1) The document discusses research into how social and intellectual capital contribute to collective environmental action through Countryside Stewardship Facilitation Fund (CSFF) groups in the UK. 2) Key findings indicate that while CSFF funding aims to develop social capital, most knowledge sharing currently occurs between members with close ties, and there is limited evidence of collective environmental action. 3) Continued support is needed to strengthen relationships, facilitate knowledge exchange across different actor groups, and provide funding to enable CSFF groups to deliver landscape-scale environmental improvements over time.

1. 1
The role of social and intellectual capital in the
collective delivery of landscape-scale
environmental improvements.
Aimee Morse
PhD Student and Research Assistant
Countryside and Community Research Institute

2. 2
Content
Introduction to agri-environment schemes and the Countryside Stewardship Facilitation Fund
Research aim and objectives
Overview of key literature
Methodology
Key findings
Answering the research questions
Updating the framework
Recommendations
Conclusion

3. 3
The Countryside Stewardship Facilitation Fund
• 177 groups of farmers and land managers have
been created from 2015-2022.
• In the 136 groups created from 2015-2020, there were 3,330 members in 2021.
• In 2021, these groups covered a total area of 807,507ha.
• Focusing on CS priorities for their area, the groups’
aims include improving biodiversity, water and air
quality at a landscape scale.
• Their work is supported by a dedicated facilitator.
• Further rounds will be supported.

4. 4
Research Questions
• Research aim:
To explore the role of social and intellectual capital in CSFF groups, and how these
capitals contribute to preparedness for collective action.
• Research questions:
1.How do each of Nahapiet and Ghoshal’s dimensions of social capital manifest
in CSFF groups?
2.How does social capital affect people's willingness to engage in the exchange
and combination of intellectual capital in CSFF groups?
3.To what extent has social and intellectual capital development in CSFF groups
facilitated collective action for the delivery of landscape scale environmental
outcomes?

5. 5
What is social
capital?
• A contested concept, which broadly defined is...
"...the norms and networks that facilitate collective
action" - Woolcock, 2001: 70.
• Pretty and Ward (2001) consider it a pre-requisite for
improving natural capital.
• As well as its many benefits, it can have significant
costs.

6. 6
Literature Review
• This research used Nahapiet and Ghoshal’s (1998) social and intellectual capital framework, below.
Further literature on social capital, knowledge exchange and collective action in farming was collected and
reviewed, based on the above framework.

7. 7
Methodology
21 interviews with
CSFF group
members across four
groups.
Four interviews with
CSFF facilitators.
Four interviews with
members of staff from
organisations working
with CSFF groups.
Participant
observation at six
group events – five in-
person, one online.

8. 8
Methodological
reflections
Advantages
In-person: Telephone: Virtual:
Rapport Flexibility Perceived lower climatic impact
Understanding of context Commonly used (Generally) improve accessibility
Disadvantages
In-person: Telephone: Virtual:
Time consuming Lack of visual cues Require stable broadband
Health and safety concerns Unable to establish context Potential selection bias

9. 9
Group
development
• The facilitator is a key individual in bringing a group together.
• Membership largely encouraged through bonding ties.
• Trust is an essential driver of individuals' decision to join a group.
• Norms may hinder group development – farming has long held virtues of independence
which are not conducive with collectivity.
• Participants felt CSFF groups presented an opportunity to learn and impart knowledge.
• Creating a shared vision is essential in the early stages of a group's existence.

10. 10
Group events
• The event topic must be of interest, and it must be held at a suitable time.
• In-person events were preferred; however, there are significant advantages to both in-
person and online events.
• Trust, again, has a significant impact in participants' willingness to engage in events.
• Experts were well-received, but there was limited evidence of commitment to change
based on their advice.

11. 11
Answering research question 1
The CSFF represents an
intentional investment in
developing network ties for the
purpose of environmental
improvement, but as suggested
by Prager (2022) the process of
improving all facets of social
capital requires sufficient time.
Pre-existing social capital
influenced participants’
decisions to become involved in
the CSFF.
Group events offer an
opportunity for participants to
overcome differences in social
norms and identities.
Facilitator continuity is
essential. They play an
important role in
developing shared narratives
and identities for their groups
which is essential (as de Jong
(2010) suggests).

12. 12
Answering research question 2
As Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998) suggest
in their framework, the relational
dimension of social capital has the
greatest influence on actors' willingness to
exchange knowledge.
• The cognitive dimension was also influential.
Knowledge currently shared most
frequently between bonding ties.
• Concerns over redundant knowledge if bridging ties
are not formed within groups (as expressed by Rust
et al., 2020), and issues with transferring knowledge
through linking ties (in line with Raymond
et al's (2016) concerns).
Participants expressed a preference for
experiential learning – seeing practices
working was important.
Improvements in technology have been
heralded for their potential to provide
digital extension services (Klerkx, 2021);
however, this research found that
knowledge exchange is inhibited in
online meetings.

13. 13
Answering research question 3
Limited examples of any form
of new collective action
for environmental improvement at
this stage, but evidence of existing
cooperation for business purposes.
As with the exchange of intellectual
capital, collective action requires
favourable conditions including:
- High levels of trust
- Development of a shared vision
- Funding and time

14. 14
Updating the dimensional framework

15. 15
Recommendations for future research
1. Continue to explore the dynamics of farmer and land manager
groups.
2. Explore good practice in facilitation and provide training
suggestions.
3. Explore the barriers to engagement in farmer and land
manager groups.
4. Continue to develop the social indicators for AES.
5. Examine the efficacy of online modes of knowledge exchange.
6. Continue to assess the environmental outcomes of farmer and
land manager groups.

16. 16
Recommendations for policy and practice
1. Recognise that the social aspects of AES are fundamental to
the sustainable delivery of environmental improvements.
2. Retain a commitment to understanding the appropriate
mechanisms for collective action and recognise that they will
require sufficient time, funding and flexibility.
3. Provide facilitation frameworks for practitioners working with
groups of farmers and land managers.

17. 17
Conclusion
• CSFF funding represents an intention to invest in social capital.
- This is crucial, as social capital is an essential precondition for the
exchange of intellectual capital and for the collective action
required for landscape-scale change.
• Group members are starting to align their thinking with group
goals, but there is limited evidence of physical environmental
improvements.
• Specific project funding may be required to ensure groups can
deliver environmental change.
- For example, the Landscape Recovery approach.

18. 18
Thank you for listening.
Contact details:
amorse1@glos.ac.uk
@06aims