The potential for collaborative agri-environment schemes in England: Can a well-designed collaborative approach address farmers’ concerns with current schemes?

Abstract

Link to publication on Research at Birmingham portal General rightsUnless a licence is specified above, all rights (including copyright and moral rights) in this document are retained by the authors and/or the copyright holders. The express permission of the copyright holder must be obtained for any use of this material other than for purposes permitted by law.• Users may freely distribute the URL that is used to identify this publication.• Users may download and/or print one copy of the publication from the University of Birmingham research portal for the purpose of private study or non-commercial research.• User may use extracts from the document in line with the concept of 'fair dealing' under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (?) • Users may not further distribute the material nor use it for the purposes of commercial gain.Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document.When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policyWhile the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.

Incorporating governance influences into social-ecological system models: a case study involving biodiversity conservation

“…The Tasmanian Midlands landscape is characterised by highly fragmented property ownership and an equally as fragmented distribution of the lowland native grassland biodiversity feature itself. For such a diverse landscape, the model reinforces the findings of Emery and Franks (2012) and Wyborn and Bixler (2013), which suggest a governance regime is required that can enhance collaboration with and between landholders; extend beyond those areas where listed species and ecosystems are located; and traverse property boundaries and categories of land tenure. The SES model also demonstrates that such a regime must also acknowledge and integrate landholders' lifestyle and economic motivations with the protection and enhancement of values associated with biodiversity conservation.…”

The design of agri-environmental schemes: Farmers’ preferences in southern Spain

“…Specifically, spreading out the collective participation in AES reduces the number of applications to be processed as well as the costs of monitoring, consequently reducing transaction costs incurred by the government (Franks, 2011;Emery and Franks, 2012).…”

Understanding the influence of farmer motivations on changes to soil erosion risk on sites of former serious erosion in the South Downs National Park, UK

“…While this would require a stronger focus on in situ soil management (see Posthumus, et al 2011) it would be supported by making farm-specific advice deployed in CSF zones available in erosion-prone areas. Furthermore, as soil erosion prevention also often requires thinking beyond the boundary of the farm, more targeted use of collective AES measures would be appropriate (Emery and Franks, 2012). This would have the potential to extend the most innovative soil conservation solutions found in our South Downs study, those based on landscape-scale thinking, whereby farmers split up large blocks of the same crop, or subdivided fields and planted different crops.…”