Exploring farmers’ perspectives on collective action: a case study on co-operation in Dutch agri-environment schemes

To improve the ecological effectiveness of agri-environment-climate measures (AECM), collective approaches to co-ordinate AECM beyond the farm level have emerged, which are characterised by different levels of co-operation between individual farmers. As participation is voluntary, understanding farmers’ perspectives on collective action in the context of these economic incentive instruments is crucial to improve existing or design novel approaches. We conducted a Q study on farmers’ viewpoints on collective AECM in the Netherlands, where all AECM have to be realised jointly since 2016. Our results reveal three dominant views on collective AECM: a collective-oriented, a business-oriented and an environment-oriented perspective. Clear preferences for the collective approach show that even in cultures with strong values of independence joint action is possible, as farmers’ autonomy can be strengthened through co-operation. Considering different perspectives on collective approaches within the institutional design can help to develop more targeted, and thus successful, incentives

Learning about German farmers’ willingness to cooperate from public goods games and expert predictions

There is a growing interest in collective contracts to address agri-environmental policy goals at landscape scales. Yet, little is known about farmers’ general willingness to cooperate. We developed four treatments of a linear public goods game to investigate farmers’ willingness to cooperate: (1) heterogeneous endowments, (2) leading-by-example, (3) social norms, and (4) pinpointing the socially optimal solution. Based on a sample of 358 German farmers, we find that contributions reach more than twothirds of the initial endowment across different treatments on average. Nudging the socially optimal solution is the most effective treatment. In addition to the experiment, we elicited incentivized predictions on experimental outcomes from 212 experts. Expert beliefs on treatment effects appear to be calibrated on laboratory studies, highlighting the need to conduct, communicate, and discuss experimental studies outside the laboratory. Young female academics with an Economics background most accurately predict farmers’ behaviour in the experiment

How socioeconomic and institutional conditions at the household level shape the environmental effectiveness of governmental payments for ecosystem services program

As the world’s largest payments for ecosystem services (PES) program, China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program (SLCP) is designed to combat soil erosion and land degradation by converting cropland on steep slopes into forests. Operating through an incentive-based approach, the SLCP involved 32 million rural households as core agents. This paper aims to fill a research gap regarding how socioeconomic and institutional conditions influence rural households to reach the primary environmental goals. Using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA), we conclude that at the household level, the different pathways to environmental success or failure have been shaped by socioeconomic and institutional conditions in a combinatory manner rather than single conditions alone. Specifically, the combination of household involvement and effective monitoring plays a fundamental role in capacity-building between government and households. We found that financial incentives have a trade-off effect, as they could not only create a positive interaction but also trigger failure in situations with different conditions. Finally, the potential and limits of QCA were discussed, and we call for a more serious reflection on the added value of QCA as an alternative or complementary method to conventional approaches in environmental governance research

Viewpoints on Cooperative Peatland Management: Expectations and Motives of Dutch Farmers

The European Union (EU) is globally the second highest emitter of greenhouse gases from drained peatlands. On the national level, 15% of agricultural peat soils in the Netherlands are responsible for 34% of agricultural emissions. Crucial to any successful policy is a better understanding of the behavioral change it will bring about among the target groups. Thus, we aim to explore farmers’ differing viewpoints to discuss how policy and planning can be improved to ensure landscape-scale climate mitigation on agriculturally used peatlands. Q methodology was used to interview fifteen farmers on Dutch peat soils, whereby 37 statements were ranked in a grid according to their level of agreement. Factor analysis revealed three main viewpoints: farmers with a higher peat proportion show an urgency in continuing to use their land (‘cooperative businesspeople’), while ‘independent opportunists’ are wary of cooperation compromising their sense of autonomy. Farmers who are ‘conditional land stewards’ are open to agriculture without drainage but require appropriate payments to do so. Future policy design must focus on providing support to farmers that go beyond compensation payments by providing information about funding sources as well as potential business models for peatland uses with raised water tables

Paying for Green?: Payment for Ecosystem Services in Practice - Successful Examples of PES from Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Diverse studies have shown that despite various efforts the state of our natural resources as well as the development of biodiversity and climate change are still a cause for concern. This is the case at the global level as well as at the level of individual countries and regions. In the industrialized countries in particular, they have been trying to solve environmental problems by regulatory means for many decades. And still the problems are increasing. It is not surprising, therefore, that different and complementary means of exerting influence have repeatedly been sought. Against this background, the attention given to economic instruments to resolve environmental problems has increased worldwide in recent years. In the wake of large international studies such as the "Millennium Ecosystem Assessment" of the UN and the international as well as national TEEB studies on the economic value of ecosystem services and biodiversity, there is growing interest in particular in Payments for Ecosystem Services, PES for short. How can this interest be explained, and what is the distinguishing feature of PES? The increased attention given to PES is closely related to the establishment of the ecosystem services approach, whereby a social and economic value is attached to nature. This is the basis of PES reasoning: When such a value is ascribed to an ecosystem service, then this value can be realized specifically at the moment when that service is scarce. Someone should be ready to pay money for a scarce ecosystem service. Hence the users of ecosystem services are the starting point of the discourse: Who uses clean drinking water? Who enjoys a scenice landscape? Who benefits when our rivers and lakes are less nutrient-rich? If we carry this further we can conclude that when the benefits decline ("we have an environmental problem!") those users would in their own self-interest pay to have the benefits restored or continued

Community-based management of environmental challenges in Latin America and the Caribbean

This Special Feature gathers the results of five research projects funded by the 7th Research Framework Program of the European Union and aims to identify successful cases of community-based management of environmental challenges in Latin America. The funding scheme, Research for the benefit of Civil Society Organizations, fostered innovative research approaches between civil society and research organizations. More than 20 field sites have been explored, and issues such as trade-offs between conservation and development, scientific versus local knowledge, social learning, ecosystem services, community owned solutions, scaling-up and scaling-out strategies, the influence of context and actors in effective environmental management and governance, and the conflicts of interests around natural resources have been addressed. Based on our experiences as project coordinators, in this editorial we reflect on some of the important lessons gained for research praxis and impact, focusing on knowledge of governance models and their scaling-out and scaling-up, and on methods and tools to enable action research at the science–civil society interface. The results highlight the richness of community-based management experiences that exist in Latin America and the diversity of approaches to encourage the sustainable community-based management of environmental challenges. (Résumé d'auteur

Ethical considerations in on-ground applications of the ecosystem services concept

The ecosystem services (ES) concept is one of the main avenues for conveying society's dependence on natural ecosystems. On-ground applications of the concept are now widespread and diverse and include its use as a communication tool, for policy guidance and priority setting, and for designing economic instruments for conservation. Each application raises ethical considerations beyond traditional controversies related to the monetary valuation of nature. We review ethical considerations across major on-ground applications and group them into the following categories: anthropocentric framing, economic metaphor, monetary valuation, commodification, sociocultural impact, changes in motivations, and equity implications. Different applications of the ES concept raise different suites of ethical issues, and we propose methods to address the issues most relevant to each application. We conclude that the ES concept should be considered as only one among various alternative approaches to valuing nature and that reliance on economic metaphors can exclude other motivations for protecting ecosystems

Environmental Cooperation at Landscape Scales: First Insights from Co-Designing Public Goods Games with Farmers in Four EU Member States

In this milestone report, we explain how we have developed public goods games to perform an exante assessment of novel collective contract models in the Contracts2.0 project. Workshops were conducted in Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, and Poland. The first data collection was completed in Germany, and an expert prediction survey was run in parallel to the public goods game with German farmers. The overall experiences from the workshops have been positive. The public goods game was met with great interest from stakeholders, albeit in all instances, there were concerns about the level of abstraction of the game. Another frequent concern was parallelism, i.e., the link between game results and real-world behaviour. We used 358 completed online responses from German farmers for an initial analysis. Farmers’ behaviour in our study differed substantially from participants in the laboratory. Overall levels of cooperation among farmers were substantially higher than one would expect from previous laboratory studies. In addition, treatment effects were not in the expected direction. The only treatment that showed substantially larger contributions was to emphasize the social optimum of the game. Expert predictions were more in line with the literature from experimental laboratory studies than with the actual behaviour of farmers. Among the experts, those indicating good knowledge on the public goods game, predicted more accurately, whereas stated sector-specific knowledge (on agriculture, the common agricultural policy, or agri-environmental schemes) did not substantially improve predictions

Participatory research in times of COVID-19 and beyond: Adjusting your methodological toolkits

Solving grand environmental societal challenges calls for transdisciplinary and participatory methods in social-ecological research. These methods enable co-designing the research, co-producing the results, and co-creating the impacts together with concerned stakeholders. COVID-19 has had serious impacts on the choice of research methods, but reflections on recent experiences of "moving online"are still rare. In this perspective, we focus on the challenge of adjusting different participatory methods to online formats used in five transdisciplinary social-ecological research projects. The key added value of our research is the lessons learned from a comparison of the pros and cons of adjusting a broader set of methods to online formats. We conclude that combining the adjusted online approaches with well-established face-to-face formats into more inclusive hybrid approaches can enrich and diversify the pool of available methods for postpandemic research. Furthermore, a more diverse group of participants can be engaged in the research process

The prospects of innovative agri-environmental contracts in the European policy context: Results from a Delphi study

Innovative agri-environmental contracts are increasingly studied in the literature, but their adoption has been relatively slow and geographically scattered. Action-based agri-environmental measures remain the predominant policy mechanism across Europe. A three-round Policy Delphi study was conducted with policy makers, scientific experts, farmers’ representatives, and NGOs from across 15 different European countries, to investigate how and under which circumstances novel contractual solutions could be implemented more widely. The expert panel perceived result-based and collective contractual elements as the most promising. Although considered beneficial from several aspects, value chain contracts were perceived less relevant to the policy environment. The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) Pillar 2 measures were highlighted by the experts as the key policy area to implement novel contracts by national or regional authorities, but Pillar 1 eco-schemes, being launched in the CAP 2023–2027, were also considered as a potentially suitable framework for testing and implementation. The Delphi panel envisaged innovative contracts should be adopted by governments in iterative steps and not as a complete substitute for current payment schemes, but rather as an additional incentive to them. Such an incremental approach allows contractual innovations to capitalise on existing best practices. But it also implies the risk that innovative contracts could remain marginal and fail to substantially change farmers’ behaviour, resulting in a failure to improve environmental conditions