Boundary organizations for sustainable land management: The example of Dutch Environmental Co-operatives
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.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- David R. Harvey, 2003. "Agri-environmental Relationships and Multi-functionality: Further Considerations," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(5), pages 705-725, 05.
- 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.
- Frame, Bob & Brown, Judy, 2008. "Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 225-241, April.
- Todd Sandler & John Tschirhart, 1997.
"Club theory: Thirty years later,"
Springer, vol. 93(3), pages 335-355, December.
- 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, 02.
- 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.
- Vatn, Arild, 2010. "An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1245-1252, April.
- 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.
- 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.
- Norton, Bryan G. & Noonan, Douglas, 2007. "Ecology and valuation: Big changes needed," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 664-675, September.
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.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Shamier, Wendy)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.