Abstract

Over the last years, there has been an increasing interest in the intersection of collective action and payments for ecosystem services. This has been motivated, among other things, by the understanding that spatially coordinated conservation practices can be ecologically more effective. In this study, we propose understanding collective action in the PES context as shaped by three collective action problems: the public good provision problem (i.e., the decision by landholders of whether to participate in a PES program); the coordinated implementation problem (i.e., the decision of landholders who participate in the PES to implement conservation measures in a coordinated fashion); and the externality internalization problem (i.e., the internalization of externalities that PES participants create on neighboring landholders and/or vice-versa). We then explore the extent to which perceptions about those three problems affect participation in PES. For this purpose, we carry out a choice experiment among farmers in the Swiss cantons of Zurich and Aargau. A majority of farmers have pessimistic expectations about the possibility of collective action regardless of whether that serves the provision of ecosystem services (pubic good provision), the coordinated implementation of AES or the internalization of potential externalities. Those with optimistic expectations about the first two problems are more likely to participate in PES. Finally, we find that expectations with regard to the public good provision and coordinated implementation problems interact, i.e., farmers who are optimistic about the willingness of other farmers to participate in PES are also more willing to coordinate in the implementation, and the other way around.

Highlights

  • Over the last years, there has been a notable increase of research at the intersection of collective action theory and payments for ecosystem services

  • We found that farmers who are optimistic about the willingness of other famers to participate in an agrienvironmental schemes (AES), are eager to coordinate in the production of the scheme

  • We have tested the influence of collective action problems on AES uptake by distinguishing those problems in different regards: (i) the public good provision problem, which manifests in the decision of farmers of whether to participate in an AES or not; (ii) the coordinated production problem, which occurs, for example, when conservation practices need to follow certain spatial patterns across borders; and (iii) the externality production problem, which emerges when farmers need to internalize externalities related to the AES requirements

Read more

Summary

Introduction

There has been a notable increase of research at the intersection of collective action theory and payments for ecosystem services This has been motivated by the understanding that the effec­ tiveness of some conservation measures such as those promoting pest control, pollination, biodiversity corridors, or the maintenance of certain landscape elements such as hedge rows or water streams can considerably increase if implemented along certain spatial patterns, i.e., by neighboring landowners (Parkhurst et al 2002, Parkhurst and Shogren 2007, Banerjee et al 2012). The higher the level of resilience, the lower the risk of facing losses of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the future This aligned relationship between resilience and risk reduction gives rise to the idea of determining the insurance value of ecosystem conservation. Methodological approaches to quantify this insurance value are relatively scarce (Baumgartner and Strunz 2014, Quaas et al 2019)

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call