Advertisement

Environmental Management

, Volume 63, Issue 1, pp 16–31 | Cite as

Emergence of Collaborative Environmental Governance: What are the Causal Mechanisms?

  • Julia BairdEmail author
  • Lisen Schultz
  • Ryan Plummer
  • Derek Armitage
  • Örjan Bodin
Article

Abstract

Conflict in environmental governance is common, and bringing together stakeholders with diverse perspectives in situations of conflict is extremely difficult. However, case studies of how diverse stakeholders form self-organized coalitions under these circumstances exist and provide invaluable opportunities to understand the causal mechanisms that operate in the process. We focus on the case of the Georgian Bay Biosphere Reserve nomination process, which unfolded over several years and moved the region from a series of serious conflicts to one where stakeholders came together to support a Biosphere Reserve nomination. Causal mechanisms identified from the literature and considered most relevant to the case were confirmed in it, using an 'explaining outcomes' process tracing methodology. Perceived severity of the problem, institutional emulation, and institutional entrepreneurship all played an important role in the coalition-building process. The fear of marginalization was identified as a potential causal mechanism that requires further study. The findings here contribute to filling an important gap in the literature related to causal mechanisms for self-organized coalition-building under conflict, and contribute to practice with important considerations when building a coalition for natural resource management and governance.

Keywords

Environmental governance Causal mechanism Collaboration 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All data collection procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

References

  1. Adams WM, Brockington D, Dyson J, Vira B (2003) Managing tragedies: Understanding conflict over common pool resources. Science 302:1915–1920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agrawal A (2001) Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources. World Dev 29(10):1649–1672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agrawal A, Chhatre A (2006) Explaining success on the commons: Community forest governance in the Indian Himalaya. World Dev 34(1):134–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ansell C, Gash A (2008) Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J Public Adm Res Theory 18(4):543–571.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Armitage D, Plummer R, Berkes F, Arthur R, Charles AT, Davidson-Hunt IJ, Diduck AP, Doubleday NC, Johnson DS, Marschke M, McConney P, Pinkerton EW, Wollenberg EK (2009) Adaptive co-management for social-ecological complexity. Front Ecol Environ 7(2):95–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Armitage, D, Plummer R, Baird J, Dzyundzyak A, Schultz L, Armitage D, Bodin Ö (2017) Learning and adaptive co-management. Environ Policy Gov. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eet.1781/full
  7. Baird J, Velaniškis J, Plummer R, FitzGibbon J (2014) Political legitimacy and collaborative water governance: An exploratory case study. Itnl J Water Gov 2:61–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barki H, Hartwick J (2004) Conceptualizing the construct of interpersonal conflict. Int J Confl Manag 15(3):216–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Beach D, Pedersen RB (2013) Process-tracing methods. The University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Biesbroek GR, Termeer CJAM, Klostermann JEM, Kabat P (2014) Rethinking barriers to adaptation: Mechanism-based explanation of impasses in the governance of an innovative adaptation measure. Glob Environ Change 26:108–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Biggs R, Westley FR, Carpenter SR (2010) Navigating the back loop: Fostering social innovation and transformation in ecosystem management Ecol and Soc. 15(2):9. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss2/art9/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bodin Ö, Crona BI (2008) Management of natural resources at the community level: Exploring the role of social capital and leadership in a rural fishing community World Dev 36(12):2763–2779.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2007.12.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bodin Ö (2017) Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science 357(6352):eaan1114.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan1114 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Booher DE, Innes JE (2010) Governance for resilience: CALFED as a complex adaptive network for resource management. Ecol Soc 15(3):35, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss3/art35/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Buckles D (Ed) (1999) Cultivating peace: Conflict and collaboration in natural resource management. International Development Research Centre and The World Bank, Ottawa, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  16. Butler JRA, Young JC, McMyn IAG, Leyshon B, Graham IM, Walker I, Baxterg JM, Doddh J, Warburton C (2015) Evaluating adaptive co-management as conservation conflict resolution: Learning from seals and salmon. J Environ Manag 160:212–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coleman JS (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674312265Google Scholar
  18. Daniels SE, Walker GB (2001) Working through environmental conflict: The collaborative learning approach. Praeger Publishers, WestportGoogle Scholar
  19. De Jong M, Lalenis K, Mamadouh V (2002) The theory and practice of institutional transplantation. Kluwer, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dolowitz D, Marsh D (1996) Who learns what from whom: A review of the policy transfer literature. Political Stud 44(2):343–357.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00334.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ernstson H, Sörlin S, Elmqvist T (2008) Social movements and ecosystem services—the role of social network structure in protecting and managing urban green areas in Stockholm. Ecol Soc 13(2):39, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art39/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Environment Canada (n.d.) Science and monitoring synthesis for South-Eastern Georgian Bay. Environ Canada. https://georgianbay.civicweb.net/document/118759
  23. Folke C, Carpenter S, Elmqvist T, Gunderson L, Holling CS, Walker B (2002) Resilience and sustainable development: Building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Ambio 31(5):437–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Res 30:441–473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Flanigan AJ, Stohl C, Bimber B (2006) Modeling the structure of collective action. Commun Monogr 73(1):29–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fulmer CA, Gelfand MJ (2012) At what level (and in whom) we trust: Trust across multiple organizational levels. J Manag 38(4):1167–1230Google Scholar
  27. GBBR (n.d.) History and achievements. Georgian Bay Biosphere Reserve http://www.gbbr.ca/about-us/history-and-achievements/
  28. Geels FW (2004) From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theor. Res Policy 33:897–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. George C, Reed MG (2016) Building institutional capacity for environmental governance through social entrepreneurship: Lessons from Canadian biosphere reserves. Ecol Soc 21(1):18.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08229-210118 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Georgian Bay Biosphere Reserve Inc. (2004) Nomination Submission from Canada for the Georgian Bay Littoral Biosphere Reserve. Greater Bay Area Foundation and the Georgian Bay Biosphere Reserve Inc. https://www.gbbr.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/GBLBR-nomination-document1.pdf
  31. Georgian Bay (Township) v. Skidmore, 1992 CanLii 8597 (ON SCDC) Google Scholar
  32. Gerring John (2007) Case study research—principles and practices. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Gruber A (2004) Navigating diverse identities: Building coalitions through redistribution of academic capital-An exercise in praxis. Seton Hall L. Rev. 35:1201Google Scholar
  34. Häge FM (2013) Coalition building and consensus in the Council of the European Union. Br J Political Sci 43(3):481–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hahn T, Olsson P, Folke C, Johansson K (2006) Trust-building, knowledge generation and organizational innovations: The role of a bridging organization for adaptive comanagement of a wetland landscape around Kristianstad, Sweden. Hum Ecol 34(4):573–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Heikkila T, Gerlak AK (2005) The formation of large‐scale collaborative resource management institutions: Clarifying the roles of stakeholders science and institutions. Policy Stud J 33(4):583–612.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2005.00134.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hurrell A (1992) Latin America in the New World Order: A regional bloc of the Americas? Intl Affairs 68(1):121–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Joshi M (2013) Inclusive institutions and stability of transition toward democracy in Post-Civil War. Democratization 20(4):743–770.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2012.666067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Karch A (2007) Emerging issues and future directions in state policy diffusion research. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 7(1):54–80.  https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000700700104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kingdon JW (1995) Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies. New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Pulishers, IncGoogle Scholar
  41. Kroesen O, De Jong M, Waaub JP (2007) Cross-national transfer of policy models to developing countries: Epilogue. Knowl Technol Policy 19(4):137–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lebel L, Anderies JM, Campbell B, Folke C, Hatfield-Dodds S, Hughes TP, Wilson J (2006) Governance and the capacity to manage resilience in regional social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 11(1):19, http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art19/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lubell M (2005) Do watershed partnerships enhance beliefs conducive to collective action? In: Sabatier PA, Focht W, Lubell M, Trachtenberg Z, Vedlitz A, Matlock M (eds) Swimming upstream: collaborative approaches to watershed management. MIT Press, Cambridge MA, pp. 201–232Google Scholar
  44. Lubell M, Schneider M, Scholz JT, Mete M (2002) Watershed partnerships and the emergence of collective action institutions. Am J Pol Sci 46(1):148–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McAvoy M, McDonald D, Carlson M (2003) American Indian/First Nation place attachment to park lands: The case of the Nuu-chah-nulth of British Columbia. J Park Recreat Adm 21(2):84–104Google Scholar
  46. Meinzen-Dick R, Knox A (1999) Collective action property rights and devolution of natural resource management: A conceptual framework. Workshop on Collective Action Property Rights and Devolution of Natural Resource Puerto Azul Philippines June (pp 21–24)Google Scholar
  47. Mintrom M (1997) Policy entrepreneurs and the diffusion of innovation. Am J Political Sci 41(3):738–770. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2111674.pdfCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mintrom M, Norman P (2009) Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. Policy Stud J 37(4):649–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Moore ML, Westley F (2011) Surmountable chasms: Networks and social innovation for resilient systems. Ecol and Soc 16(1):5. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art5/CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Mulgan G, Tucker S, Ali R, Sanders B (2006) Social innovation: What it is, why it matters and how it can be accelerated. The Young Foundation, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  51. Olson M (1965) The logic of collective action. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  52. Olson M. (2002). Power and prosperity. New York: Basic Books 2000. Q J Austrian Econ 5(2): 85–87Google Scholar
  53. Olsson P, Folke C, Hahn T (2004) Social-ecological transformation for ecosystem management: The development of adaptive co-management of a wetland landscape in southern Sweden Ecol Soc 9(4):2. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol9/iss4/art2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Olsson P, Folke C, Berkes F (2004b) Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social-ecological systems. J Environ Manag 34(1):75–90Google Scholar
  55. Ontario (Minister of Natural Resources) v. Cote, 2005 CanLii33542 (ON SC).Google Scholar
  56. Ostrom E (2007) A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Science 104(39):15181–15187Google Scholar
  57. Ostrom E (2009) Institutional rational choice: An assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In: Sabatier PA, Weible CM (eds) Theories of policy process, 3rd edn. Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 267–306Google Scholar
  58. Plummer R, Baird J, Dzyundzyak A, Schultz L, Armitage D, Bodin Ö (2017a) Is adaptive co-management delivering? Examining relationships between collaboration, learning and outcomes in UNESCO Biosphere Reserves Ecol Econ 140:79–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Plummer R, Dzyundzyak A, Baird J, Schultz L, Armitage D, Bodin, Ö (2017b) Understanding how environmental governance leads to social and ecological outcomes using participant perceptions and causal pathways. PLOS One http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0185375
  60. Pretty J, Ward H (2001) Social capital and the environment. World Dev 29(2):209–228.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(00)00098-X CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Rosen F, Olsson P (2013) Institutional entrepreneurs global networks and the emergence of international institutions for ecosystem-based management: The Coral Triangle Initiative. Mar Policy 38:195–204.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2012.05.036 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sabatier PA, Focht W, Lubell M., Trachtenberg Z, Veditz A, Matlock M. (2005). Swimming upstream. Collaborative approaches to watershed management. M.I.T. Press Cambridge, Massachusetts, USAGoogle Scholar
  63. Schlager E (2004) Common-pool resource theory. In: Durant RF, Fiorino DJ, O’Leary R Eds. Environmental governance reconsidered: challenges, choices and opportunities. MIT Press, Massachusetts, pp. 145–176Google Scholar
  64. Sealey-Ruiz Y (2013) Learning to resist: Educational counter-narratives of black college re-entry mothers. Teach Coll Rec 115(4):1–31Google Scholar
  65. Statistics Canada (1996) 1996 Census of population. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 95F0181XDB96001.Google Scholar
  66. Steins NA, Edwards VM (1999) Platforms for collective action in multiple-use common-pool resources. Agric Human Values 16(3):241–255.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007591401621 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stone D (2001) Learning lessons, policy transfer and the international diffusion of policy ideas. CSGR Working Paper No. 69/01Google Scholar
  68. UNESCO (1996) Biosphere reserves: the Seville strategy and the statutory framework of the world network. UNESCO, ParisGoogle Scholar
  69. Westley FR, Tjornbo O, Schultz L, Olsson P, Folke C, Crona B, Bodin Ö (2013) A theory of transformative agency in linked social-ecological systems. Ecol and Soc 18(3):27.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05072-180327 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wondolleck JM, Yaffee SL (2000) Making collaboration work. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  71. Young JC, Marzano M, White RM, McCracken DI, Redpath SM, Carss DN, Quine CP, Watt AD (2010) The emergence of biodiversity conflicts from biodiversity impacts: Characteristics and management strategies. Biodivers Conserv 19(14):3973–3990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zakocs RC, Edwards EM (2006) What explains community coalition effectiveness? Am J Prev Med 30(4):351–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zurba M (2014) Leveling the playing field: Fostering collaborative governance towards on-going reconciliation. Environ Policy Gov 24(2):134–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Environmental Sustainability Research CentreBrock UniversitySt. CatharinesCanada
  2. 2.Department of Geography and Tourism StudiesBrock UniversitySt. CatharinesCanada
  3. 3.Stockholm Resilience CentreStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden
  4. 4.School of Environment, Resources and SustainabilityUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada

Personalised recommendations