Regional Environmental Change

, Volume 19, Issue 4, pp 1113–1129 | Cite as

Global environmental governance for conserving migratory shorebirds in the Asia-Pacific

  • Eduardo Gallo-CajiaoEmail author
  • Tiffany H. Morrison
  • Pedro Fidelman
  • Salit Kark
  • Richard A. Fuller
Original Article


Understanding the sets of co-existing institutional arrangements and the role of different actors for transboundary conservation is not only paramount for migratory species survival but also for studying the transformation of international politics. We analyze the global environmental governance architecture for conserving migratory shorebirds in the Asia-Pacific. We ask, (i) how has the architecture emerged in relation to levels of governance, type of actors, formality, and topology?; and (ii) how does the topology and agency of actors vary across the architecture when accounting for different threats to these species (i.e., habitat loss and hunting)? We use a mixed method approach, based on qualitative data and quantitative network analysis, to characterize and examine the architecture, thereby extending the precision of singular approaches. We find that 28 institutional arrangements, involving 57 state and non-state actors, have emerged since the 1970s. The resulting architecture conforms to concepts and symptoms of institutional complexity, alternately exhibiting characteristics of a regime complex, fragmented governance, and polycentrism. Our results indicate increased interactions of actors across sectors of society and levels of governance, but do not support notions of state retreat and diffusion of power away from the nation-state. Instead, we show that actors beyond the nation-state have emerged as a complement to a nation state-centered architecture. Moreover, when we consider the subset of institutional arrangements for habitat conservation and hunting management separately, hunting management emerges as the exclusive domain of the nation-state. It remains unclear whether this difference is driven by differences in property rights or other sets of drivers.


Agency East Asian-Australasian Flyway Global environmental governance Institutional complexity Migratory species Shorebirds 



Two anonymous reviewers and Spike Millington provided valuable feedback to improve this manuscript. Micha Jackson shared with us photographs of migratory shorebirds to support the manuscript. We are grateful to all interview participants and many people who facilitated fieldwork undertaken by EGC.

Funding information

This research was funded by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, the Australian Government’s Department of the Environment, an Endeavour Research Fellowship (Australian Government’s Department of Education and Training), a School Research Grant (School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland), a Professor Allen Keast Research Award (BirdLife Australia), the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, and the High Meadows Foundation. In-kind support was provided by the East Asian-Australasian Flyway Partnership secretariat, Princeton University, Beijing Normal University, Conservation International, and WWF through its country offices in Australia, China, and Japan.

Supplementary material

10113_2019_1461_MOESM1_ESM.docx (38 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 37.7 kb)
10113_2019_1461_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (29 kb)
ESM 2 (XLSX 28 kb)
10113_2019_1461_MOESM3_ESM.docx (2.4 mb)
ESM 3 (DOCX 2441 kb)


  1. Abbott KW (2012) The transnational regime complex for climate change. Environ Plann C Gov Policy 30:571–590. Google Scholar
  2. Abbott KW (2014) Strengthening the transnational regime complex for climate change. Transnational Environ Law 3:57–88. Google Scholar
  3. Abbott KW, Green JF, Keohane RO (2016) Organizational ecology and institutional change in global governance. Int Organ 70:247–277. Google Scholar
  4. Adams LW (2014) History of urban wildlife conservation. In: McCleery RA, Moorman CE, Peterson MN (eds) Urban wildlife conservation: theory and practice. Springer, New York, pp 11–31Google Scholar
  5. Alderman R, Gales R, Tuck GN, Lebreton JD (2011) Global population status of Shy Albatross and an assessment of colony specific trends and drivers. Wildl Res 38:672–686. Google Scholar
  6. Almeida-Neto M, Guimarães P, Guimarães PR Jr, Loyola RD, Ulrich W (2008) A consistent metric for nestedness analysis in ecological systems: reconciling concept and measurement. Oikos 117:1227–1239. Google Scholar
  7. Amano T, Tamás S, Kazuo K, Hitoha A, Sutherland WJ (2010) A framework for monitoring the status of populations: an example from wader populations in the East Asian-Australasian Flyway. Biol Conserv 143:2238–2247. Google Scholar
  8. Anderson MG, Padding PI (2016) The North American approach to waterfowl management: synergy of hunting and habitat conservation. Int J Environ Stud 72:810–829. Google Scholar
  9. Andonova LB, Mitchell RB (2010) The rescaling of global environmental politics. Ann Rev Environ Resour 35:255–282. Google Scholar
  10. Ankersen TT, Stocks G, Paniagua F, Grant S (2015) Turtles without borders: the international and domestic law basis for the shared conservation, management, and use of sea turtles in Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and Panama. J Int Wildl Law Policy 18:1–62. Google Scholar
  11. Anonymous (1996) Asia-Pacific migratory waterbird conservation strategy: 1996–2000. Wetlands International - Asia Pacific, Kuala Lumpur, Publication No. 117, and International Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Bureau - Japan Committee, Tokyo. Accessed 1st Aug 2017
  12. Asia-Pacific Migratory Waterbird Conservation Committee (2001) Asia-Pacific migratory waterbird conservation strategy: 2001–2005. Wetlands International - Asia Pacific. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Accessed 1st Aug 2017
  13. Bäckstrand K (2006) Multi-stakeholder partnerships for sustainable development: rethinking legitimacy, accountability and effectiveness. Eur Environ 16:290–306. Google Scholar
  14. Bäckstrand K, Campe S, Chan S, Mert A, Schäferhoff M (2012) Transnational public-private partnerships. In: Biermann F, Pattberg P (eds) Global environmental governance reconsidered. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 123–147Google Scholar
  15. Bagstad KJ, Wiederholt R (2013) Tourism values for Mexican free-tailed bat viewing. Hum Dimens Wildl 18:307–311. Google Scholar
  16. Bamford M, Watkins D, Bancroft W, Tischler G, Wahl J (2008) Migratory shorebirds of the East Asian-Australasian Flyway: population estimates and internationally important sites. Wetlands international – Oceania, Canberra, Australia. Accessed 1st August 2017
  17. Bauer S, Andresen S, Biermann F (2012) International bureaucracies. In: Biermann F, Pattberg P (eds) Global environmental governance reconsidered. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 27–44Google Scholar
  18. Bell S, Hindmoor A (2009) Rethinking governance: the centrality of the state in modern society. Cambridge University Press, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  19. Berkes F (2007) Commons in a multi-level world. Int J Commons 2:1–6. Google Scholar
  20. Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2003) Navigating social-ecological systems: building resilience for complexity and change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  21. Biermann F, Pattberg P (2008) Global environmental governance: taking stock, moving forward. Annu Rev Environ Resour 33:277–294. Google Scholar
  22. Biermann F, Pattberg P (2012) Transnational environmental regimes. In: Biermann F, Pattberg P (eds) Global environmental governance reconsidered. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 97–121Google Scholar
  23. Biermann F, Siebenhüner B (2009) The role and relevance of international bureaucracies: setting the stage. In: Biermann F, Siebenhüner B (eds) Managers of global change: the influence of international environmental bureaucracies. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  24. Biermann F, Pattberg P, Asselt HV, Zelli F (2009a) The fragmentation of global governance architectures: a framework for analysis. Glob Environ Politics 9:14–40. Google Scholar
  25. Biermann F, Siebenhüner B, Bauer S, Busch P-O, Campe S, Dingwerth K, Grothmann T, Marschinski R, Tarradell M (2009b) Studying the influence of international bureaucracies: a conceptual framework. In: Biermann F, Siebenhüner B (eds) Managers of global change: the influence of international environmental bureaucracies. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 37–74Google Scholar
  26. BirdLife International (2018) IUCN Red List for birds. Accessed 26 Feb 2018
  27. Blum G (2008) Bilateralism, multilateralism, and the architecture of international law. Harv Int Law J 49:323–379 Google Scholar
  28. Boardman R (2006) The international politics of bird conservation. Edward Elgar Publishing, NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  29. Bulkeley H, Andonova L, Bäckstrand K, Betsill M, Compagnon D, Duffy R, Kolk A, Hoffmann M, Levy D, Newell P, Milledge T, Paterson M, Pattberg P, VanDeveer S (2012) Governing climate change transnationally: assessing the evidence from a database of sixty initiatives. Environ Plann C Gov Policy 30:591–612. Google Scholar
  30. Bulkeley H, Andonova LB, Betsill MM, Compagnon D, Hale T, Hoffmann MJ, Newell P, Paterson M, Roger C, Vandeveer SD (2014) Transnational climate change governance. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Campbell LM (2007) Local conservation practice and global discourse: a political ecology of sea turtle conservation. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 97:313–334. Google Scholar
  32. Chapman BB, Hulthén K, Wellenreuther M, Hansson LA, Nilsson JÅ, Brönmark C (2014) Patterns of animal migration. In: Hansson LA, Åkesson S (eds) Animal movements across scales. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 11–35Google Scholar
  33. Cho DO (2007) The evolution and resolution of conflicts on Saemangeum reclamation project. Ocean Coast Manag 50:930–944. Google Scholar
  34. Choi YR (2014) Modernization, development and underdevelopment: reclamation of Korean tidal flats, 1950s-2000s. Ocean Coast Manag 102:426–436. Google Scholar
  35. Churchill RR, Ulfstein G (2000) Autonomous institutional arrangements in multilateral environmental agreements: a little–noticed phenomenon in international law. Am J Int Law 94:623–659.
  36. Clark NA, Anderson GQA, Li J, Syroechkovskiy EE, Tomkovich PS, Zöckler C, Lee R, Green RE (2016) First formal estimate of the world population of the critically endangered spoon-billed sandpiper Calidris pygmaea. Oryx 52:137–146. Google Scholar
  37. Clarke H (1999) International species protection agreements: migratory shorebirds in the East Asian-Australasian flyway. The Stilt 35:18–24Google Scholar
  38. Close DA, Fitzpatrick MS, Li HW (2002) The ecological and cultural importance of a species at risk of extinction, Pacific lamprey. Fisheries 27:19–25.<0019:TEACIO>2.0.CO;2 Google Scholar
  39. CMS (2014) A review of migratory bird flyways and priorities for management. CMS Technical Series No. 27. UNEP/CMS Secretariat, Bonn, Germany. Accessed 1st Aug 2017
  40. Cox M (2015) A basic guide for empirical environmental social science. Ecol Soc 20:63. Google Scholar
  41. Dauvergne P, Clapp J (2016) Researching global environmental politics in the 21st century. Glob Environ Politics 16:1–12. Google Scholar
  42. Dellas E, Pattberg P, Betsill M (2011) Agency in earth system governance: refining a research agenda. Int Environ Agreements 11:85–98. Google Scholar
  43. Dingle H, Drake VA (2007) What is migration? Bioscience 57:113–121. Google Scholar
  44. Dorsch MJ, Flachsland C (2017) A polycentric approach to global climate governance. Glob Environ Politics 17:45–64. Google Scholar
  45. Dorsey K (1998) The dawn of conservation diplomacy. University of Washington Press, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  46. Eason P, Basem R, Attum O (2015) Hunting of migratory birds in North Sinai, Egypt. Bird Conserv Int 26:39–51. Google Scholar
  47. Eckhard S, Ege J (2016) International bureaucracies and their influence on policy-making: a review of empirical evidence. J Eur Public Policy 23:960–978. Google Scholar
  48. Epstein JH, Olival KJ, Pulliam JRC, Smith C, Westrum J, Hughes T, Dobson AP, Zubaid A, Rahman SA, Basir MM, Field HE, Daszak P (2009) Pteropus vampyrus, a hunted migratory species with a multinational home-range and a need for regional management. J Appl Ecol 46:991–1002. Google Scholar
  49. Ferrero-García JJ (2013) The international convention for the protection of birds (1902): a missed opportunity for wildlife conservation? Ardeola 60:385–396. Google Scholar
  50. Galaz V, Crona B, Österblom H, Olsson P, Folke C (2012) Polycentric systems and interacting planetary boundaries—emerging governance of climate change–ocean acidification–marine biodiversity. Ecol Econ 81:21–32. Google Scholar
  51. Gallo-Cajiao E (2014) Evidence is required to address potential albatross mortality in the New South Wales Ocean Trawl fishery. Pac Conserv Biol 20:328–335. Google Scholar
  52. Gallo-Cajiao E, Fuller RA (2015a) A milestone for migratory waterbird conservation in Asia–Pacific. Oryx 49:393–394. Google Scholar
  53. Gallo-Cajiao E, Fuller RA (2015b) Hunting of migratory shorebirds in the East Asian-Australasian Flyway: a review of the evidence. School of Biological Sciences, The University of Queensland, BrisbaneGoogle Scholar
  54. Gallo-Cajiao E, Jackson MV, Avery-Gomm S, Fuller RA (2017) Singapore hosts international efforts for conserving migratory waterbirds in the Asia-Pacific. Oryx 51:206–207. Google Scholar
  55. Giordano M (2003) The geography of the commons: the role of scale and space. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 93:365–375. Google Scholar
  56. Girvan M, Newman MEJ (2002) Community structure in social and biological networks. PNAS 99:7821–7826. Google Scholar
  57. Green JF (2013) Order out of chaos: public and private rules for managing carbon. Glob Environ Politics 13:1–25. Google Scholar
  58. Guimarães PR, Guimarães P (2006) Improving the analyses of nestedness for large sets of matrices. Environ Model Softw 21:1512–1513. Google Scholar
  59. Harding SB, Wilson JR, Geering DW (2007) Threats to shorebirds and conservation actions. In: Geering A, Agnew L, Harding S (eds) Shorebirds of Australia. CSIRO Publishing, Collingwood, pp 197–213Google Scholar
  60. Harris G, Thirgood S, Hopcraft JGC, Cromsight JPGM, Berger J (2009) Global decline in aggregated migrations of large terrestrial mammals. Endanger Species Res 7:55–76. Google Scholar
  61. Hayman P, Marchant J, Prater T (1986) Shorebirds: an identification guide to the waders of the world. Houghton Mifflin Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
  62. Iwamura T, Possingham HP, Chadès I, Minton C, Murray NJ, Rogers DI, Treml EA, Fuller RA (2013) Migratory connectivity magnifies the consequences of habitat loss from sea-level rise for shorebird populations. Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 280:1–8. Google Scholar
  63. Josephson P, Dronin N, Mnatsakanian R, Cherp A, Efremenko D, Larin V (2013) An environmental history of Russia. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  64. Kark S, Tulloch A, Gordon A, Mazor T, Bunnefeld N, Levin N (2015) Cross-boundary collaboration: key to the conservation puzzle. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 12:12–24. Google Scholar
  65. Keohane RO, Victor DG (2011) The regime complex for climate change. Perspect Polit 9:7–23. Google Scholar
  66. Kim R, Ali SH (2016) Green diplomacy, an opportunity for peace building? Environ Policy Law 46:86–96Google Scholar
  67. Kirby JS, Stattersfield AJ, Butchart SHM, Evans MI, Grimmett RFA, Jones VR, O’Sullivan J, Tucker GM, Newton I (2008) Key conservation issues for migratory land- and waterbird species on the world’s major flyways. Bird Conserv Int 18:S49–S73. Google Scholar
  68. Knight C, Schulze K, Tosun J (2012) Regulatory policy outputs and impacts: exploring a complex relationship. Regul Gov 6:427–444. Google Scholar
  69. Kuijken E (2006) A short history of waterbird conservation. In: Boere GC, Galbraith CA, Stroud DA (eds) Waterbirds around the world. The stationary office, Edinburgh, pp 52–59Google Scholar
  70. Lemos MC, Agrawal A (2006) Environmental governance. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:297–325. Google Scholar
  71. Lewis M (2016) AEWA at twenty: an appraisal of the African-Eurasian Waterbird agreement and its unique place in international environmental law. J Int Wildl Law Policy 19:22–61. Google Scholar
  72. Lewis J, Russell-French A (2011) Minutes to midnigth: time is running out for our migratory shorebirds. Wingspan (autumn): 35–37Google Scholar
  73. Lukitshc-Hicks B (1999) Treaty congestion in international environmental law: the need for greater international coordination. Univ Richmond Law Rev 32:1643–1674 Google Scholar
  74. MacKinnon J, Verkuil YI, Murray N (2012) IUCN situation analysis on east and southeast Asian intertidal habitats, with particular reference to the Yellow Sea (including the Bohai Sea). Occasional paper of the IUCN species survival commission no. 47. IUCN, gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Accessed 1st Aug 2017
  75. Mansbridge J (2014) The role of the state in governing the commons. Environ Sci Policy 36:8–10. Google Scholar
  76. Matz N (2005) Chaos or coherence?—implementing and enforcing the conservation of migratory species through various legal instruments. Zeitschrift für Ausländisches Öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 65:197–215Google Scholar
  77. Mauerhofer V, Nyacuru F (2014) Biodiversity, migratory species, and natural heritage. In: Harris PG (ed) Routledge handbook of global environmental politics. Routledge Taylor and Francis Group, New York, pp 481–493Google Scholar
  78. Meyer JW, Frank DJ, Hironaka A, Schofer E, Tuma NB (1997) The structuring of a world environmental regime, 1870–1990. Int Organ 51:623–651. Google Scholar
  79. Moores N, Rogers D, Kim RH, Hassell C, Gosbell K, Kim SA, Park MN (2008) The 2006-2008 Saemangeum shorebird monitoring program report. Birds Korea publication, Busan. Accessed 1st Aug 2017
  80. Moores N, Rogers DI, Rogers K, Hansbro PM (2016) Reclamation of tidal flats and shorebird declines in Saemangeum and elsewhere in the Republic of Korea. Emu 116:136–146. Google Scholar
  81. Morrison TH (2017) Evolving polycentric governance of the Great Barrier Reef. PNAS 114:3013–3021. Google Scholar
  82. Morrison TA, Bolger DT (2014) Connectivity and bottlenecks in a migratory wildebeest Connochaetes taurinus population. Oryx 48:613–621. Google Scholar
  83. Morrison TH, Adger WN, Brown K, Lemos MC, Huitema D, Hughes TP (2017) Mitigation and adaptation in polycentric systems: sources of power in the pursuit of collective goals. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 8:1–16. Google Scholar
  84. Murray NJ, Phinn SR, Clemens RS, Roelfsema CM, Fuller RA (2012) Continental scale mapping of tidal flats across East Asia using the landsat archive. Remote Sens 4:3417–3426. Google Scholar
  85. Murray NJ, Clemens RS, Phinn SR, Possingham HP, Fuller RA (2014) Tracking the rapid loss of tidal wetlands in the Yellow Sea. Front Ecol Environ 12:267–272. Google Scholar
  86. Naughton-Treves L (1999) Whose animals? A history of property rights to wildlife in Toro, western Uganda. Land Degrad Dev 10:311–328.<311::AID-LDR362>3.0.CO;2-3 Google Scholar
  87. Newell P, Pattberg P, Schroeder H (2012) Multiactor governance and the environment. Annu Rev Environ Resour 37:365–387. Google Scholar
  88. North D (1990) Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  89. Noss RF (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conserv Biol 4:355–364. Google Scholar
  90. O’Neill K, Balsiger J, VanDeveer SD (2004) Actors, norms, and impact: recent international cooperation theory and the influence of the agent-structure debate. Annu Rev Polit Sci 7:149–175. Google Scholar
  91. O’Neill K, Weinthal E, Suiseeya KRM, Bernstein S, Cohn A, Stone MW, Cashore B (2013) Methods and global environmental governance. Annu Rev Environ Resour 38:441–471. Google Scholar
  92. Oberthür S (2002) Clustering of multilateral environmental agreements: potentials and limitations. Int Environ Agreements 2:317–340. Google Scholar
  93. Ostrom E (2005) Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  94. Ostrom E (2010) Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Glob Environ Chang 20:550–557. Google Scholar
  95. Parry M (2004) Global environmental change since 1993. Glob Environ Chang 14:195. Google Scholar
  96. Pattberg P, Widerberg O (2015) Theorising global environmental governance: key findings and future questions. J Int Stud 43:684–705. Google Scholar
  97. Peters BG (2001) Administrative reform and political power in the United States. Policy Polit 29:171–179. Google Scholar
  98. Petersen MR, Larned WW, Douglas DC (1999) At-sea distribution of spectacled eiders: a 120-year-old mystery resolved. Auk 116:1009–1020. Google Scholar
  99. Piattoni S (2009) Multi-level governance: a historical and conceptual analysis. Eur Integr 31:163–180. Google Scholar
  100. Piersma T, Lok T, Chen Y, Hassell CJ, Yang HY, Boyle A, Slaymaker M, Chan YC, Melville DS, Zhang ZW, Ma Z (2016) Simultaneous declines in survival of three shorebird species signals a flyway at risk. J Appl Ecol 53:479–490. Google Scholar
  101. Reilly B (2013) Australia as a southern hemisphere ‘soft power’. Aust J Int Aff 69:253–265. Google Scholar
  102. Robins G (2015) Doing social network research: network-based research design for social scientists. Sage Publications, LondonGoogle Scholar
  103. Rogers DI, Yang HY, Hassell CJ, Boyle AN, Rogers KG, Chen B, Zhang ZW, Piersma T (2010) Red knots (Calidris canutus piersmai and C. c. rogersi) depend on a small threatened staging area in Bohai Bay, China. Emu 110:307–315. Google Scholar
  104. Ross RS (1999) The geography of the peace: East Asia in the twenty-first century. Int Secur 23:81–118. Google Scholar
  105. Rowat D, Brooks KS (2012) A review of the biology, fisheries and conservation of the whale shark Rhincodon typus. J Fish Biol 80:1019–1056. Google Scholar
  106. Rozman G (2012) East Asian regionalism. In: Beeson M, Stubbs R (eds) Routledge handbook of Asian regionalism. Taylor and Francis, Oxford, pp 22–32Google Scholar
  107. Runge CA, Martin TG, Possingham HP, Willis SG, Fuller RA (2014) Conserving mobile species. Front Ecol Environ 12:395–402. Google Scholar
  108. Runge C, Gallo-Cajiao E, Carey MJ, Garnett ST, Fuller RA, McCormack PC (2017) Coordinating domestic legislation and international agreements to conserve migratory species. Conserv Lett 10:765–777. Google Scholar
  109. Saldaña J (2009) The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publications Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  110. Scott DA (1998) Global overview of the conservation of migratory arctic breeding birds outside the Arctic. Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna. Wetlands International Publication No. 45. CAFF Technical Report No. 4. CAFF, Iceland. Accessed 1st Aug 2017
  111. Selin H (2010) Global governance of hazardous chemicals: challenges of multilevel management. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  112. Shillinger GL, Palacios DM, Bailey H, Bograd SJ, Swithenbank AM, Gaspar P, Wallace BP, Spotila JR, Paladino FV, Piedra R, Eckert SA, Block BA (2008) Persistent leatherback turtle migrations present opportunities for conservation. PLoS Biol 6:e171. Google Scholar
  113. Söderbaum F (2012) Theories of regionalism. In: Beeson M, Stubbs R (eds) Routledge handbook of Asian regionalism. Taylor and Francis, Oxford, pp 11–21Google Scholar
  114. Studds, C.E., Kendall, B.E., Murray, N.J., Wilson, H.B., Rogers, D.I., Clemens, R.S., Gosbell, K., Hassell, C.J., Jessop, R., Melville, D.S., Milton, D.A., Minton, C.D.T., Possingham, H.P., Riegen, A.C., Straw, P., Woehler, E.J., Fuller, R.A., 2017. Rapid population decline in migratory shorebirds relying on Yellow Sea tidal mudflats as stopover sites. Nat Commun: 1–7.
  115. Su YY (2014) The legal structure of Taiwan’s wetland conservation act. Sustainabbility 6:9418–9427. Google Scholar
  116. Takahashi MA (2012) Migratory bird treaties’ issues and potentials: are they valuable tools or just curios in the box? Environ Law 42:609–626 Google Scholar
  117. Van de Kam J, Ens B, Piersma T, Zwarts L (2004) Shorebirds, an illustrated behavioural ecology. KNNV Publishers, UtretchGoogle Scholar
  118. Ward T, Phillips B (2010) Seafood ecolabeling. In: Grafton RQ, Hilborn R, Squires D, Tait M, Williams M (eds) Handbook of marine fisheries conservation and management. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 608–617Google Scholar
  119. Wauchope HS, Shaw JD, Varpe Ø, Lappo EG, Boertmann D, Lanctot RB, Fuller RA (2016) Rapid climate-driven loss of breeding habitat for arctic migratory birds. Glob Chang Biol 23:1085–1094. Google Scholar
  120. Wei S (2000) Some reflections on the One-China principle. Fordham Int Law J 23:1169–1178 Google Scholar
  121. Weiss TG, Wilkinson R (2014) Rethinking global governance? Complexity, authority, power, change. Int Stud Q 58:207–215. Google Scholar
  122. Wilcove DS, Wikelski M (2008) Going, going, gone: is animal migration disappearing? PLoS Biol 6:1361–1364. Google Scholar
  123. Yin RK (2011) Qualitative research from start to finish. The Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  124. Young OR (2002) The institutional dimensions of environmental change. The MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  125. Zöckler C, Hla TH, Clark N, Syroechkovskiy E, Yakushev N, Daengphayon S, Robinson R (2010) Hunting in Myanmar is probably the main cause of the decline of the spoon-billed sandpiper Calidris pygmeus. Wader Study Group Bull 117:1–8 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eduardo Gallo-Cajiao
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
    Email author
  • Tiffany H. Morrison
    • 2
    • 4
  • Pedro Fidelman
    • 5
  • Salit Kark
    • 1
  • Richard A. Fuller
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, School of Biological SciencesThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.School of Earth and Environmental SciencesThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  3. 3.East Asian-Australasian Flyway Partnership SecretariatIncheonRepublic of Korea
  4. 4.Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef StudiesJames Cook UniversityTownsvilleAustralia
  5. 5.Centre for Policy FuturesThe University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations