Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

The Evolution of Polycentric Governance in the Galapagos Small-Scale Fishing Sector

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Addressing the multiple anthropogenic and non-anthropogenic factors affecting small-scale fisheries requires collaboration from diverse regions, geographical scales, and administrative levels in order to prevent a potential misfit between governance systems and the socio-ecological problems they address. While connecting actors and stakeholders is challenging, as they often hold opposing perceptions and goals, unveiling the network configurations of governance systems remains one effective way to explore collaborative alliances in light of the diverse drivers of change present in small-scale fishery systems. This study employed descriptive statistics, exponential random graph models (ERGMs), and qualitative data analysis to explore preferential attachments of new nodes to well-positioned nodes within the Galapagos small-scale fishery governance system network and the propensity of cross-sectoral reciprocity and cross-sectoral open triads formation in the network. Our findings identified significant players and network configurations that might be essential in the collaboration diffusion and robustness of the Galapagos small-scale fishery sector governance system.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+
from $39.99 /Month
  • Starting from 10 chapters or articles per month
  • Access and download chapters and articles from more than 300k books and 2,500 journals
  • Cancel anytime
View plans

Buy Now

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
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, books and news in related subjects, suggested using machine learning.

References

  • Acton L, Gruby RL, Nakachi A (2021) Does polycentricity fit? Linking social fit with polycentric governance in a large-scale marine protected area. J Environ Manag 290:112613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.112613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander SM, Armitage D, Carrington PJ, Bodin Ö (2017) Examining horizontal and vertical social ties to achieve social–ecological fit in an emerging marine reserve network. Aquat Conserv Mar Freshw Ecosyst 27:1209–1223. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2775

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage D, Berkes F, Doubleday N (2007) Adaptive co-management: collaboration, learning and multi-level governance

  • Armitage D, Charles A, Berkes F (2017) Governing the Coastal Commons

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage D, Marschke M, Plummer R (2008) Adaptive co-management and the paradox of learning. Glob Environ Chang 18:86–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2007.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Armitage D, Plummer R (2010) Adapting and transforming: governance for navigating change. In: Armitage D, Plummer R (eds.) Adaptive capacity and environmental governance. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, p 287–302

  • Armitage DR, Plummer R, Berkes F et al. (2009) Adaptive co-management for social–ecological complexity. Front Ecol Environ 7:95–102. https://doi.org/10.1890/070089

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baird J, Plummer R, Bodin Ö (2016) Collaborative governance for climate change adaptation in Canada: experimenting with adaptive co-management. Reg Environ Chang 16:747–758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-015-0790-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin E, McCord P, Dell’Angelo J, Evans T (2018) Collective action in a polycentric water governance system. Environ Policy Gov 28:212–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnes ML, Bodin O, Guerrero AM, et al. (2017) The social structural foundations of adaptation and transformation in social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 22. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09769-220416

  • Barragán PMJ (2015) Two rules for the same fish: small-scale fisheries governance in Mainland Ecuador and Galapagos Islands. p 157–178

  • Bastian M, Heymann S, Jacomy M (2009) Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks

  • Berardo R, Scholz JT (2010) Self-organizing policy networks: risk, partner selection, and cooperation in Estuaries. Am J Pol Sci 54:632–649. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00451.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergsten A, Jiren TS, Leventon J et al. (2019) Identifying governance gaps among interlinked sustainability challenges. Environ Sci Policy 91:27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.10.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berkes F (2017) Environmental governance for the anthropocene? Social-ecological systems, resilience, and collaborative learning. Sustainability 9:1232

  • Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2003) Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Biddle JC, Baehler KJ (2019) Breaking bad: when does polycentricity lead to maladaptation rather than adaptation? Environ Policy Gov 29:344–359

  • Bodin Ö (2017) Collaborative environmental governance: achieving collective action in social-ecological systems. Science 357:eaan1114. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aan1114

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bodin Ö, Baird J, Schultz L et al. (2020) The impacts of trust, cost and risk on collaboration in environmental governance. People Nat 2:734–749. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10097

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodin Ö, Crona B, Thyresson M et al. (2014) Conservation success as a function of good alignment of social and ecological structures and processes. Conserv Biol 28:1371–1379. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodin Ö, Nohrstedt D (2016) Formation and performance of collaborative disaster management networks: evidence from a Swedish wildfire response. Glob Environ Chang 41:183–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodin Ö, Tengö M (2012) Disentangling intangible social–ecological systems. Glob Environ Chang 22:430–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.01.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carlisle K, Gruby RL (2019) Polycentric systems of governance: a theoretical model for the commons. Policy Stud J 47:927–952. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castrejón M, Defeo O (2015) Co-governance of small-scale shellfisheries in Latin America: institutional adaptability to external drivers of change. In: Jentoft S, Chuenpagdee R (eds). Interactive governance for small-scale fisheries: global reflections. Springer International Publishing, Cham, p 605–625

  • Castrejón M, Defeo O, Reck G, Charles A (2014) Fishery science in Galapagos: from a resource-focused to a social–ecological systems approach. In: Denkinger J, Vinueza L (eds.) The Galapagos marine reserve: a dynamic social-ecological system. Springer International Publishing, Cham, p 159–185

  • Chadès I, Martin TG, Nicol S et al. (2011) General rules for managing and surveying networks of pests, diseases, and endangered species. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:8323 LP–8328. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1016846108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark JRA, Clarke R (2011) Local sustainability initiatives in English National Parks: what role for adaptive governance? Land Use Policy 28:314–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2010.06.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cumming G, Cumming D, Redman C (2006) Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: causes, consequences, and solutions. Ecol Soc 11. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01569-110114

  • Dee L, Allesina S, Bonn A et al. (2017) Operationalizing network theory for ecosystem service assessments. Trends Ecol Evol 32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2016.10.011

  • Denkinger J, Quiroga D, Murillo Posada JC (2014) Chapter 13 Assessing human–wildlife conflicts and benefits of Galapagos Sea Lions on San Cristobal Island, Galapagos. p 285–305

  • Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern PC (2003) The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302:1907 LP–1912. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1091015

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • DPNG (2021) Informe anual de visitantes a las áreas protegidas de Galápagos del año 2019. Galapagos, Ecuador

    Google Scholar 

  • Epstein G, Pittman J, Alexander SM et al. (2015) Institutional fit and the sustainability of social–ecological systems. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 14:34–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folke C, Carpenter S, Elmqvist T et al. (2002) Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. AMBIO A J Hum Environ 31:437–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J (2005) Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour 30:441–473. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fried HS, Hamilton M, Berardo R (2022) Closing integrative gaps in complex environmental governance systems. Ecol Soc 27. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-12996-270115

  • Galaz V, Olsson P, Hahn T et al. (2008) The problem of fit among biophysical systems, environmental and resource regimes, and broader governance systems: insights and emerging challenges. In: Young O, King L, Schroeder H (eds.) Institutions and environmental change: principal findings, applications, and research frontiers. p 147–186

  • Hughes TP, Barnes ML, Bellwood DR et al. (2017) Coral reefs in the Anthropocene. Nature 546:82–90. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature22901

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ishihara H, Tokunaga K, Uchida H (2021) Achieving multiple socio-ecological institutional fits: the case of spiny lobster co-management in Wagu, Japan. Ecol Econ 181:106911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2020.106911

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanwar P, Koliba C, Greenhalgh S, Bowden WB (2016) An institutional analysis of the Kaipara Harbour Governance Network in New Zealand. Soc Nat Resour 29:1359–1374. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2016.1144838

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levy MA, Lubell MN (2018) Innovation, cooperation, and the structure of three regional sustainable agriculture networks in California. Reg Environ Chang 18:1235–1246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1258-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood M, Davidson J, Curtis A et al. (2010) Governance principles for natural resource management. Soc Nat Resour 23:986–1001. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802178214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lomi A, Pallotti F (2012) How to close a hole: exploring alternative closure mechanisms in interorganizational networks. In: Lusher D, Robins G, Koskinen J (eds.) Exponential random graph models for social networks: theory, methods, and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 202–212

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lubell M, Morrison TH (2021) Institutional navigation for polycentric sustainability governance. Nat Sustain. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-021-00707-5

  • Marshall G (2008) Nesting, subsidiarity and community-based environmental governance beyond the local level

  • Matous P, Wang P (2019) External exposure, boundary-spanning, and opinion leadership in remote communities: a network experiment. Soc Netw 56:10–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2018.08.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matti S, Sandström A (2011) The rationale determining advocacy coalitions: examining coordination networks and corresponding beliefs. Policy Stud J 39:385–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00414.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mcallister R, Robinson C, Brown A et al. (2017) Balancing collaboration with coordination: contesting eradication in the Australian plant pest and disease biosecurity system. Int J Commons 11. https://doi.org/10.18352/ijc.701

  • Milo R, Shen-Orr S, Itzkovitz S et al. (2002) Network motifs: simple building blocks of complex networks. Science 298:824 LP–827. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.298.5594.824

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell B (2019) Resource and environmental management, third. Oxford University Press, New York, NY

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell B (2002) Resource and environmental management, second. Routledge, London

  • Morrison TH (2017) Evolving polycentric governance of the Great Barrier Reef. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:E3013 LP–E3021. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1620830114

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison TH, Adger N, Barnett J et al. (2020a) Advancing coral reef governance into the Anthropocene. One Earth 2:64–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2019.12.014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison TH, Adger WN, Brown K et al. (2020b) Political dynamics and governance of World Heritage ecosystems. Nat Sustain 3:947–955. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0568-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison TH, Adger WN, Brown K et al. (2019) The black box of power in polycentric environmental governance. Glob Environ Chang 57:101934. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.101934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudaliar P (2020) Polycentric to monocentric governance: power dynamics in Lake Victoria’s fisheries. Environ Policy Gov 31:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1917

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudliar P, O’Brien L (2021) Crowding-out lower-level authorities: Interactions and transformations of higher and lower-level authorities in Kenya’s polycentric fisheries. Environ Sci Policy 118:27–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.01.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olsson P, Folke C, Galaz V et al. (2007) Enhancing the fit through adaptive co-management: creating and maintaining bridging functions for matching scales in the Kristianstads Vattenrike Biosphere Reserve, Sweden. Ecol Soc 12. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-01976-120128

  • Ostrom E (2012) Polycentric systems: multilevel governance involving a diversity of organizations. In: Brousseau E, Dedeurwaerdere T, Jouvet P-A, Willinger M (eds.) Global Environmental Commons: Analytical and Political Challenges in Building Governance Mechanisms. Oxford University Press, Oxford

  • Ostrom E (2010) Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Glob Environ Chang 20:550–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E (2007) A diagnostic approach for going beyond panaceas. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 104:15181–15187. https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.0702288104

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom E, Cox M (2010) Moving beyond panaceas: a multi-tiered diagnostic approach for social-ecological analysis. Environ Conserv 37:451–463. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892910000834

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pittman J, Armitage D (2017) How does network governance affect social-ecological fit across the land–sea interface? An empirical assessment from the Lesser Antilles. Ecol Soc 22. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09593-220405

  • Plummer R, Armitage D (2010) Integrating perspectives on adaptive capacity and environmental governance. p 1–19

  • Plummer R, Baird J, Armitage D et al. (2017) Diagnosing adaptive comanagement across multiple cases. Ecol Soc 22. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09436-220319

  • QSR International Pty Ltd. (2020) NVivo (released in March 2020)

  • Reck G (2014) Development of the Galápagos Marine Reserve. p 139–158

  • Rijke J, Brown R, Zevenbergen C et al. (2012) Fit-for-purpose governance: a framework to make adaptive governance operational. Environ Sci Policy 22:73–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.06.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robins G, Lusher D (2012) Illustrations: simulation, estimation, and goodness of fit. In: Lusher D, Robins G, Koskinen J (eds.) Exponential random graph models for social networks: theory, methods, and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 167–186

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Smit B, Pilifosova O (2003) From adaptation to adaptive capacity and vulnerability reduction. In: Smith J, Klein R, Huq S (eds.) Climate change, adaptive capacity and development. Imperial College Press and Distributed by World Scientific Publishing Co. p 9–28

  • Smit B, Wandel J (2006) Adaptation, adaptive capacity and vulnerability. Glob Environ Chang 16:282–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.03.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan M, Marshall G, McGinnis M (2019) An introduction to polycentricity and governance. p 21–44

  • Tortajada C (2010) Water governance: some critical issues. Int J Water Resour Dev 26:297–307. https://doi.org/10.1080/07900621003683298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turner RA, Addison J, Arias A et al. (2016) Trust, confidence, and equity affect the legitimacy of natural resource governance. Ecol Soc 21:18. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-08542-210318

  • Wandel J, Marchildon GP (2010) Institutional fit and interplay in a dryland agricultural social–ecological system in Alberta, Canada. In: Armitage D, Plummer R (eds.) Adaptive capacity and environmental governance. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, p 179–195

  • Wang P, Robins G, Pattison P (2009) Pnet: a program for the simulation and estimation of exponetial random graph models

  • Wyborn C (2014) Cross-scale linkages in connectivity conservation: adaptive governance challenges in spatially distributed networks. Environ Policy Gov 25. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1657

  • Young O (2002) The institutional dimensions of environmental change: fit, interplay, scale

Download references

Acknowledgements

This paper was supported by funding provided by the University of Waterloo through a Graduate Research Studentship (GRS), the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (grant number SGP-HW 017), and the National Secretary of Higher Education, Science, Technology and Innovation (SENESCYT) through a scholarship under the Top Word Universities 2016 program. We thank all the interviewees who participated in the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Environment, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada

    Renato Cáceres, Jeremy Pittman & Peter Deadman

  2. Grupo de Investigación en Biodiversidad, Medio Ambiente y Salud, Universidad de Las Américas, Quito, Ecuador

    Mauricio Castrejón

Authors
  1. Renato Cáceres
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeremy Pittman
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mauricio Castrejón
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter Deadman
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Renato Cáceres, Jeremy Pittman, Mauricio Castrejón or Peter Deadman.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Cáceres, R., Pittman, J., Castrejón, M. et al. The Evolution of Polycentric Governance in the Galapagos Small-Scale Fishing Sector. Environmental Management 70, 254–272 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-022-01666-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-022-01666-z

Keywords

Profiles

  1. Jeremy Pittman View author profile
  2. Mauricio Castrejón View author profile