Participatory research in times of COVID-19 and beyond: Adjusting your methodological toolkits.

Solving grand environmental societal challenges calls for transdisciplinary and participatory methods in social-ecological research. These methods enable co-designing the research, co-producing the results, and co-creating the impacts together with concerned stakeholders. COVID-19 has had serious impacts on the choice of research methods, but reflections on recent experiences of "moving online" are still rare. In this perspective, we focus on the challenge of adjusting different participatory methods to online formats used in five transdisciplinary social-ecological research projects. The key added value of our research is the lessons learned from a comparison of the pros and cons of adjusting a broader set of methods to online formats. We conclude that combining the adjusted online approaches with well-established face-to-face formats into more inclusive hybrid approaches can enrich and diversify the pool of available methods for postpandemic research. Furthermore, a more diverse group of participants can be engaged in the research process.

Design rules for successful governmental payments for ecosystem services: Taking agri-environmental measures in Germany as an example.

In recent years, increasing attention has been paid to financial environmental policy instruments that have played important roles in solving agri-environmental problems throughout the world, particularly in the European Union and the United States. The ample and increasing literature on Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) and agri-environmental measures (AEMs), generally understood as governmental PES, shows that certain single design rules may have an impact on the success of a particular measure. Based on this research, we focused on the interplay of several design rules and conducted a comparative analysis of AEMs' institutional arrangements by examining 49 German cases. We analyzed the effects of the design rules and certain rule combinations on the success of AEMs. Compliance and noncompliance with the hypothesized design rules and the success of the AEMs were surveyed by questioning the responsible agricultural administration and the AEMs' mid-term evaluators. The different rules were evaluated in regard to their necessity and sufficiency for success using Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). Our results show that combinations of certain design rules such as environmental goal targeting and area targeting conditioned the success of the AEMs. Hence, we generalize design principles for AEMs and discuss implications for the general advancement of ecosystem services and the PES approach in agri-environmental policies. Moreover, we highlight the relevance of the results for governmental PES program research and design worldwide.

Studies on agri-environmental measures: a survey of the literature.

Agri-environmental measures (AEM) are incentive-based instruments in the European Union (EU) that provide payments to farmers for voluntary environmental commitments related to preserving and enhancing the environment and maintaining the cultural landscape. We review the AEM literature and provide an overview of important research topics, major research results and future challenges as discussed in the available literature concerning these measures. This review contributes to the existing literature by attempting to equally consider ecological and economic perspectives. The reviewed articles are analyzed regarding their regional focus, topics and methods. The analytical section of the article seeks to discuss commonly asked questions about AEM on the basis of results from reviewed studies. The vast amount of available literature provides valuable insights into specific cases and reveals a complex picture with few general conclusions. The existing research is usually either biased toward ecological or economic perspectives and fails to provide a holistic picture of the problems and challenges within agri-environmental programming (e.g., multiple measures, multiple target areas, legal aspects, financial constraints, transaction costs). Most empirical studies provide detailed insights into selected individual measures but are incapable of providing results at a level relevant to decision-making, as they neglect the role of farmers and the available AEM budget. Predominantly economic approaches often only consider rough assumptions of ecological and economic processes and are also not suitable for decision-making. Decision-support tools that build on these disciplinary results and simultaneously consider scheme factors and environmental conditions at high spatial resolution for application by the responsible authorities are rare and require further research.

Spatial targeting of agri-environmental measures: cost-effectiveness and distributional consequences.

Agri-environmental measures are payments to farmers to reduce environmental risks or to preserve cultivated landscapes. These measures are codified in European Union regulations. Poor spatial targeting is one of the major causes of low cost-effectiveness in agri-environmental measures. Existing studies on spatial targeting focus primarily on selected individual measures; hence, they do not allow for conclusions at the program level, where the planning and implementing of decisions on a number of different measures has to be made. In this study, we analyzed the impacts of two spatial targeting options (targeting of erosion-reducing measures on erosion vulnerable areas; targeting of grassland extensification on N-pollution vulnerable areas) on the cost-effectiveness of the single measures and the entire agri-environmental program of the federal state of Brandenburg in Germany. The methodological steps included an analysis of empirical data on land use and program participation, an expert-based environmental impact assessment and a spatial allocation procedure based on linear programming. The environmental impact assessment delivered goal-specific index values for each measures-land parcel combination expressing the suitability of the measures for contributing to four regionally relevant program objectives. The cost-effectiveness of the measures and the program were calculated by putting budgetary costs in relation to the achieved environmental index sum. The calculated cost-effectiveness of the program in 2006 was 89.6% of the simulated optimal cost-effectiveness. The spatial targeting of erosion-reducing measures on erosion vulnerable areas caused an increase in the cost-effectiveness at the measures level and almost no changes at the program level. The spatial targeting of grassland extensification on N-pollution vulnerable areas, despite also improving the cost-effectiveness of this measure, had negative effects on the cost-effectiveness of the program.