Acceptance of a Payment for Ecosystem Services Scheme: The Decisive Influence of Collective Action

Abstract

As scholars have shown, acceptance is key to the success of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) scheme. While many studies adopt a static cost-benefit perspective, few address the social process leading to acceptance. Drawing on Suchman (1995), this article examines the legitimacy process underlying the acceptance of a PES in agriculture. In particular, the role of collective action in the legitimisation process is analysed, using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods of discourse analysis. Data from an agro-environmental PES scheme in France on water quality shows that acceptance depends on the normative and cognitive legitimacy that actors confer upon a public policy.

Keywords

Payment for ecosystem services EU Water Framework Directive collective action legitimacy discourse analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adour-Garonne Water Agency 2013. Les risques de pollution liés à l'agriculture. Toulouse, http://www.eau-adour-garonne.fr/fr/eau-et-activites-economiques/agriculture/les-risques-de-pollution-lies-a-l-agriculture.html (accessed 16 July 2014).

Arrow

1974. The Limits of Organization. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Berger

P. L.

and Luckmann

. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. New York: Anchor Books.

Bromley

D. W.

2008. ‘Volitional pragmatism’. Ecological Economics 68: 1–13. Crossref.

Carley

K.M.

1997. ‘Extracting team mental models through textual analysis’. Journal of Organizational Behavior 18: 533–558. Crossref.

Chabé-Ferret

and Subervie

. 2013. ‘How much green for the buck? Estimating additional and windfall effects of French agro-environmental schemes by DID-matching’. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 65 (1): 12–27. Crossref.

Charmaz

2006. Constructing Grounded Theory. A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. London: Sage Publications.

CGAAER 2009. Évaluation de la mise en œuvre 2007–2008 du PVE et des MAET enjeu EAU du programme de développement rural hexagonal. Report n.1904, May.

CGAAER and CGEDD 2011. Appropriation des enjeux et mise en oeuvre de la directive cadre sur l'eau (DCE) dans le secteur agricole. Enseignements à partir de six études de cas. CGAAER No. 10135, CGEDD No. 007331, http://agriculture.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/CGAAER_10135_2011_Rapport.pdf (accessed 20 July 2014).

10.

Cleaver

2012. Development through Bricolage: Rethinking Institutions for Natural Resource Management. Abingdon: Routledge.

11.

Cole

1996. ‘Interacting minds in a life-span perspective: a cultural historical approach to culture and cognitive development’. In Baltes

P. B.

and Staudinger

U. M.

(eds) Interactive Minds, pp. 58–87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

12.

Del Corso

J-P.

, Nguyen

and Kephaliacos

. 2014. ‘Quelles conditions à l'accep-tation d'un dispositif incitatif de politique publique en agriculture? VertisO – the electronical review in environmental sciences, December 2014, http://vertigo.revues.org/15252. Crossref.

13.

Parliament

European

2012. Environmental Public Goods in the new CAP: Impact of Greening Proposals and Possible Alternatives. Brussels: European Union.

14.

Fairclough

2003. Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.

15.

Falconer

2000. ‘Farm-level constraints on agri-environmental scheme participation: a transactional perspective’. Journal of Rural Studies 16: 379–394. Crossref.

16.

Fish

, Seymour

and Watkins

. 2003. ‘Conserving English landscapes: land managers and agri-environmental policy’. Environment and Planning A 35 (1): 19–41. Crossref.

17.

Gee

J. P.

2013. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London: Routledge.

18.

Glaser

2001. The Grounded Theory Perspective: Conceptualization Contrasted with Description. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.

19.

Habermas

1984. The Theory of Communicative Action. Volume 1. Boston: Beacon Press.

20.

Hiedanpää

and Bromley

D. W.

. 2014. ‘payments for ecosystem services: durable habits, dubious nudges, and doubtful efficacy’. Journal of Institutional Economics 10 (2): 175–195. Crossref.

21.

Hodge

and Reader

. 2010. ‘The introduction of Entry Level Stewardship in England: extension or dilution in agri-environment policy? ’ Land Use Policy 27 (2): 270–282. Crossref.

22.

Hodgson

G. M.

2006. ‘What are institutions?’. Journal of Economic Issues 40 (1): 1–25. Crossref.

23.

Hutchinson

S. A.

1993. ‘Grounded theory: the method’. In Munhall

P.L.

and Boyd

C.O.

(eds), Nursing Research: A Qualitative Perspective, pp. 180–212. New York: National League for Nursing Press.

24.

Kuhfuss

, Jacquet

, Préget

and Thoyer

. 2012. ‘Le dispositif des MAEt pour l'enjeu eau: une fausse bonne idée ?’ Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement 93 (4): 395–422. Crossref.

25.

Mann

, Loft

and Hansjürgens

. 2015. ‘Governance of ecosystem services: lessons learned for sustainable institutions’. Ecosystem Services 16: 275–281. Crossref.

26.

Mettepenningen

, Vandermeulen

, Delaet

, Van Huylenbroeck

and Wailes

E. J.

. 2013. ‘Investigating the influence of the institutional organisation of agri-environmental schemes on scheme adoption’. Land Use Policy 33: 20–30. Crossref.

27.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: General Synthesis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

28.

Morris

2006. ‘Negotiating the boundary between state-led and farmer approaches to knowing nature: an analysis of UK agri-environment schemes’. Geoforum 37 (1): 113–127. Crossref.

29.

Morris

and Potter

. 1995. ‘Recruiting the new conservationists: farmers' adoption of agri-environmental schemes in the U.K’. Journal of Rural Studies 11 (1): 51–63. Crossref.

30.

Murphy

, Hynes

, Murphy

and O'Donoghue

. 2014. ‘An investigation into the type of farmer who chooses to participate in REPS and the role of institutional change in influencing scheme effectiveness’. Land Use Policy 39: 199–210. Crossref.

31.

OECD 2012. Environmental Performance of Agriculture at a Glance, 2nd Edition. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=COM/TAD/CA/ENV/EPOC(2012)10/FINAL&docLanguage=En (accessed 20 July 2014).

32.

Paillé

1994. ‘L'analyse par théorisation ancrée’. Cahiers de recherche sociologique 23: 147–181. Crossref.

33.

Piaget

1932. The Moral Judgment of the Child. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co.

34.

Plumecocq

2014. ‘Rhetoric as a means for sustainable development policy’. Environmental Values 23 (5): 529–549. Crossref.

35.

Prager

and Nagel

U.J.

. 2008. ‘Participatory decision making on agri-environmental programmes: a case study from Sachsen-Anhalt (Germany)’. Land Use Policy 25 (1): 106–115. Crossref.

36.

Prager

and Freese

. 2009. ‘Stakeholder involvement in agri-environmental policy making: Learning a local- and a state-level approach in Germany’. Journal of Environmental Management 90 (2): 1154–1167. Crossref.

37.

Prager

, Reed

and Scott

. 2012. ‘Encouraging collaboration for the provision of ecosystem services at a landscape scale: Rethinking agri-environmental payments’. Land Use Policy 29 (1): 244–249. Crossref.

38.

Reinert

2007. ‘Postures énonciatives et mondes lexicaux stabilisés en analyse statistique de discours’. Langage et société 121–122: 189–202. Crossref.

39.

Rousset

and Louis

. 2012. ‘CoÛts de transaction et adoption des MAE territorialisées à enjeu eau’. Revue d'Économie Régionale & Urbaine 1: 65–89. Crossref.

40.

Ruto

and Garrod

. 2009. ‘Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of ag-rienvironment schemes: a choice experiment approach’. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 52 (5): 631–647. Crossref.

41.

Rydin

1999. ‘Can we talk ourselves into sustainability? The role of discourse in the environmental policy process’. Environmental Values 8 (4): 467–484. Crossref.

42.

Sattler

and Nagel

U.J.

. 2010. ‘Factors affecting farmers' acceptance of conservation measures-A case study from north-eastern Germany’. Land Use Policy 27 (1): 70–77. Crossref.

43.

Schenk

, Hunziker

and Kienast

. 2007. ‘Factors influencing the acceptance of nature conservation measures – a qualitative study in Switzerland’. Journal of Environmental Management 83 (1): 66–79. Crossref.

44.

Schonhardt-Bailey

2005. ‘Measuring ideas more effectively: an analysis of Bush and Kerry's national security speeches’. Political Science and Politics 38 (4): 701–711. Crossref.

45.

Scott

W. R.

2001. Institutions and Organizations. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

46.

Sen

2009. The Idea of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

47.

Spash

C. L.

1999. ‘The development of environmental thinking in economics’. Environmental Values 8 (4): 413–435. Crossref.

48.

Suchman

M.C.

1995. ‘Managing legitimacy: strategic and institutional approaches’. Academy of Management Review 20 (3): 571–610. Crossref.

49.

Uthes

and Matzdorf

. 2013. ‘Studies on agro-environmental measures: a survey of the literature’. Environmental Management 51: 251–266. Crossref.

50.

Van Hecken

, Bastiaensen

and Windey

. 2015. ‘Towards a power-sensitive and socially-informed analysis of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): addressing the gaps in the current debate’. Ecological Economics 120: 117–125. Crossref.

51.

Vatn

2005. Institutions and the Environment. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

52.

Vatn

2009. ‘An institutional analysis of methods for environmental appraisal’. Ecological Economics 68 (8–9): 2207–2215. Crossref.

53.

Villien

, and Claquin

. 2012. ‘Les mesures agro-environnementales : complémentarité de l'approche ‘territorialisée' et de l'approche par ‘système d'exploitation”. Analyse CEP, 47, 8 p.

54.

Webster

and Felton

. 1993. ‘Targeting for nature conservation in agricultural policy’. Land Use Policy 10 (1): 67–82. Crossref.

55.

Wilson

G. A.

and Hart

. 2000. ‘Financial imperative or conservation concern? EU farmers' motivations for participation in voluntary agri-environmental schemes’. Environment and Planning A 32 (12): 2161–2185. Crossref.

56.

Wunder

, 2005. ‘Payments for environmental services: Some nuts and bolts’. CIFOR Occasional Paper No. 42. Bogor, Indonesia: Center for International Forestry Research.