IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v51y2021ics2212041621001157.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards collective action in ecosystem services governance: The recognition of social interdependencies in three collective agri-environmental initiatives in Quebec

Author

Listed:
  • Zaga-Mendez, Alejandra
  • Bissonnette, Jean-François
  • Kolinjivadi, Vijay
  • Cleaver, Frances
  • Dupras, Jérôme

Abstract

Governing ecosystem services entails the recognition of mutual and interdependent relations between different actors (i.e. beneficiaries, providers and intermediaries) in relation to each other and the living world. Appreciating these social interdependencies requires understanding ecosystem services as commons, generated at the entanglement of social and biophysical relationships and requiring collective action mechanisms. The objective of this article is to study the processes by which social interdependencies are recognized, and how these processes shape the emergence of collective action in three agri-environmental initiatives in Quebec (Canada). These concern a local program of payment for ecosystem service, an integrated watershed management project, and a political coordination process among 16 rural municipalities. Through a qualitative analysis of observations, semi-structured interviews, and field visits with relevant stakeholders, this study outlines the processes involved in the recognition of social interdependencies beyond already established actions, and sometimes at the margins of the formalized agri-environmental initiative. While the three examples do not appear to be collective actions yet, they result in an increase in social capital, which serves as a crucial intermediary step towards achieving cooperation. Our results show that this emergent cooperation is based on constant (re)negotiation and adaptation, whereby intermediaries (e.g. agronomists, environmental coordinators, NGOs) play a key role by reinforcing existing social networks or opening opportunities for new social linkages. Finally, our results show that the social links and the institutions that encourage the collective recognition of social interdependencies are continuously co-constructed by actors and influenced by existing power asymmetries through processes of institutional bricolage.

Suggested Citation

  • Zaga-Mendez, Alejandra & Bissonnette, Jean-François & Kolinjivadi, Vijay & Cleaver, Frances & Dupras, Jérôme, 2021. "Towards collective action in ecosystem services governance: The recognition of social interdependencies in three collective agri-environmental initiatives in Quebec," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 51(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:51:y:2021:i:c:s2212041621001157
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101357
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041621001157
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101357?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. Marie-José Avenier & Catherine Thomas, 2015. "Finding one’s way around various methodological guidelines for doing rigorous case studies: a comparison of four epistemological frameworks," Post-Print halshs-01183114, HAL.
    2. Pelenc, Jérôme & Bazile, Didier & Ceruti, Cristian, 2015. "Collective capability and collective agency for sustainability: A case study," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 226-239.
    3. Farley, Joshua & Costanza, Robert, 2010. "Payments for ecosystem services: From local to global," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(11), pages 2060-2068, September.
    4. McCann, Laura, 2013. "Transaction costs and environmental policy design," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 253-262.
    5. Judith Westerink & Dick C.P. Melman & Raymond A.M. Schrijver, 2015. "Scale and self-governance in agri-environment schemes: experiences with two alternative approaches in the Netherlands," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 58(8), pages 1490-1508, August.
    6. Frances Cleaver, 2007. "Understanding Agency in Collective Action," Journal of Human Development and Capabilities, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(2), pages 223-244.
    7. Stallman, Heidi R., 2011. "Ecosystem services in agriculture: Determining suitability for provision by collective management," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 131-139.
    8. Ravnborg, Helle Munk & Westermann, Olaf, 2002. "Understanding interdependencies: stakeholder identification and negotiation for collective natural resource management," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 41-56, July.
    9. Marie-José Avenier & Catherine Thomas, 2015. "Finding one's way around various methodological guidelines for doing rigorous case studies: A comparison of four epistemological frameworks [Se frayer un chemin parmi les différentes recommandation," Post-Print halshs-01491454, HAL.
    10. Zhang, Wei & Ricketts, Taylor H. & Kremen, Claire & Carney, Karen & Swinton, Scott M., 2007. "Ecosystem services and dis-services to agriculture," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 253-260, December.
    11. Muradian, Roldan & Rival, Laura, 2012. "Between markets and hierarchies: The challenge of governing ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 93-100.
    12. Jasper R. de Vries & Eva van der Zee & Raoul Beunen & Rianne Kat & Peter H. Feindt, 2019. "Trusting the People and the System. The Interrelation Between Interpersonal and Institutional Trust in Collective Action for Agri-Environmental Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-18, December.
    13. 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.
    14. Van Gossum, Peter & Luyssaert, Sebastiaan & Serbruyns, Inge & Mortier, Freddy, 2005. "Forest groups as support to private forest owners in developing close-to-nature management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 589-601, 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. Å mid Hribar, Mateja & Hori, Keiko & Urbanc, Mimi & Saito, Osamu & Zorn, Matija, 2023. "Evolution and new potentials of landscape commons: Insights from Japan and Slovenia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 59(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. Nicolas Salliou & Roldan Muradian & Cécile Barnaud, 2019. "Governance of Ecosystem Services in Agroecology: When Coordination is Needed but Difficult to Achieve," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-13, February.
    2. Lapeyre, Renaud & Froger, Géraldine & Hrabanski, Marie, 2015. "Biodiversity offsets as market-based instruments for ecosystem services? From discourses to practices," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 15(C), pages 125-133.
    3. 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).
    4. Hejnowicz, Adam P. & Raffaelli, David G. & Rudd, Murray A. & White, Piran C.L., 2014. "Evaluating the outcomes of payments for ecosystem services programmes using a capital asset framework," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 83-97.
    5. Smith, Helen F. & Sullivan, Caroline A., 2014. "Ecosystem services within agricultural landscapes—Farmers' perceptions," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 72-80.
    6. Anna M. Hansson & Eja Pedersen & Niklas P. E. Karlsson & Stefan E. B. Weisner, 2023. "Barriers and drivers for sustainable business model innovation based on a radical farmland change scenario," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(8), pages 8083-8106, August.
    7. Alireza Daneshi & Mostafa Panahi & Saber Masoomi & Mehdi Vafakhah & Hossein Azadi & Muhammad Mobeen & Pinar Gökcin Ozuyar & Vjekoslav Tanaskovik, 2021. "Assessment of non-monetary facilities in Urmia Lake basin under PES scheme: a rehabilitation solution for the dry lake in Iran," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(7), pages 10141-10172, July.
    8. Bellanger, Manuel & Fonner, Robert & Holland, Daniel S. & Libecap, Gary D. & Lipton, Douglas W. & Scemama, Pierre & Speir, Cameron & Thébaud, Olivier, 2021. "Cross-sectoral externalities related to natural resources and ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    9. Aguilar-Gómez, Carlos R. & Arteaga-Reyes, Tizbe T. & Gómez-Demetrio, William & à vila-Akerberg, Víctor D. & Pérez-Campuzano, Enrique, 2020. "Differentiated payments for environmental services: A review of the literature," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 44(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Anne-Claire Savy, 2019. "How transition towards circular economy is organising ? Experience of a collective of alternative organisations [Quel mode d'organisation pour la transition vers l'économie circulaire ? L'expérienc," Post-Print hal-02556201, HAL.
    12. Sandrine Benoist, 2021. "Farmers' Job Strain: A Conservation of Resources Theory Approach [Stress professionnel chez les exploitants agricoles : une approche par la théorie de conservation des ressources]," Post-Print hal-03262804, HAL.
    13. 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.
    14. van den Belt, Marjan & Blake, Daniella, 2014. "Ecosystem services in new Zealand agro-ecosystems: A literature review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 9(C), pages 115-132.
    15. Palomo-Campesino, Sara & García-Llorente, Marina & Hevia, Violeta & Boeraeve, Fanny & Dendoncker, Nicolas & González, José A., 2022. "Do agroecological practices enhance the supply of ecosystem services? A comparison between agroecological and conventional horticultural farms," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 57(C).
    16. Fletcher, Robert & Büscher, Bram, 2017. "The PES Conceit: Revisiting the Relationship between Payments for Environmental Services and Neoliberal Conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 224-231.
    17. Stallman, Heidi R. & James, Harvey S., 2015. "Determinants affecting farmers' willingness to cooperate to control pests," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 182-192.
    18. Labrouche, Geoffroy & Levy, Rachel, 2019. "Pourquoi rester en « ville moyenne » ? Le cas d’entreprises agroalimentaires d’Occitanie," Économie rurale, French Society of Rural Economics (SFER Société Française d'Economie Rurale), vol. 368(April-Jun).
    19. Farley, Joshua & Schmitt, Abdon & Burke, Matthew & Farr, Marigo, 2015. "Extending market allocation to ecosystem services: Moral and practical implications on a full and unequal planet," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 244-252.
    20. Yajuan Chen & Qian Zhang & Wenping Liu & Zhenrong Yu, 2017. "Analyzing Farmers’ Perceptions of Ecosystem Services and PES Schemes within Agricultural Landscapes in Mengyin County, China: Transforming Trade-Offs into Synergies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-18, August.

    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:51:y:2021:i:c:s2212041621001157. 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.