IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v11y2018i1p26-d192175.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Eco-System Services in Agrarian Value Chains: Value Detection of Bio-Diversity as Public Good Provision, Problems, and Institutional Issues

Author

Listed:
  • Ernst-August Nuppenau

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Giessen, Senckenbergstraße 3, D-35390 Giessen, Germany)

Abstract

Valuation of nature (biodiversity: BD) and in particular ecosystem services (ESS) are important prerequisites for the design of cultural landscapes as well as in agricultural policy and the generation of BD as public interest. Designs should be built on valuation and valuation is usually seen as market assignment of prices. Yet, there is a problem with market failure. BD and ESS can be characterized as public goods, both being non-rival and non-exclusive, thus demanding public provision. Largely due to public pressure, nature provision and planning has received increased attention. Especially as a means to create values i.e. in conservation projects and specifically to add value and income to farmers’ value chains. Governments seek to promote BD and landscape provision by farmers, but money is scarce. Planners frequently do not know what the public wants and contingent valuation results are often regarded as insufficient because of missing vehicles of payment. There is scope for a more workable coordination process (institutional innovation) between interests in nature provision projects (being oriented at BD and corresponding ESS) and willingness to pay WTP (for foods related to nature). It is the objective to show that value chains of food products which are strongly related to nature and landscapes are a venue to go under multi-functionality for BD. The issue addressed is to offer a BD which creates WTP in value chains and serves as source of finance for BD provision. Hereby, the public is represented by an ecological management. We will primarily provide an analytical framework which merges public good provision theory with farm behavior modelling as well as draws on modeling of bargaining as solutions from social power theory. Provision is set by valuing through BD management and foods contain ESS by which the value chain improves at private good markets. Food is marketed through a special value chain and consumers help to finance public management of ESS. We distinguish the process of public preference formation from those of individual formation and can reckon a concept of social power. 1. An introduction to preference detection highlights the need for a public approach. 2. Interest group preferences are modeled. 3. A manager will be entitled to charge fees to beneficiaries and guarantee compensations. 4. Bargaining for BD indicating ESS is outlined.

Suggested Citation

  • Ernst-August Nuppenau, 2018. "Eco-System Services in Agrarian Value Chains: Value Detection of Bio-Diversity as Public Good Provision, Problems, and Institutional Issues," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-20, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2018:i:1:p:26-:d:192175
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/1/26/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/1/26/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Williamson, Oliver E, 1991. "Economic Institutions: Spontaneous and Intentional Governance," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(0), pages 159-187, Special I.
    2. Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano & Wunder, Sven, 2008. "Designing payments for environmental services in theory and practice: An overview of the issues," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 663-674, May.
    3. Rawlins, Jonathan M. & De Lange, Willem J. & Fraser, Gavin C.G., 2018. "An Ecosystem Service Value Chain Analysis Framework: A Conceptual Paper," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 84-95.
    4. V. Kerry Smith, 1996. "Can Contingent Valuation Distinguish Economic Values for Different Public Goods?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 72(2), pages 139-151.
    5. Vatn, Arild, 2010. "An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1245-1252, April.
    6. Giuseppe Marotta & Concetta Nazzaro, 2012. "Responsabilit? sociale e creazione di valore nell?impresa agroalimentare: nuove frontiere di ricerca," Economia agro-alimentare, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 14(1), pages 13-54.
    7. Jacobides, Michael G. & Knudsen, Thorbjorn & Augier, Mie, 2006. "Benefiting from innovation: Value creation, value appropriation and the role of industry architectures," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(8), pages 1200-1221, October.
    8. Udo Ebert, 1998. "Evaluation of Nonmarket Goods: Recovering Unconditional Preferences," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(2), pages 241-254.
    9. Rausser,Gordon C. & Swinnen,Johan & Zusman,Pinhas, 2012. "Political Power and Economic Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521190169, January.
    10. Cooke, Benjamin & Moon, Katie, 2015. "Aligning ‘public good’ environmental stewardship with the landscape-scale: Adapting MBIs for private land conservation policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 152-158.
    11. Bergstrom, Theodore & Blume, Lawrence & Varian, Hal, 1986. "On the private provision of public goods," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 25-49, February.
    12. Nick Hanley & Hilary Kirkpatrick & David Oglethorpe & Ian Simpson, 1998. "Principles for the provision of public goods from agriculture: modelling moorland conservation in Scotland," Chapters, in: John M. Antle & Joseph N. Lekakis & George P. Zanias (ed.), Agriculture, Trade and the Environment, chapter 8, pages 154-169, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Zusman, Pinhas, 1976. "The Incorporation and Measurement of Social Power in Economic Models," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 17(2), pages 447-462, June.
    14. 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.
    15. Gordon C. Rausser & Pinhas Zusman, 1992. "Public Policy and Constitutional Prescription," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 74(2), pages 247-257.
    16. Edward Clarke, 1971. "Multipart pricing of public goods," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 17-33, September.
    17. Mueller, Dennis C, 1976. "Public Choice: A Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 14(2), pages 395-433, June.
    18. Howard R. Bowen, 1943. "The Interpretation of Voting in the Allocation of Economic Resources," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 58(1), pages 27-48.
    19. Anke Fischer & Camilla Sandström & Miguel Delibes-Mateos & Beatriz Arroyo & Degu Tadie & Deborah Randall & Fetene Hailu & Asanterabi Lowassa & Maurus Msuha & Vesna Kereži & Slaven Reljić & John Linnel, 2013. "On the multifunctionality of hunting -- an institutional analysis of eight cases from Europe and Africa," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(4), pages 531-552, May.
    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. Kwame Awuah-Offei & Sisi Que & Atta Ur Rehman, 2021. "Evaluating Mine Design Alternatives for Social Risks Using Discrete Choice Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-15, August.

    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. Vitalik Buterin & Zoe Hitzig & E. Glen Weyl, 2018. "A Flexible Design for Funding Public Goods," Papers 1809.06421, arXiv.org, revised Aug 2020.
    2. Campanhão, Ligia Maria Barrios & Ranieri, Victor Eduardo Lima, 2019. "Guideline framework for effective targeting of payments for watershed services," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 93-109.
    3. Rojas, Cristian & Cinner, Joshua, 2020. "Do market and trust contexts spillover into public goods contributions? Evidence from experimental games in Papua New Guinea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).
    4. Beatrice Cherrier & Jean-Baptiste Fleury, 2017. "Economists’ interest in collective decision after World War II: a history," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 172(1), pages 23-44, July.
    5. Vitalik Buterin & Zoë Hitzig & E. Glen Weyl, 2019. "A Flexible Design for Funding Public Goods," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(11), pages 5171-5187, November.
    6. Ito, Junichi, 2022. "Program design and heterogeneous treatment effects of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 191(C).
    7. Ian Hodge & William M. Adams, 2016. "Short-Term Projects versus Adaptive Governance: Conflicting Demands in the Management of Ecological Restoration," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-17, November.
    8. Veronesi, Marcella & Reutemann, Tim & Zabel, Astrid & Engel, Stefanie, 2015. "Designing REDD+ schemes when forest users are not forest landowners: Evidence from a survey-based experiment in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 46-57.
    9. Alain‐Désiré Nimubona & Jean‐Christophe Pereau, 2022. "Negotiating over payments for wetland ecosystem services," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 1507-1538, August.
    10. Rodríguez-Ortega, T. & Olaizola, A.M. & Bernués, A., 2018. "A novel management-based system of payments for ecosystem services for targeted agri-environmental policy," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PA), pages 74-84.
    11. Partha Gangopadhyay & Shyam Nath, 2001. "Bargaining, Coalitions and Local Expenditure," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 38(13), pages 2379-2391, December.
    12. Earl Brubaker, 1977. "A two-stage hybrid mechanism for collective choice," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 101-111, December.
    13. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    14. Maskin, Eric & Sjostrom, Tomas, 2002. "Implementation theory," Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare,in: K. J. Arrow & A. K. Sen & K. Suzumura (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 5, pages 237-288 Elsevier.
    15. Fraser, Clive D., 2000. "When Is Efficiency Separable from Distribution in the Provision of Club Goods?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 90(2), pages 204-221, February.
    16. Lyons, R. F. & Rausser, Gordon C. & Simon, L. K., 1992. "Disruption and Continuity in Bulgaria's Agrarian Reform," Staff General Research Papers Archive 728, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    17. Legrand, Thomas & Froger, Géraldine & Le Coq, Jean-François, 2013. "Institutional performance of Payments for Environmental Services: An analysis of the Costa Rican Program," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 115-123.
    18. Wätzold, Frank & Drechsler, Martin, 2014. "Agglomeration payment, agglomeration bonus or homogeneous payment?," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 85-101.
    19. Pham, Thu Thuy & Loft, Lasse & Bennett, Karen & Phuong, Vu Tan & Dung, Le Ngoc & Brunner, Jake, 2015. "Monitoring and evaluation of Payment for Forest Environmental Services in Vietnam: From myth to reality," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 220-229.
    20. Yin, Runsheng & Zhao, Minjuan, 2012. "Ecological restoration programs and payments for ecosystem services as integrated biophysical and socioeconomic processes—China's experience as an example," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 56-65.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:11:y:2018:i:1:p:26-:d:192175. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.