Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Using insights from pragmatism to develop reforms that strengthen institutional competence for conserving biodiversity

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The poor performance of biodiversity institutions has prompted calls for reform. Adaptive governance has been promoted as a means of supporting improved biodiversity outcomes. However, incorporating adaptive elements into biodiversity governance has been a challenge. In particular, efforts to make institutions more “adaptive” often fail to account for existing capacity and context-specific factors. Clear guidance on how to move from general, ambitious adaptive governance prescriptions to specific, context-dependent recommendations is needed. This paper demonstrates how insights from pragmatism can inform an approach for designing institutional reforms that address current shortcomings in adaptive governance approaches. This design scaffolds reform options on a platform of existing competency and institutional legacy. Informed by the results of a prior institutional diagnosis, reform development followed a three-stage process: defining plausible reform spaces; identifying reform possibilities within these spaces; and elaborating reform options. Two very different landscapes provided the case studies: (1) a highly modified agricultural landscape, where private landholders are responsible for managing biodiversity as a public good; (2) a group of national parks, where the state holds primary responsibility. The reforms in the agricultural landscape build on successful landholder and organizational efforts to self-organize and pursue innovative solutions, while those for the protected area enable greater managerial discretion and address the challenges of working across multiple government jurisdictions. This context-driven approach draws on insights from pragmatism to provide guidance on the design of institutional reforms that meet the demands of adaptive governance in a way that is both systematic and realistic.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ansell, C. (2011). Pragmatist democracy: Evolutionary learning as public philosophy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543–571. doi:10.1093/jopart/mum032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage, D., de Loë, R., & Plummer, R. (2012). Environmental governance and its implications for conservation practice. Conservation Letters, 5(4), 245–255. doi:10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00238.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage, D., & Plummer, R. (Eds.). (2010). Adaptive capacity and environmental governance. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bardsley, D. K., & Pech, P. (2012). Defining spaces of resilience within the neoliberal paradigm: Could French land use classifications guide support for risk management within an Australian regional context? Human Ecology, 40(1), 129–143. doi:10.1007/s10745-011-9453-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bates, G. M. (2010). Environmental law in Australia (7th ed.). Chatswood, NSW: LexisNexis Butterworths.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumgartner, F. R., Jones, B. D., & Mortensen, P. B. (2014). Punctuated-equilibrium theory: explaining stability and change in public policymaking. In P. A. Sabatier & C. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 59–104). Boulder, CA: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Behn, R. D. (2001). Rethinking democratic accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, A. F., Haslem, A., Cheal, D. C., Clarke, M. F., Jones, R. N., Koehn, J. D., et al. (2009). Ecological processes: a key element in strategies for nature conservation. Ecological Management and Restoration, 10(3), 192–199. doi:10.1111/j.1442-8903.2009.00489.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benson, M. H. (2012). Intelligent tinkering: The endangered species act and resilience. Ecology and Society, 17(4), 28. doi:10.5751/es-05116-170428

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, R., Quinn, C., & Paavola, J. (2012). The role of institutions in the transformation of coping capacity to sustainable adaptive capacity. Environmental Development, 2, 86–100. doi:10.1016/j.envdev.2012.03.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Dudley, N., Jaeger, T., Lassen, B., Broome, N. P., & Phillips, A. (2013). Governance of protected areas: From understanding to action. Gland: IUCN.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, E., & Folke, C. (Eds.). (2011). Adapting institutions: Governance, complexity and social-ecological resilience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brennan, A. (2004). Biodiversity and agricultural landscapes: Can the wicked policy problems be solved? Pacific Conservation Biology, 10(2), 124–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, J. C., & Davis, J. G. (2012). Transboundary conservation across scales: A world-regional inventory and a local case study from the United States–Mexico border. Journal of the Southwest, 54(3), 499–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brunner, R. D. (2010). Adaptive governance as a reform strategy. Policy Sciences, 43(4), 301–341. doi:10.1007/s11077-010-9117-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burch, S., Berry, P., & Sanders, M. (2014). Embedding climate change adaptation in biodiversity conservation: A case study of England. Environmental Science & Policy, 37, 79–90. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2013.08.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Butchart, S. H. M., Walpole, M., Collen, B., van Strien, A., Scharlemann, J. P. W., Almond, R. E. A., et al. (2010). Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines. Science, 328(5982), 1164–1168. doi:10.1126/science.1187512

    Article  CAS  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. L. (2004). Institutional change and globalization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, J. L. (2010). Institutional reproduction and change. In G. Morgan, J. L. Campbell, C. Crouch, O. K. Pedersen, & R. Whitley (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of comparative institutional analysis (electronic resource) (p. 707). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardinale, B. J., Daily, G. C., Duffy, J. E., Gonzalez, A., Grace, J. B., Hooper, D. U., et al. (2012). Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature, 486, 59–67. doi:10.1038/nature11148

    Article  CAS  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Chaffin, B. C., Gosnell, H., & Cosens, B. A. (2014). A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: Synthesis and future directions. Ecology and Society, 19(3), 56. doi:10.5751/ES-06824-190356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapin, F. S, I. I. I., Mark, A. F., Mitchell, R. A., & Dickinson, K. J. (2012). Design principles for social-ecological transformation toward sustainability: Lessons from New Zealand sense of place. Ecosphere, 3(5), 40. doi:10.1890/ES12-00009.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cleaver, F. (2012). Development through bricolage: Rethinking institutions for natural resource management. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clement, S., Moore, S. A., Lockwood, M., & Mitchell, M. (2015a). Understanding and designing fit-for-purpose institutions for conserving biodiversity in the Australian Alps. Hobart, TAS: Landscapes and policy hub. Retrieved from http://www.lifeatlarge.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/653506/Alps-Institutional-Analysis.pdf.

  • Clement, S., Moore, S. A., Lockwood, M., & Mitchell, M. (2015b). Understanding and designing fit-for-purpose institutions for conserving biodiversity in the Tasmanian Midlands. Hobart, TAS: Landscapes and policy hub.  Retrieved from http://www.lifeatlarge.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/653510/Midlands-Institutional-Analysis.pdf.

  • Connell, D., & Grafton, R. Q. (Eds.). (2011). Basin futures: Water reform in the Murray–Darling basin. Canberra, ACT: ANU E Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cote, M., & Nightingale, A. J. (2012). Resilience thinking meets social theory: Situating social change in socio-ecological systems (SES) research. Progress in Human Geography, 36(4), 475–489. doi:10.1177/0309132511425708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, M., & Ross, J. M. (2011). Robustness and vulnerability of community irrigation systems: The case of the Taos valley acequias. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 61(3), 254–266. doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2010.10.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crabb, P., & Dovers, S. (2007). Managing natural resources across jurisdictions: Lessons from the Australian Alps. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 14(4), 210–219. doi:10.1080/14486563.2007.10648719

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Curtis, A. L., & Lefroy, E. C. (2010). Beyond threat- and asset-based approaches to natural resource management in Australia. Australasian Journal of Environmental Management, 17(3), 134–141. doi:10.1080/14486563.2010.9725260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, S. D., Heywood, V. H., & Hamilton, A. C. (Eds.). (1994). Centres of plant diversity: A guide and strategy for their conservation (Vol. 2). Cambridge: WWF and IUCN.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Sainte Marie, C. (2014). Rethinking agri-environmental schemes. A result-oriented approach to the management of species-rich grasslands in France. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57(5), 704–719. doi:10.1080/09640568.2013.763772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of the Environment (2009) Biodiversity hotspots. http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/conservation/hotspots/national-biodiversity-hotspots. Accessed 11 April 2012.

  • Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 302(5652), 1907–1912. doi:10.1126/science.1091015

    Article  CAS  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Djelic, M.-L., & Quack, S. (2007). Overcoming path dependency: path generation in open systems. Theory and Society, 36(2), 161–186. doi:10.2307/4501783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doremus, H. (2003). A policy portfolio approach to biodiversity protection on private lands. Environmental Science & Policy, 6(3), 217–232. doi:10.1016/S1462-9011(03)00036-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DPIPWE (2013). Protected areas on private land program. http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/DRAR-7T8VB6. Accessed 28 June 2013.

  • Dudley, N. (2008). Guidelines for applying protected area management categories. Gland: IUCN.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dupraz, P., & Rainelli, P. (2004). Institutional approaches to sustain rural landscapes in France. In F. Brouwer (Ed.), Sustaining agriculture and the rural environment: Governance, policy, and multifunctionality (pp. 162–182). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagles, P. F. J. (2009). Governance of recreation and tourism partnerships in parks and protected areas. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 17(2), 231–248. doi:10.1080/09669580802495725

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Earl, G., Curtis, A., & Allan, C. (2010). Towards a duty of care for biodiversity. Environmental Management, 45(4), 682–696. doi:10.1007/s00267-010-9444-z

    Article  CAS  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Ebrahim, A. (2005). Accountability myopia: Losing sight of organizational learning. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(1), 56–87. doi:10.1177/0899764004269430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emerton, L., Bishop, J., & Thomas, L. (2006). Sustainable financing of protected areas: A global review of challenges and options (Vol. 13). Gland: IUCN.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, L. S., Ban, N. C., Schoon, M., & Nenadovic, M. (2014). Keeping the ‘Great’ in the Great Barrier Reef: large-scale governance of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. International Journal of the Commons, 8(2), 396–427 https://www.thecommonsjournal.org/index.php/ijc/article/view/405

  • Fitzsimons, J., Pulsford, I., & Wescott, G. (Eds.). (2013). Linking Australia’s landscapes: Lessons and opportunities from large-scale conservation networks. Collingwood, VIC: CSIRO Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30(1), 441–473. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fung, A. (2004). Empowered participation: Reinventing urban democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galaz, V., Olsson, P., Hahn, T., Folke, C., & Svedin, U. (2008). The problem of fit among biophysical systems, environmental and resource regimes, and broader governance systems: Insights and emerging challenges. In O. Young, L. A. King, & H. Schroeder (Eds.), Institutions and environmental change: Principal findings, applications, and research frontiers (pp. 147–182). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gonthier, D. J., Ennis, K. K., Farinas, S., Hsieh, H.-Y., Iverson, A. L., Batáry, P., et al. (2014). Biodiversity conservation in agriculture requires a multi-scale approach. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 281(1791), 20141358. doi:10.1098/rspb.2014.1358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, R. E. (Ed.). (1996). The theory of institutional design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, R., Halamish, E., Gordon, I. J., & Clark, M. (2013). The maturation of biodiversity as a global social-ecological issue and implications for future biodiversity science and policy. Futures, 46, 41–49. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2012.10.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs, R. J., Higgs, E. S., & Hall, C. M. (Eds.). (2013). Novel ecosystems: Intervening in the new ecological world order. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollingsworth, J. R. (2000). Doing institutional analysis: Implications for the study of innovations. Review of International Political Economy, 7(4), 595–644. doi:10.1080/096922900750034563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imperial, M. T. (2005). Using collaboration as a governance strategy: Lessons from six watershed management programs. Administration and Society, 37(3), 281–320. doi:10.1177/0095399705276111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaljonen, M. (2008). Bringing back the lost biotopes: The practice of regional biodiversity management planning in Finland. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 10(2), 113–132. doi:10.1080/15239080801928394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lebel, L., Anderies, J. M., Campbell, B., Folke, C., Hatfield-Dodds, S., Hughes, T. P., et al. (2006). Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 19. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art19/

  • Lebel, L., Nikitina, E., Pahl-Wostl, C., & Knieper, C. (2013). Institutional fit and river basin governance: A new approach using multiple composite measures. Ecology and Society,. doi:10.5751/es-05097-180101

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehmann, P., Schleyer, C., Wätzold, F., & Wüstemann, H. (2009). Promoting of agriculture: An economic analysis of new approaches in Germany. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 11(4), 315–332. doi:10.1080/15239080903033879

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom, C. E. (1990). Inquiry and change: The troubled attempt to understand and shape society. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lockie, S., & Higgins, V. (2007). Roll-out neoliberalism and hybrid practices of regulation in Australian agri-environmental governance. Journal of Rural Studies, 23(1), 1–11. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2006.09.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, M. (2010). Good governance for terrestrial protected areas: A framework, principles and performance outcomes. Journal of Environmental Management, 91(3), 754–766. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.10.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, M., & Davidson, J. (2010). Environmental governance and the hybrid regime of Australian natural resource management. Geoforum, 41(3), 388–398. doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.12.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, M., Mitchell, M., Moore, S. A., & Clement, S. (2014). Biodiversity governance and social-ecological system dynamics: Transformation in the Australian Alps. Ecol Soc, 19(2), 13. doi:10.5751/ES-06393-190213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010). Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Matthews, R., & Sydneysmith, R. (2010). Adaptive capacity as a dynamic institutional process: Conceptual perspectives and their application. In D. Armitage & R. Plummer (Eds.), Adaptive capacity and environmental governance (pp. 223–242). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Minichiello, V. (1995). In-depth interviewing: Principles, techniques, analysis (2nd ed.). Melbourne, VIC: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, M., Lockwood, M., Moore, S. A., & Clement, S. (2014). Incorporating governance influences into social-ecological system models: A case study involving biodiversity conservation. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. doi:10.1080/09640568.2014.967387.

  • Mitchell, M., Lockwood, M., Moore, S. A., & Clement, S. (2015). Scenario analysis for biodiversity conservation: A social–ecological system approach in the Australian Alps. Journal of Environmental Management, 150, 69–80. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.11.013.

  • Nelson, D. R., Adger, W. N., & Brown, K. (2007). Adaptation to environmental change: Contributions of a resilience framework. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 32(1), 395–419. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.32.051807.090348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change, and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • O’Farrell, P. J., & Anderson, P. M. L. (2010). Sustainable multifunctional landscapes: A review to implementation. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 2(1–2), 59–65. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2010.02.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ojha, H. R., Hall, A., & Rasheed, S. V. (Eds.). (2013). Adaptive collaborative approaches in natural resource governance: Rethinking participation, learning and innovation. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Hughes, T. P. (2008). Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(28), 9489–9494. doi:10.1073/pnas.0706905105

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Olsson, P., Gunderson, L. H., Carpenter, S. R., Ryan, P., Lebel, L., Folke, C., et al. (2006). Shooting the rapids: Navigating transitions to adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 18. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art18/

  • Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science, 325(5939), 419–422. doi:10.1126/science.1172133

    Article  MATH  CAS  MathSciNet  PubMed  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • O’Toole, L. J., & Meier, K. J. (2011). Public management: Organizations, governance, and performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Paavola, J., Gouldson, A., & Kluvánková-Oravská, T. (2009). Interplay of actors, scales, frameworks and regimes in the governance of biodiversity. Environmental Policy and Governance, 19(3), 148–158. doi:10.1002/eet.505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pacheco, D. F., York, J. G., Dean, T. J., & Sarasvathy, S. D. (2010). The coevolution of institutional entrepreneurship: A tale of two theories. Journal of Management, 36(4), 974–1010. doi:10.1177/0149206309360280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pasari, J. R., Levi, T., Zavaleta, E. S., & Tilman, D. (2013). Several scales of biodiversity affect ecosystem multifunctionality. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(25), 10219–10222. doi:10.1073/pnas.1220333110

    Article  CAS  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reyers, B., O’Farrell, P. J., Nel, J. L., & Wilson, K. (2012). Expanding the conservation toolbox: Conservation planning of multifunctional landscapes. Landscape Ecology, 27(8), 1121–1134. doi:10.1007/s10980-012-9761-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rickards, L., Wiseman, J., Edwards, T., & Biggs, C. (2014). The problem of fit: Scenario planning and climate change adaptation in the public sector. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(4), 641–662. doi:10.1068/c12106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rijke, J., Brown, R., Zevenbergen, C., Ashley, R., Farrelly, M., Morison, P., et al. (2012). Fit-for-purpose governance: A framework to make adaptive governance operational. Environmental Science & Policy, 22, 73–84. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2012.06.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ring, I. (2008). Biodiversity governance: Adjusting local costs and global benefits. In T. Sikor (Ed.), Public and private in natural resource governance: A false dichotomy? (pp. 107–126). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sabel, C. F., & Zeitlin, J. (Eds.). (2010). Experimentalist governance in the European Union: Towards a new architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, S. D., & Robinson, S. L. (2008). Trust that binds: The impact of collective felt trust on organizational performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 593–601. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.593

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sattler, P., & Creighton, C. (2002). Australian terrestrial biodiversity assessment 2002. Canberra, ACT: National Land and Water Resources Audit, Land & Water Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayre, N. F. (2005). Working wilderness: The Malpai Borderlands Group and the future of the western range. Tuscon, AZ: Rio Nuevo Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoon, M. (2013). Governance in transboundary conservation: How institutional structure and path dependence matter. Conservation and Society, 11(3), 420–428. doi:10.4103/0972-4923.125758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, W. R. (2014). Institutions and organizations: Ideas, interests, and identities (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selznick, P. (2002). The communitarian persuasion. Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steele, W., Sporne, I., Dale, P., Shearer, S., Singh-Peterson, L., Serrao-Neumann, S., et al. (2013). Learning from cross-border arrangements to support climate change adaptation in Australia. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 57(5), 682–703. doi:10.1080/09640568.2013.763771

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, D. W., Shamdasani, P. N., & Rook, D. W. (2007). Focus groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Termeer, C. J. A. M., & van den Brink, M. A. (2012). Organizational conditions for dealing with the unknown unknown. Public Management Review, 15(1), 43–62. doi:10.1080/14719037.2012.664014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thelen, K. (1999). Historical institutionalism in comparative politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 2(1), 369–404. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.2.1.369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, C. W. (2003). Bureaucratic landscapes: Interagency cooperation and the preservation of biodiversity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torfing, J., Peters, B. G., Pierre, J., & Sørensen, E. (2012). Interactive governance: Advancing the paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Van Huylenbroeck, G., & Durand, G. (2003). Multifunctionality agriculture: A new paradigm for European agriculture and rural development. Hampshire: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Virji, H., Padgham, J., & Seipt, C. (2012). Capacity building to support knowledge systems for resilient development: Approaches, actions, and needs. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 4(1), 115–121. doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2012.01.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voß, J., & Bornemann, B. (2011). The politics of reflexive governance: challenges for designing adaptive management and transition management. Ecology and Society, 16(2), 9. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss2/art9/

  • Westley, F., Olsson, P., Folke, C., Homer-Dixon, T., Vredenburg, H., Loorbach, D., et al. (2011). Tipping toward sustainability: Emerging pathways of transformation. Ambio, 40(7), 762–780. doi:10.1007/s13280-011-0186-9

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wolfson, D. J. (2012). Situational contracting: Building reciprocity between rights and obligations. Governance, 25(4), 661–685. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.2012.01595.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyborn, C. A. (2015). Connecting knowledge with action through coproductive capacities: Adaptive governance and connectivity conservation. Ecology and Society, 20(1), 11. doi:10.5751/ES-06510-200111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • York, A., & Schoon, M. (2011). Collaboration in the shadow of the wall: Shifting power in the borderlands. Policy Sciences, 44(4), 345–365. doi:10.1007/s11077-011-9138-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. R. (2008). Building regimes for socioecological systems: Institutional diagnostics. In O. R. Young, L. A. King, & H. Schroeder (Eds.), Institutions and environmental change: Principal findings, applications, and research frontiers (pp. 115–144). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Young, O. R. (2013). Sugaring off: enduring insights from long-term research on environmental governance. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 13(1), 87–105. doi:10.1007/s10784-012-9204-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research is an output from the Landscapes and Policy Research Hub. The hub is supported through funding from the Australian Government’s National Environmental Research Program and involves researchers from the University of Tasmania (UTAS), The Australian National University (ANU), Murdoch University, the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (ACE CRC), Griffith University, and Charles Sturt University (CSU).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Environment and Conservation Sciences, Murdoch University, 90 South Street, Murdoch, WA, 6150, Australia

    Sarah Clement & Susan A. Moore

  2. Geography and Spatial Sciences, School of Land and Food, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 78, Hobart, TAS, 7001, Australia

    Michael Lockwood & Michael Mitchell

Authors
  1. Sarah Clement
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susan A. Moore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Michael Lockwood
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Michael Mitchell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah Clement.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Clement, S., Moore, S.A., Lockwood, M. et al. Using insights from pragmatism to develop reforms that strengthen institutional competence for conserving biodiversity. Policy Sci 48, 463–489 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-015-9222-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-015-9222-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation