IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v70y2010i2p283-295.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Boundary organizations for sustainable land management: The example of Dutch Environmental Co-operatives

Author

Listed:
  • Franks, Jeremy

Abstract

This paper uses Boundary Organization Theory (BOT) to examine the proposition that Dutch Environmental Co-operatives (ECs) conform to the characteristics of boundary organizations (BOs). Many conservationists believe BO-type institutions are essential for addressing eco-system management problems, but believe there are currently too few examples of BOs working across sustainability issues. It is concluded that ECs have organizational structures and work practices typical of BOs: they allow people on different sides of the land management for food and nature conservation boundary (land managers, conservationists, scientists and policy makers) to negotiate to transform agri-environmental schemes into boundary objects and scheme options into implementable standardized packages. This is achieved by adopting convening, translation, collaboration and mediation functions that create extended peer communities able to contribute important knowledge of eco-system management, whilst allowing each participate to remain within their respective professional boundaries and responsible to their different constituencies. As an example of BOs, ECs are a post-normal sustainability technology (PNST) that offers "clumsy" solutions to the "wicked" problem of eco-system management. BOs work in many fields across the globe, showing their underling organizational principals and working practices are not restricted to any particular issue or geographical monopoly. As such, ECs - adjusted to suit local priorities and circumstances - could be the basis of a more widely used sustainability-led governance unit most particularly where cultural practices favour collective and collaborative behaviour.

Suggested Citation

  • Franks, Jeremy, 2010. "Boundary organizations for sustainable land management: The example of Dutch Environmental Co-operatives," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 283-295, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:70:y:2010:i:2:p:283-295
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(10)00335-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Muradian, Roldan & Corbera, Esteve & Pascual, Unai & Kosoy, Nicolás & May, Peter H., 2010. "Reconciling theory and practice: An alternative conceptual framework for understanding payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1202-1208, April.
    2. J. R. Franks & A. McGloin, 2007. "Joint submissions, output related payments and environmental co-operatives: Can the Dutch experience innovate UK agri-environment policy?," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(2), pages 233-256.
    3. Gottfried, Robert & Wear, David & Lee, Robert, 1996. "Institutional solutions to market failure on the landscape scale," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 133-140, August.
    4. Edi Defrancesco & Paola Gatto & Ford Runge & Samuele Trestini, 2008. "Factors Affecting Farmers’ Participation in Agri‐environmental Measures: A Northern Italian Perspective," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 114-131, February.
    5. Todd Sandler & John Tschirhart, 1997. "Club theory: Thirty years later," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 93(3), pages 335-355, December.
    6. Vatn, Arild, 2010. "An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1245-1252, April.
    7. David R. Harvey, 2003. "Agri‐environmental Relationships and Multi‐functionality: Further Considerations," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(5), pages 705-725, May.
    8. Norton, Bryan G. & Noonan, Douglas, 2007. "Ecology and valuation: Big changes needed," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 664-675, September.
    9. Frame, Bob & Brown, Judy, 2008. "Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 225-241, April.
    10. Jessica Goldberger, 2008. "Non-governmental organizations, strategic bridge building, and the “scientization” of organic agriculture in Kenya," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 25(2), pages 271-289, June.
    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. Kivimaa, Paula & Boon, Wouter & Hyysalo, Sampsa & Klerkx, Laurens, 2019. "Towards a typology of intermediaries in sustainability transitions: A systematic review and a research agenda," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 1062-1075.
    2. Katherine Leanne Christ & Roger Leonard Burritt, 2019. "Implementation of sustainable development goals: The role for business academics," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 44(4), pages 571-593, November.
    3. Zwartkruis, Joyce V. & Berg, Holger & Hof, Andries F. & Kok, Marcel T.J., 2020. "Agricultural nature conservation in the Netherlands: Three lenses on transition pathways," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    4. Holzscheiter, Anna, 2017. "Coping with Institutional Fragmentation? Competition and Convergence between Boundary Organizations in the Global Response to Polio," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 34(6), pages 767-789.
    5. Smink, Magda & Negro, Simona O. & Niesten, Eva & Hekkert, Marko P., 2015. "How mismatching institutional logics hinder niche–regime interaction and how boundary spanners intervene," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 225-237.
    6. François Bareille & Matteo Zavalloni & Davide Viaggi, 2023. "Agglomeration bonus and endogenous group formation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 105(1), pages 76-98, January.
    7. Blandford, David & Hodge, Ian D., 2012. "Adapting Agri-Environment Schemes for Greenhouse Gas Mitigation – Observations from U.K. and U.S. Experience," 86th Annual Conference, April 16-18, 2012, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 135517, Agricultural Economics Society.
    8. Ortiz-Miranda, Dionisio & Hodge, Ian, 2012. "Entre la propiedad agraria y la ambiental: El debate respecto a los derechos de propiedad de la tierra," Revista Espanola de Estudios Agrosociales y Pesqueros, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente, Rural y Marino (formerly Ministry of Agriculture), issue 231, pages 1-32.
    9. Nigel R Curry, 2021. "The rural social economy, community food hubs and the market," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 36(7-8), pages 569-588, November.
    10. 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.
    11. Sattler, Claudia & Schröter, Barbara, 2022. "Collective action across boundaries: Collaborative network initiatives as boundary organizations to improve ecosystem services governance," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    12. Paula Kivimaa & Wouter Boon & Sampsa Hyysalo & Laurens Klerkx, 2017. "Towards a Typology of Intermediaries in Transitions: a Systematic Review," SPRU Working Paper Series 2017-17, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    13. Franks, Jeremy & Frater, Poppy, 2013. "Measuring agricultural sustainability at the farm-level: A pragmatic approach," International Journal of Agricultural Management, Institute of Agricultural Management, vol. 2(4), pages 1-19, July.
    14. Koch, Susanne, 2018. "“Identifying enabling factors of science-policy interaction in a developing country context: A case study of South Africa's environment sector”," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 36-45.
    15. Giaime Berti & Catherine Mulligan, 2016. "Competitiveness of Small Farms and Innovative Food Supply Chains: The Role of Food Hubs in Creating Sustainable Regional and Local Food Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-31, July.
    16. Ilaria Zambon & Pere Serra & Silvia Pili & Vincenzo Bernardini & Carlotta Ferrara & Luca Salvati, 2018. "A New Approach to Land-Use Structure: Patch Perimeter Metrics as a Spatial Analysis Tool," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-17, June.
    17. 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).
    18. Kristen Nelson & Rachel Brummel & Nicholas Jordan & Steven Manson, 2014. "Social networks in complex human and natural systems: the case of rotational grazing, weak ties, and eastern US dairy landscapes," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 31(2), pages 245-259, June.

    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. Zanella, Matheus A. & Schleyer, Christian & Speelman, Stijn, 2014. "Why do farmers join Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes? An Assessment of PES water scheme participation in Brazil," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 166-176.
    2. Hausknost, Daniel & Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron Jit, 2017. "The political dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES): Cascade or stairway?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 109-118.
    3. 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.
    4. Yu, Bing & Xu, Linyu, 2016. "Review of ecological compensation in hydropower development," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 729-738.
    5. Norgaard, Richard B., 2010. "Ecosystem services: From eye-opening metaphor to complexity blinder," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1219-1227, April.
    6. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    7. Trædal, Leif Tore & Vedeld, Pål Olav & Pétursson, Jón Geir, 2016. "Analyzing the transformations of forest PES in Vietnam: Implications for REDD+," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 109-117.
    8. 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.
    9. Börner, Jan & Wunder, Sven & Wertz-Kanounnikoff, Sheila & Tito, Marcos Rügnitz & Pereira, Ligia & Nascimento, Nathalia, 2010. "Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: Scope and equity implications," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1272-1282, April.
    10. Cranford, Matthew & Mourato, Susana, 2014. "Credit-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Ecuador," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 503-520.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Deal, Robert L. & Cochran, Bobby & LaRocco, Gina, 2012. "Bundling of ecosystem services to increase forestland value and enhance sustainable forest management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 69-76.
    14. 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.
    15. Clements, Tom & John, Ashish & Nielsen, Karen & An, Dara & Tan, Setha & Milner-Gulland, E.J., 2010. "Payments for biodiversity conservation in the context of weak institutions: Comparison of three programs from Cambodia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1283-1291, April.
    16. Farley, Joshua & Costanza, Robert, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2060-2068, September.
    17. Kathleen McAfee, 2012. "The Contradictory Logic of Global Ecosystem Services Markets," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 43(1), pages 105-131, January.
    18. Sattler, Claudia & Trampnau, Susanne & Schomers, Sarah & Meyer, Claas & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Multi-classification of payments for ecosystem services: How do classification characteristics relate to overall PES success?," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 31-45.
    19. Lin, Yongsheng & Dong, Zhanfeng & Zhang, Wei & Zhang, Hongyu, 2020. "Estimating inter-regional payments for ecosystem services: Taking China’s Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region as an example," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    20. Brathwaite, Angelique & Pascal, Nicolas & Clua, Eric, 2021. "When are payment for ecosystems services suitable for coral reef derived coastal protection?: A review of scientific requirements," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).

    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:ecolec:v:70:y:2010:i:2:p:283-295. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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.