Collaborative environmental governance

Collaborative environmental governance is an approach to environmental governance which seeks to account for scale mismatch which may occur within social-ecological systems. It recognizes that interconnected human and biological systems exist on multiple geographic and temporal scales[1][2] and thus CEG seeks to build collaboration among actors across multiple scales and jurisdictions.[3]

Benefits of CEG edit

Collaboration is a means to:

  • enhance the generation of new knowledge through social learning,
  • better integrate important insights from different knowledge systems,
  • diffuse knowledge and best practices among a multitude of actors.[4]

New Knowledge Generation through Social Learning edit

The uncertainty involved in ecosystem management and environmental governance requires that these systems be adaptable to new knowledge. Collaboration may facilitate this type of adaptivity through a process of social learning, by which new understandings are learned through interaction among individuals, and that change in those individuals understanding goes beyond that individual to change a communities understanding.[5][6]

Integration of Different Knowledge Systems edit

By multiple actors collaborating across multiple knowledge systems, indigenous and traditional knowledge, environmental governance can benefit from the many communities that are not among the scientific community.[7] Traditional knowledge may play a particularly important role in framing and scoping environmental issues, but also contribute to every aspect of the decision-making process.[8]

There may also emerge a secondary benefit of higher perceptions fairness among actors which hold varied understandings of their environment.[7][9] Increased perception of fairness regarding the decision-making process may lead to increased trust among actors,[10] as well as reinforce collaboration itself.[11]

Diffusion of Knowledge edit

Actors within a decision-making process and those who are affected by those processes do not always accept new knowledge or understanding easily. By developing networks of collaboration among various actors, new knowledge and understanding may be more readily diffused between disparate community networks.[12]

Challenges edit

Collaboration among stakeholders takes time and resources. Understanding when collaboration is an effective means of addressing problems within the decision making process is important in order to not over apply CEG.[3][13] There are various issues within social-ecological systems which may hinder the effectiveness of CEG including:

Immediate Nature of Environmental Issues edit

The temporal natures of social-ecological systems can lead to mismatch among the institutions and biophysical and social timescapes.[14] Some environmental issues require immediate actions, while collaboration among actors requires overcoming initial barriers to collaboration, and the development of collaborative systems.[4]

Asymmetric Power Dynamics edit

There are factors which may hinder the collaboration of institutions or actors which are rooted in the power structures which exist between them. Unfavorable contextual factors, unequal power relations, and weak interdependence may make collaboration unfeasible.[15]

Increased Conflict edit

In situations in which large state actors are involved, Collaboration can be seen as co-optation or the marginalization of local or smaller actors. Collaborative approaches to environmental governance may intend to create interaction and cooperation between groups, but on the ground this can be experienced as abuses of power.[16] Collaboration may also be undermined as a means of containing or derailing other forms of political conflict. In this case, collaboration is not a politically neutral process, but can be used to reinforce uneven power dynamics.[17]

References edit

  1. ^ Bodin, Örjan (2017). "Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems". Science. 357 (6352). doi:10.1126/science.aan1114. PMID 28818915. S2CID 29074009.
  2. ^ Folke, Carl; Pritchard, Lowell; Berkes, Fikret; Colding, Johan; Svedin, Uno (2007). "The Problem of Fit between Ecosystems and Institutions: Ten Years Later". Ecology and Society. 12 (1). doi:10.5751/ES-02064-120130. hdl:10535/3529. ISSN 1708-3087. JSTOR 26267849.
  3. ^ a b Bodin, Örjan; Robins, Garry; McAllister, Ryan; Guerrero, Angela; Crona, Beatrice; Tengö, Maria; Lubell, Mark (2016-03-29). "Theorizing benefits and constraints in collaborative environmental governance: a transdisciplinary social-ecological network approach for empirical investigations". Ecology and Society. 21 (1). doi:10.5751/ES-08368-210140. hdl:10535/10097. ISSN 1708-3087.
  4. ^ a b c Bodin, Örjan (2017-08-18). "Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems". Science. 357 (6352): eaan1114. doi:10.1126/science.aan1114. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 28818915. S2CID 29074009.
  5. ^ Christensen, Norman L.; Bartuska, Ann M.; Brown, James H.; Carpenter, Stephen; D'Antonio, Carla; Francis, Rober; Franklin, Jerry F.; MacMahon, James A.; Noss, Reed F.; Parsons, David J.; Peterson, Charles H. (1996). "The Report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management". Ecological Applications. 6 (3): 665–691. doi:10.2307/2269460. ISSN 1939-5582. JSTOR 2269460. S2CID 53461068.
  6. ^ Reed, Mark S.; Evely, Anna C.; Cundill, Georgina; Fazey, Ioan; Glass, Jayne; Laing, Adele; Newig, Jens; Parrish, Brad; Prell, Christina; Raymond, Chris; Stringer, Lindsay C. (2010). "What is Social Learning?". Ecology and Society. 15 (4). doi:10.5751/ES-03564-1504r01. ISSN 1708-3087. JSTOR 26268235.
  7. ^ a b Tengö, Maria; Brondizio, Eduardo S.; Elmqvist, Thomas; Malmer, Pernilla; Spierenburg, Marja (2014-09-01). "Connecting Diverse Knowledge Systems for Enhanced Ecosystem Governance: The Multiple Evidence Base Approach". Ambio. 43 (5): 579–591. doi:10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3. ISSN 1654-7209. PMC 4132468. PMID 24659474.
  8. ^ Taylor, Brent; De Loë, Rob C. (2012-11-01). "Conceptualizations of local knowledge in collaborative environmental governance". Geoforum. 43 (6): 1207–1217. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2012.03.007. ISSN 0016-7185.
  9. ^ Hamilton, Matthew (2018). "Understanding what shapes varying perceptions of the procedural fairness of transboundary environmental decision-making processes". Ecology and Society. 23 (4). doi:10.5751/ES-10625-230448. ISSN 1708-3087. JSTOR 26796881.
  10. ^ Earle, Timothy C.; Siegrist, Michael (2008). "On the Relation Between Trust and Fairness in Environmental Risk Management". Risk Analysis. 28 (5): 1395–1414. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01091.x. ISSN 1539-6924. PMID 18631299. S2CID 35656142.
  11. ^ Berardo, Ramiro (July 2013). "The Coevolution of Perceptions of Procedural Fairness and Link Formation in Self-Organizing Policy Networks". The Journal of Politics. 75 (3): 686–700. doi:10.1017/s0022381613000455. ISSN 0022-3816.
  12. ^ Matouš, Petr; Todo, Yasuyuki; Mojo, Dagne (2013-11-01). "Roles of extension and ethno-religious networks in acceptance of resource-conserving agriculture among Ethiopian farmers". International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability. 11 (4): 301–316. doi:10.1080/14735903.2012.751701. ISSN 1473-5903. S2CID 153793795.
  13. ^ Koontz, Tomas M.; Thomas, Craig W. (2006). "What Do We Know and Need to Know about the Environmental Outcomes of Collaborative Management?". Public Administration Review. 66 (s1): 111–121. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00671.x. ISSN 1540-6210.
  14. ^ Rosenschöld, Johan Munck af; Honkela, Nina; Hukkinen, Janne I. (2014). "Addressing the temporal fit of institutions: the regulation of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in Europe". Ecology and Society. 19 (4). ISSN 1708-3087. JSTOR 26269671.
  15. ^ Zachrisson, Anna; Beland Lindahl, Karin (2013-08-01). "Conflict resolution through collaboration: Preconditions and limitations in forest and nature conservation controversies". Forest Policy and Economics. 33: 39–46. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2013.04.008. ISSN 1389-9341.
  16. ^ Castro, Alfonso Peter; Nielsen, Erik (2001-08-01). "Indigenous people and co-management: implications for conflict management". Environmental Science & Policy. 4 (4–5): 229–239. doi:10.1016/S1462-9011(01)00022-3. ISSN 1462-9011.
  17. ^ WALKER, PETER A.; HURLEY, PATRICK T. (2004-09-01). "Collaboration Derailed: The Politics of "Community-Based" Resource Management in Nevada County". Society & Natural Resources. 17 (8): 735–751. doi:10.1080/08941920490480723. ISSN 0894-1920. S2CID 55251991.