystem services in agri-environment schemes in UK peatlands AbstractThis paper considers how agri-environment schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy could be adapted to derive a higher return of ecosystem services from agricultural land, through deliberation with members of the public, land owners, managers and other stakeholders: i) paying for the ecosystem services that are valued most by society; ii) spatially targeting payments to locations where ecosystem services can most efficiently be provided; and iii) providing incentives for cross-boundary collaboration over the provision of ecosystem services that need to be managed at catchment or wider spatial scales. Using UK upland peatlands as a case study, and drawing on experience tackling these issues in the new Glastir agri-environment scheme in Wales, the paper attempts to find a balance between current input-based schemes that pay for land management activities on the basis of income foregone and output-based schemes that pay by results. The paper reviews evidence that spatially targeted, output-based payments may be more economically efficient than current approaches, but identifies a number of challenges, including: scientific uncertainty; pricing of ecosystem services; timing of payments; increased risk to land managers; compliance with World Trade Organisation regulations; and barriers to cross-boundary collaboration in the management of ecosystem services at habitat, catchment or landscape scales. A number of options are reviewed to overcome these challenges, including: the use of process-based models, pressureresponse functions and expert knowledge to establish causal links between management and ecosystem service delivery and reduce the costs of monitoring; the use of competitive bidding or non-market valuation techniques to set prices for ecosystem service delivery; insurance schemes; combining agri-environment schemes with funding from private Payment for Ecosystem Service schemes; and independent facilitation of groups of potential applicants across property boundaries in scheme options that are co-designed with the land management community. Drawing on examples from UK peatlands and experience designing the Glastir scheme, the paper 2 proposes a number of ways in which agri-environment schemes around the world that make payments on the basis of management inputs can better link payments to the provision of ecosystem services.

show abstract

Section: Overcoming Challenges To Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving the link between payments and the provision of ecosystem services in agri-environment schemes

Moxey²,

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Goshen County has the most CRP-eligible land of all counties in Wyoming, and has the highest total value of agricultural products sold, including both crops and livestock [29]. Located in Southeast Wyoming, bordering Nebraska, Goshen County included the cultivation of a range of crops in 536 farms consisting of 241,491 acres in 2012 [22].…”

Section: Land Use Related Profit Values and Creation Of The Land Dementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Koh et al [10] In addition to crop production changes, the resulting distribution of pollinator habitat established under CP-42 can influence the efficacy of the program. Even though the ecological literature is inconclusive about the desired spatial pattern that is beneficial for insect pollinators, cross-boundary habitats with proximity to each other are generally preferred over fragmented habitats [14,22]. Understanding the spatial pattern of habitat created under this policy becomes important when projecting the potential impact on the rebound and support of pollinator populations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Pollinator Habitat Conservation under Current Policy Using Economic Experiments

Ritten

Bastian

Shogren

et al. 2017

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pollinators provide critical ecosystems services vital to the production of numerous crops in the United States' agricultural sector. However, the U.S. is witnessing a serious decline in the abundance and diversity of domestic and wild pollinators, which threatens U.S. food security. In response, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has created the Pollinator Habitat Initiative (CP-42) to induce landowners to create quality habitat for pollinators by planting beneficial crops and wildflowers on Conservation Reserve Program (CRP)-eligible land. Landowners' potential conservation decisions under CP-42 and the resulting impact on land use decisions regarding crop production are not well-understood. We examine these issues by designing an economic experiment that simulates landowners' decisions to enroll in CP-42. As our motivating example, we focus on how CP-42 might affect crop production patterns and the resulting returns in Goshen County, Wyoming. The results indicate that about 16% of CRP-eligible land would be enrolled. Based on the relatively low CP-42 payment, our subjects remove only lower value crops from production. Our results suggest that (1) all dry wheat and sunflower production and a portion of barley, corn, and dry beans could be taken out of production when transferred to pollinator habitat, and (2) that habitat fragmentation would likely occur, which would reduce the efficacy of pollination. Overall, our results suggest that there are significant limits to the overall effectiveness of the CP-42 policy.

show abstract

“…(5) Since the planting and maintaining of farm trees is often very intensive of labour, time and knowledge, cooperative approaches may be helpful to reduce related costs, for example, for special machinery. Coordination between farmers is also required because the specific spatial configuration of farm trees across landscapes is critical to the provision of many ecosystem services, for example water purification services (Goldman et al 2007).…”

Section: Policy Options For Improving Pes Schemes For Farm Treesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Obstacles and options for the design and implementation of payment schemes for ecosystem services provided through farm trees in Saxony, Germany

Schleyer

Plieninger

2011

Envir. Conserv.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYAgricultural crops and pasturelands cover 24-38% of the global land area, and thus the ecological services that agricultural systems provide are of utmost societal importance. An important determinant of ecosystem services provision from European farmland is the amount and spatial arrangement of trees, shrubs and woodlands that are integrated into the respective landuse systems. This paper uses an institutional economics framework for the analysis of payment schemes for ecosystem services (PES schemes) that enhance the establishment, conservation and management of farm trees and woodlands, elaborating on the reasons for the often very reluctant participation of farmers in these schemes. PES schemes in Saxony (Germany) were selected as a typical example. Obstacles identified included high production costs and opportunity costs for land use, contractual uncertainties, land-tenure implications and heterogeneous societal preferences for ecosystem services of farm trees. Further, since scheme adoption has been relatively low compared with the total area covered by the respective farm tree types in Saxony, the PES schemes alone could not explain the substantial increase in number and size of some farm-tree types, in particular hedgerows. Regionalized premiums, result-oriented remuneration and cooperative approaches are options to improve participation in PES schemes for farm trees. The example of PES schemes for farm trees highlights one of the major challenges for the protection and preservation of cultural landscapes: they are manmade and thus need to be preserved, managed and maintained continuously.

show abstract

Institutional incentives for managing the landscape: Inducing cooperation for the production of ecosystem services

Cited by 173 publications

References 38 publications

Improving the link between payments and the provision of ecosystem services in agri-environment schemes

Improving the link between payments and the provision of ecosystem services in agri-environment schemes

Understanding Pollinator Habitat Conservation under Current Policy Using Economic Experiments

Obstacles and options for the design and implementation of payment schemes for ecosystem services provided through farm trees in Saxony, Germany

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About