Productive ecosystem services and collective management: Lessons from a realistic landscape model

Bareille, François; Boussard, Hugues; Thenail, Claudine

doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106482

Cited by 10 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, despite that the GC leads to the highest total profit, it is never stable without policy intervention. This is a crucial result as the existing studies have assumed its stability (Atallah et al 2017;Bareille et al 2020;Cong et al 2014;Epanchin-Niell and Wilen 2015). Overall, the cooperation for the management of productive ES is possible, but remains partial.…”

Section: Discussion and Concluding Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since the provision of many productive ES depends on mobile "ES providers", such as pollinators or pest-predatory insects, farmers' land-use choices may, however, create positive externalities for neighbouring farmers (Bareille et al 2020;Costello et al 2017). In this context, cooperation among farmers to manage productive ES is likely to be an efficient strategy for farmers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…the Grand Coalition -GC) yields Pareto improvements with respect to the uncoordinated ES management (the Nash Equilibrium -NE), but that at least some farmers have incentives to defect (Cong et al 2014;Epanchin-Niell and Wilen 2015). These incentives are even more pronounced when farmers are heterogeneous (Atallah et al 2017;Bareille et al 2020). However, these papers only compare the outcomes of the NE with those of the GC, neglecting the possible subgroups of, for example 2 or 3 farmers, which can be formed within a population of N farmers (N > 3).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Cooperative Management of Ecosystem Services: Coalition Formation, Landscape Structure and Policies

Bareille

Zavalloni

Raggi

et al. 2021

Environ Resource Econ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A growing body of literature shows that full-cooperation among farmers to manage productive ecosystem services would yield gains with respect to uncoordinated approaches. The public good feature of these ecosystem services may, however, hinder the emergence of a cooperative solution at the landscape scale. In this paper, we introduce in a coalition formation game a spatially-explicit bioeconomic model of fruit pollination, where pollinaton depends on the distance to the choosen location of natural habitats. We analyse: (i) which coalitions are stable; (ii) what benefits they provide; (iii) how cooperation depends on the initial landscape structure; and (iv) how policy instruments affect cooperation. The theoretical model presents the rationality of cooperation but, due to the detailed heterogeneity and complex spatial interactions among farms, we use a numerical example to determine the stable coalitions. We find that only small coalitions are stable and that the benefits of cooperation decrease when the spatial autocorrelation of fruit tree covers increase. Policy instruments can increase the interest for cooperation but per-hectare payments and minimum participation rules may reduce the habitat area at the margin (by decreasing the stability of coalitions). Price premium for the coalition members increase the habitat area but its budget-effectiveness decreases as the spatial autocorrelation of fruit tree covers increase.

show abstract

Section: Discussion and Concluding Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cooperative Management of Ecosystem Services: Coalition Formation, Landscape Structure and Policies

Bareille

Zavalloni

Raggi

et al. 2021

Environ Resource Econ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…ILM acknowledges the role of stakeholders in designing valuable landscapes and the transition towards green economies [5]. Although the management of ESS on the landscape-level in either heterogeneous or homogenous farms improves collective benefits, some farmers of heterogeneous farms would lose by collaborating, ending up with lowering the stability of this kind of collective action [36]. Therefore, there is additional need of a highly "uber" integrated assessment modelling approach that can demonstrate the interactive cost-benefit dynamics on the local and global scales [2,37].…”

Section: Challenges Of Modelling Human-environment Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Conceptual Model Framework for Mapping, Analyzing and Managing Supply–Demand Mismatches of Ecosystem Services in Agricultural Landscapes

Shaaban

Schwartz

Macpherson

et al. 2021

Land

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Appreciation for agricultural sustainability and ecosystem services (ESS) has received considerable attention from the scientific community. However, research has not yet systematically and sufficiently considered the spatial dimension of ESS trade-offs as a source of conflicts. Moreover, approaches for ESS management that address a wide range of beneficiaries and their interactions at landscape scale are lacking. Our main research question is how to motivate different beneficiaries of agricultural landscapes to cooperate in reducing supply–demand mismatches and accompanied conflicts, as well as to assess how different scenarios would impact relevant Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). We present a novel and conceptual integrated model in which we employ a combination of three methodological tools: participatory geographic information system (PGIS), agent-based modelling (ABM) and a Bayesian belief network (BBN). The objective of our model simulation is to identify and manage site-specific spatial trade-off patterns and to provide decision support for shifting competitive behavior of individual stakeholders in satisfying their demand for ESS to a collective and cooperative scheme, while jointly striving to attain relevant targets outlined in the SDGs. Attached to this work is a short video depicting our conceptual model. We strongly suggest that tackling a complex social-ecological system necessitates a highly integrated modelling approach that fosters the transition from farm- to landscape-scale management, from individualistic to collective action, and from competitive to cooperative behavior.

show abstract

“…Such analytic landscape contexts allowed to address the role of grassland as sources of soil-dwelling pests, yet clearly do not reflect the real complexity of the agricultural mosaic, that stems from stakeholder decisions under agronomical, economical, sociotechnical constraints. The representation of agroecosystems is still a research issue (Poggi et al, 2018b), and some model representations encompass more or less explicitly these constraints (Bareille et al, 2020;Martel et al, 2017;Ricci et al, 2018). Hence, a next research avenue consists in the exploration of suppressive patterns in simplified but realistic agricultural landscapes, generated under agronomic constraints at the farm or landscape scales.…”

Section: Limitations and Perspectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic role of grasslands as sources of soil-dwelling insect pests: New insights from in silico experiments for pest management strategies

Poggi

SERGENT

Mammeri

et al. 2021

Ecological Modelling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights: The role of grassland in field colonisation by insect pests is investigated in silico  Population dynamics of wireworms is modelled, accounting for life cycle and dispersion  Spatiotemporal effects of grassland in field history, field neighbourhood or their interaction, depend on the pest life cycle and its dispersal capacity  Grassy areas can act either as pseudo-sinks or as sources on neighbouring crops  Control strategies based on grassland arrangements appear trait-specific

show abstract

Productive ecosystem services and collective management: Lessons from a realistic landscape model

Cited by 10 publications

References 30 publications

Cooperative Management of Ecosystem Services: Coalition Formation, Landscape Structure and Policies

Cooperative Management of Ecosystem Services: Coalition Formation, Landscape Structure and Policies

A Conceptual Model Framework for Mapping, Analyzing and Managing Supply–Demand Mismatches of Ecosystem Services in Agricultural Landscapes

Dynamic role of grasslands as sources of soil-dwelling insect pests: New insights from in silico experiments for pest management strategies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About