IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v107y2021ics0264837719305253.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Policy instruments for environmental public goods: Interdependencies and hybridity

Author

Listed:
  • Blackstock, K.L.
  • Novo, P.
  • Byg, A.
  • Creaney, R.
  • Juarez Bourke, A.
  • Maxwell, J.L.
  • Tindale, S.J.
  • Waylen, K.A.

Abstract

The mixture of public goods that arise from rural land is shaped by multiple policy instruments, such as regulations and economic incentives. Whilst there is a vast literature focusing on categories of policy instruments, there remains the need for a deeper exploration of the interaction between these instruments and the consequences for managing public goods in agricultural and/or forested landscapes. Therefore, we explore how policy instruments influence the mix of public goods provided by Scottish agricultural and forested areas, drawing on desk based and empirical research. Our data suggest that whilst environmental policy instruments in Scotland are designed to coordinate – i.e. not to conflict – with each other, the design and implementation of instruments often go beyond this. We find that many instruments are hybrid and/or rely on interactions with other instrument types (interdependency) to achieve their objectives. This seems well understood by those involved in the implementation of policy instruments. In light of these results, we argue that the literature about types of policy instruments must evolve to explicitly acknowledge interdependency and hybridity: these concepts can become starting points for understanding how public goods can be governed in a more systemic way. Our work also draws attention to the need to study policy instruments ‘on the ground’ in order to understand their role and use in the wider debates about new environmental governance. Finally, while the idea of interdependency and hybridity brings challenges and even resistance by some who design policy, it may also help to overcome the existing policy implementation deficit between the aims and achievements of environmental policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Blackstock, K.L. & Novo, P. & Byg, A. & Creaney, R. & Juarez Bourke, A. & Maxwell, J.L. & Tindale, S.J. & Waylen, K.A., 2021. "Policy instruments for environmental public goods: Interdependencies and hybridity," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:107:y:2021:i:c:s0264837719305253
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104709
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837719305253
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104709?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nigmann, Thilo & Dax, Thomas & Hovorka, Gerhard, 2018. "Applying a social-ecological approach to enhancing provision of public goods through agriculture and forestry activities across the European Union," Studies in Agricultural Economics, Research Institute for Agricultural Economics, vol. 120(1), April.
    2. Knickel, Karlheinz & Maréchal, Anne, 2018. "Stimulating the social and environmental benefits of agriculture and forestry: An EU-based comparative analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 320-330.
    3. Anonymous, 2013. "Introduction to the Issue," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 243-243, December.
    4. Konrad Hagedorn, 2013. "Natural resource management: the role of cooperative institutions and governance," Journal of Entrepreneurial and Organizational Diversity, European Research Institute on Cooperative and Social Enterprises, vol. 2(1), pages 101-121, September.
    5. Konrad Hagedorn, 2008. "Particular requirements for institutional analysis in nature-related sectors," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 35(4), pages 606-606, December.
    6. Vatn, Arild, 2005. "Rationality, institutions and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 203-217, November.
    7. Jane Mills & Peter Gaskell & Julie Ingram & Janet Dwyer & Matt Reed & Christopher Short, 2017. "Engaging farmers in environmental management through a better understanding of behaviour," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 34(2), pages 283-299, June.
    8. Roldan Muradian & Murat Arsel & Lorenzo Pellegrini & Fikret Adaman & Bernardo Aguilar & Bina Agarwal & Esteve Corbera & Driss Ezzine de Blas & Joshua Farley & Géraldine Froger & Eduardo Garcia-Frapoll, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services and the fatal attraction of win-win solutions," Post-Print hal-03067404, HAL.
    9. Wendy A. Kellogg & Aritree Samanta, 2018. "Network structure and adaptive capacity in watershed governance," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 61(1), pages 25-48, January.
    10. Cornes,Richard & Sandler,Todd, 1996. "The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Club Goods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521477185, September.
    11. Anonymous, 2013. "Introduction to the Issue," Journal of Wine Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 129-130, November.
    12. Dedeurwaerdere, Tom & Admiraal, Jeroen & Beringer, Almut & Bonaiuto, Flavia & Cicero, Lavinia & Fernandez-Wulff, Paula & Hagens, Janneke & Hiedanpää, Juha & Knights, Paul & Molinario, Erica & Melindi-, 2016. "Combining internal and external motivations in multi-actor governance arrangements for biodiversity and ecosystem services," Environmental Science & Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 1-10.
    13. Westerink, Judith & Jongeneel, Roel & Polman, Nico & Prager, Katrin & Franks, Jeremy & Dupraz, Pierre & Mettepenningen, Evy, 2017. "Collaborative governance arrangements to deliver spatially coordinated agri-environmental management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 176-192.
    14. Hahn, Thomas & McDermott, Constance & Ituarte-Lima, Claudia & Schultz, Maria & Green, Tom & Tuvendal, Magnus, 2015. "Purposes and degrees of commodification: Economic instruments for biodiversity and ecosystem services need not rely on markets or monetary valuation," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 74-82.
    15. Kuhmonen, Tuomas, 2018. "Systems view of future of wicked problems to be addressed by the Common Agricultural Policy," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 683-695.
    16. Arild Vatn, 2005. "Institutions and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2826.
    17. S. Villamayor-Tomas & A. Thiel & Laurence Amblard & D. Zikos & E. Blanco, 2019. "Diagnosing the role of the state for local collective action: types of action situations and policy instruments [Le rôle de l'Etat dans l'action collective locale : types de situations d'action et ," Post-Print hal-02609286, HAL.
    18. Vatn, Arild, 2018. "Environmental Governance – From Public to Private?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C), pages 170-177.
    19. Michael Howlett, 2009. "Governance modes, policy regimes and operational plans: A multi-level nested model of policy instrument choice and policy design," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(1), pages 73-89, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Haensel, Maria & Scheinpflug, Luzie & Riebl, Rebekka & Lohse, Eva Julia & Röder, Norbert & Koellner, Thomas, 2023. "Policy instruments and their success in preserving temperate grassland: Evidence from 16 years of implementation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    2. Helena Guimarães, M. & Pinto-Correia, Teresa & de Belém Costa Freitas, Maria & Ferraz-de-Oliveira, Isabel & Sales-Baptista, Elvira & da Veiga, José Francisco Ferragolo & Tiago Marques, J. & Pinto-Cruz, 2023. "Farming for nature in the Montado: the application of ecosystem services in a results-based model," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    3. Kelly Parsons & David Barling, 2022. "Identifying the Policy Instrument Interactions to Enable the Public Procurement of Sustainable Food," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-21, April.
    4. Crabolu, Gloria & Font, Xavier & Eker, Sibel, 2023. "Evaluating policy complexity with Causal Loop Diagrams," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    5. Bethwell, Claudia & Sattler, Claudia & Stachow, Ulrich, 2022. "An analytical framework to link governance, agricultural production practices, and the provision of ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    6. Báliková, Klára & Šálka, Jaroslav, 2022. "Are silvicultural subsidies an effective payment for ecosystem services in Slovakia?," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    7. Jiayi Tang & Haibo Ruan & Chao Wang & Wendong Xu & Changgui Li & Xuan Dong, 2022. "Social Network, Cognition and Participation in Rural Health Governance," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(5), pages 1-17, March.
    8. Tao Ge & Jinye Li & Cang Wang, 2023. "Econometric analysis of the impact of innovative city pilots on CO2 emissions in China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(9), pages 9359-9386, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vatn, Arild, 2015. "Markets in environmental governance. From theory to practice," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 225-233.
    2. Berthet, Alice & Vincent, Audrey & Fleury, Philippe, 2021. "Water quality issues and agriculture: An international review of innovative policy schemes," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    3. Van Hecken, Gert & Bastiaensen, Johan & Windey, Catherine, 2015. "Towards a power-sensitive and socially-informed analysis of payments for ecosystem services (PES): Addressing the gaps in the current debate," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 117-125.
    4. Villamayor-Tomas, Sergio & Sagebiel, Julian & Rommel, Jens & Olschewski, Roland, 2021. "Types of collective action problems and farmers’ willingness to accept agri-environmental schemes in Switzerland," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 50(C).
    5. Sattler, Claudia & Loft, Lasse & Mann, Carsten & Meyer, Claas, 2018. "Methods in ecosystem services governance analysis: An introduction," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 155-168.
    6. Smessaert, Jacob & Missemer, Antoine & Levrel, Harold, 2020. "The commodification of nature, a review in social sciences," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    7. Thiel, Andreas & Schleyer, Christian & Plieninger, Tobias, 2011. "Characteristics of resources and the provision of biodiversity and ecosystem services in Germany: the cases of fruit tree meadows and wolf protection," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 116082, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Marr, Eric Joseph & Howley, Peter, 2018. "Woodlots, wetlands or wheat fields? Agri-environmental land allocation preferences of stakeholder organisations in England and Ontario," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 75(C), pages 673-681.
    9. Kimmich, Christian, 2013. "Linking action situations: Coordination, conflicts, and evolution in electricity provision for irrigation in Andhra Pradesh, India," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 150-158.
    10. Wim Carton & Adeniyi Asiyanbi & Silke Beck & Holly J. Buck & Jens F. Lund, 2020. "Negative emissions and the long history of carbon removal," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(6), November.
    11. Thiel, Andreas, 2014. "Developing an analytical framework for reconstructing the scalar reorganization of water governance as institutional change: The case of Southern Spain," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 378-391.
    12. Bartke, Stephan, 2015. "The economic role of valuers in real property markets," UFZ Discussion Papers 13/2015, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Division of Social Sciences (ÖKUS).
    13. Grundmann, Philipp & Ehlers, Melf-Hinrich, 2016. "Determinants of courses of action in bioenergy villages responding to changes in renewable heat utilization policy," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 183-192.
    14. Bhatt, Brijesh & Singh, Anoop, 2020. "Stakeholders’ role in distribution loss reduction technology adoption in the Indian electricity sector: An actor-oriented approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    15. Padmanabhan, Martina & Jungcurt, Stefan, 2012. "Biocomplexity—conceptual challenges for institutional analysis in biodiversity governance," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 70-79.
    16. Thomas Bolognesi & Florence Metz & Stéphane Nahrath, 2021. "Institutional complexity traps in policy integration processes: a long-term perspective on Swiss flood risk management," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(4), pages 911-941, December.
    17. Frantzeskaki, Niki & Thissen, Wil & Grin, John, 2016. "Drifting between transitions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 275-286.
    18. Ranjana Raghunathan, 2022. "Everyday Intimacies and Inter-Ethnic Relationships: Tracing Entanglements of Gender and Race in Multicultural Singapore," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 27(1), pages 77-94, March.
    19. Bobulescu, Roxana & Fritscheova, Aneta, 2021. "Convivial innovation in sustainable communities: Four cases in France," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    20. Robert Roßner & Dimitrios Zikos, 2018. "The Role of Homogeneity and Heterogeneity Among Resource Users on Water Governance: Lessons Learnt from an Economic Field Experiment on Irrigation in Uzbekistan," Water Economics and Policy (WEP), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 4(03), pages 1-30, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:107:y:2021:i:c:s0264837719305253. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.