IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v34y2018ipbp169-180.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Qualitative comparative institutional analysis of environmental governance: Implications from research on payments for ecosystem services

Author

Listed:
  • Meyer, Claas
  • Chen, Cheng
  • Matzdorf, Bettina

Abstract

Designing environmental governance structures and in particular ecosystem services governance structures, means modifying, replacing, or creating institutional arrangements. Several scholars have tried to identify sets of functioning and particularly preferred institutional design principles for environmental governance. Comparative institutional analysis (CIA) plays a major role in this process and refers to comparing real-world institutions, organizations, decision-making structures, and coordination mechanisms. CIA attempts to determine preferred institutional arrangements among several possibilities. Within the paper, it is emphasized that the set-theoretic Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) approach and technique may support CIA. Therefore, different institutional structures that regulate resource use may be understood and presented as sets of institutions and may be put into a relation. Correspondingly, the paper illustrates a qualitative comparative institutional analysis (QCIA) application procedure. It explains how QCA works, determines how it could be applied to CIA, and defines certain basic steps for QCIA application. The application of crisp-set and fuzzy-set QCA are presented step by step based on two examples – German agri-environmental payment schemes (AEM) and the Chinese Sloping Land Conversion Program (SLCP). Finally, challenges and benefits of QCA application to CIA of environmental governance structures are discussed. In sum, the paper shows that QCA may generally support the CIA of complex units, which are conducted by many institutional economists and institutionalists. QCA can help to facilitate the reduction of structural institutional complexity. Furthermore, QCA provides formalization for qualitative comparative aspects, and the generated results are highly policy relevant. However, there are certain challenges and limitations of QCIA that also cannot be neglected.

Suggested Citation

  • Meyer, Claas & Chen, Cheng & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2018. "Qualitative comparative institutional analysis of environmental governance: Implications from research on payments for ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 34(PB), pages 169-180.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:34:y:2018:i:pb:p:169-180
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.07.008
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041617306824
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.07.008?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. Wunder, Sven, 2015. "Revisiting the concept of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 234-243.
    2. 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.
    3. Masahiko Aoki, 2013. "Towards A Comparative Institutional Analysis: Motivations And Some Tentative Theorizing," Chapters, in: Comparative Institutional Analysis, chapter 13, pages 211-229, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. 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.
    5. Evy Mettepenningen & Ann Verspecht & Guido Van Huylenbroeck, 2009. "Measuring private transaction costs of European agri-environmental schemes," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 649-667.
    6. Edella Schlager & Elinor Ostrom, 1992. "Property-Rights Regimes and Natural Resources: A Conceptual Analysis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 68(3), pages 249-262.
    7. James Salzman & Genevieve Bennett & Nathaniel Carroll & Allie Goldstein & Michael Jenkins, 2018. "The global status and trends of Payments for Ecosystem Services," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 1(3), pages 136-144, March.
    8. Maria Brockhaus & Kaisa Korhonen-Kurki & Jenniver Sehring & Monica Di Gregorio & Samuel Assembe-Mvondo & Andrea Babon & Melaku Bekele & Maria Fernanda Gebara & Dil Bahadur Khatri & Hermann Kambire & F, 2017. "REDD+, transformational change and the promise of performance-based payments: a qualitative comparative analysis," Climate Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(6), pages 708-730, August.
    9. Mann, Carsten & Loft, Lasse & Hansjürgens, Bernd, 2015. "Governance of Ecosystem Services: Lessons learned for sustainable institutions," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 275-281.
    10. 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.
    11. Loft, Lasse & Mann, Carsten & Hansjürgens, Bernd, 2015. "Challenges in ecosystem services governance: Multi-levels, multi-actors, multi-rationalities," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 150-157.
    12. Chan, Kai M.A. & Anderson, Emily & Chapman, Mollie & Jespersen, Kristjan & Olmsted, Paige, 2017. "Payments for Ecosystem Services: Rife With Problems and Potential—For Transformation Towards Sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 110-122.
    13. Cheng Chen & Hannes J. König & Bettina Matzdorf & Lin Zhen, 2015. "The Institutional Challenges of Payment for Ecosystem Service Program in China: A Review of the Effectiveness and Implementation of Sloping Land Conversion Program," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(5), pages 1-28, May.
    14. Arild Vatn, 2005. "Institutions and the Environment," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2826.
    15. Kosoy, Nicolás & Corbera, Esteve, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services as commodity fetishism," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1228-1236, April.
    16. 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.
    17. Fisher, Brendan & Turner, R. Kerry & Morling, Paul, 2009. "Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 643-653, January.
    18. Vatn, Arild, 2010. "An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1245-1252, April.
    19. Guy Garrod, 2009. "Greening the CAP: how the improved design and implementation of agri-environment schemes can enhance the delivery of environmental benefits," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 571-574.
    20. Demsetz, Harold, 1969. "Information and Efficiency: Another Viewpoint," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 12(1), pages 1-22, April.
    21. Ragin, Charles C., 2000. "Fuzzy-Set Social Science," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226702773, September.
    22. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod, 2009. "Investigating farmers' preferences for the design of agri-environment schemes: a choice experiment approach," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 631-647.
    23. Kirschke, Dieter & Hager, Astrid & Jechlitschka, Kurt & Wegener, Stefan, 2007. "Distortions in a multi-level co-financing system: the case of the agri-environmental programme of Saxony-Anhalt," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 56(07), pages 1-8.
    24. Muradian, Roldan & Rival, Laura, 2012. "Between markets and hierarchies: The challenge of governing ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 93-100.
    25. Ragin, Charles C., 2006. "Set Relations in Social Research: Evaluating Their Consistency and Coverage," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 14(3), pages 291-310, July.
    26. Vatn, Arild, 2009. "Cooperative behavior and institutions," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 188-196, January.
    27. Vatn, Arild, 2005. "Rationality, institutions and environmental policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 203-217, November.
    28. Corbera, Esteve & Soberanis, Carmen González & Brown, Katrina, 2009. "Institutional dimensions of Payments for Ecosystem Services: An analysis of Mexico's carbon forestry programme," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 743-761, January.
    29. Madhu Khanna & Amy Ando, 2009. "Science, economics and the design of agricultural conservation programmes in the US," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 52(5), pages 575-592.
    30. repec:ucp:bkecon:9780226702766 is not listed on IDEAS
    31. Wunder, Sven & Engel, Stefanie & Pagiola, Stefano, 2008. "Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 834-852, 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. Martens, Katrin, 2022. "Investigating subnational success conditions to foster renewable energy community co-operatives," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 162(C).
    2. 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.
    3. Barraclough, Alicia D. & Cusens, Jarrod & MÃ¥ren, Inger Elisabeth, 2022. "Mapping stakeholder networks for the co-production of multiple ecosystem services: A novel mixed-methods approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    4. Ye Jin & Qingning Lin & Shiping Mao, 2022. "Tanzanian Farmers’ Intention to Adopt Improved Maize Technology: Analyzing Influencing Factors Using SEM and fsQCA Methods," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-23, November.
    5. Fulian Li & Wuwei Zhang, 2023. "Research on the Effect of Digital Economy on Agricultural Labor Force Employment and Its Relationship Using SEM and fsQCA Methods," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-17, February.
    6. Chen, Cheng & Matzdorf, Bettina & Zhen, Lin & Schröter, Barbara, 2020. "Social-Network Analysis of local governance models for China's eco-compensation program," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).

    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. Jespersen, Kristjan & Gallemore, Caleb, 2018. "The Institutional Work of Payments for Ecosystem Services: Why the Mundane Should Matter," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 507-519.
    2. Kaiser, Josef & Krueger, Tobias & Haase, Dagmar, 2023. "Global patterns of collective payments for ecosystem services and their degrees of commodification," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).
    3. Gómez-Baggethun, Erik & de Groot, Rudolf & Lomas, Pedro L. & Montes, Carlos, 2010. "The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1209-1218, April.
    4. Benjamin S. Thompson, 2021. "Corporate Payments for Ecosystem Services in Theory and Practice: Links to Economics, Business, and Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-18, July.
    5. 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.
    6. Grima, Nelson & Singh, Simron J. & Smetschka, Barbara, 2018. "Improving payments for ecosystem services (PES) outcomes through the use of Multi-Criteria Evaluation (MCE) and the software OPTamos," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PA), pages 47-55.
    7. Raes, Leander & Loft, Lasse & Le Coq, Jean François & Van Huylenbroeck, Guido & Van Damme, Patrick, 2016. "Towards market- or command-based governance? The evolution of payments for environmental service schemes in Andean and Mesoamerican countries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 18(C), pages 20-32.
    8. Martin-Ortega, Julia & Dekker, Thijs & Ojea, Elena & Lorenzo-Arribas, Altea, 2019. "Dissecting price setting efficiency in Payments for Ecosystem Services: A meta-analysis of payments for watershed services in Latin America," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.
    9. Chan, Kai M.A. & Anderson, Emily & Chapman, Mollie & Jespersen, Kristjan & Olmsted, Paige, 2017. "Payments for Ecosystem Services: Rife With Problems and Potential—For Transformation Towards Sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 110-122.
    10. 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.
    11. Schomers, Sarah & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "Payments for ecosystem services: A review and comparison of developing and industrialized countries," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 16-30.
    12. Chen, Cheng & Matzdorf, Bettina & Meyer, Claas & König, Hannes & Zhen, Lin, 2018. "How socioeconomic and institutional conditions at the household level shape the environmental effectiveness of governmental PES: China’s Sloping Land Conversion Program," SocArXiv jzvqh, Center for Open Science.
    13. Sattler, Claudia & Matzdorf, Bettina, 2013. "PES in a nutshell: From definitions and origins to PES in practice—Approaches, design process and innovative aspects," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 6(C), pages 2-11.
    14. Vatn, Arild, 2010. "An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(6), pages 1245-1252, April.
    15. Brownson, Katherine & Guinessey, Elizabeth & Carranza, Marcia & Esquivel, Manrique & Hesselbach, Hilda & Madrid Ramirez, Lucia & Villa, Luis, 2019. "Community-Based Payments for Ecosystem Services (CB-PES): Implications of community involvement for program outcomes," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    16. Zhenglei Xie & Bing-Bing Zhou & Hanzeyu Xu & Le Zhang & Jing Wang, 2020. "An Agent-Based Sustainability Perspective on Payment for Ecosystem Services: Analytical Framework and Empirical Application," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-18, December.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:ecoser:v:34:y:2018:i:pb:p:169-180. 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: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    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.