Transition processes and natural resource management - Transition Pathways towards Sustainability in Agriculture: Case Studies from Europe - page 113

Chapter 8
Transition processes and natural resource
management
G. Vlahos 1 , S. Schiller 2
1 Agricultural University of Athens ([e-mail]); 2 Institute for Rural Development
Research, Frankfurt am Main
Introduction
Natural resource management is one of the main challenges faced when designing policies
aimed at increasing sustainability in rural areas, not only because of the complexity of
natural processes but also due to complex interdependencies, spatial and temporal scale
differences, and multiple policy dimensions involving a wide range of stakeholders.
Although natural resource management in rural areas has been a matter of discussion for
over a century, debates continue about the most appropriate trajectories towards sustainable
management of natural resources in the countryside (Wilson, 2007).
The case studies analysed in this chapter will focus on several resource regimes,
including management of water resources, agri-food and tourism. High water quality is
considered as a public good, co-produced during the agricultural production process, along
with private goods and services (Cooper et al ., 2010). There is a tendency in the socio-
technical transition literature towards the analysis of private goods and market-based
solutions, which is not always relevant when public or quasi-public goods are concerned.
For this reason, we draw upon an institutional economics perspective to complement the
theoretical framework elaborated earlier (see Darnhofer, this volume).
The first characteristic that should be stressed is that when a common good, in our case
a natural resource, is concerned, in the majority of cases collective decision-making is
preferable since it reduces transaction costs and increases efficiency compared to individual
bargaining procedures (Vatn, 2005, 2010). Collective means of civic coordination have
commonly been criticized as costly in terms of time and resources. However, when the
effectiveness and efficiency of economic instruments are assessed, it is assumed that all
necessary institutional arrangements are in place, which may not be the case (Anderies et
al. , 2004; Foxon, 2010), constituting an additional cost which, if taken in account, could
alter the overall performance of these instruments. Furthermore, collective decision-making
might be slower but could provide the time and space to foster learning and the capacity to
maintain the ecological functions of the resources in question - in this case resilience (Vatn,
2005). On the other hand, institutional settings have a significant influence on trade-offs
and manoeuvres within the negotiation process, as well as on the enrolment of actors
(Callon, 1986; Arce and Long, 1992). In addition, social interaction in resource