Using insights from pragmatism to develop reforms that strengthen institutional competence for conserving biodiversity
- 494 Downloads
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.
KeywordsAdaptive governance Biodiversity conservation Multifunctional landscapes Institutional reform Protected areas Private land conservation
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).
- Armitage, D., & Plummer, R. (Eds.). (2010). Adaptive capacity and environmental governance. Heidelberg: Springer.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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.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
- Department of the Environment (2009) Biodiversity hotspots. http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/conservation/hotspots/national-biodiversity-hotspots. Accessed 11 April 2012.
- DPIPWE (2013). Protected areas on private land program. http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/DRAR-7T8VB6. Accessed 28 June 2013.
- 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
- 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
- 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.CrossRefGoogle 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Goodin, R. E. (Ed.). (1996). The theory of institutional design. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.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
- 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/
- Lindblom, C. E. (1990). Inquiry and change: The troubled attempt to understand and shape society. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Mahoney, J., & Thelen, K. (2010). Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.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.
- 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., 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/
- Powell, W. W., & DiMaggio, P. J. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.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
- 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
- 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 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Stewart, D. W., Shamdasani, P. N., & Rook, D. W. (2007). Focus groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Thomas, C. W. (2003). Bureaucratic landscapes: Interagency cooperation and the preservation of biodiversity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Van Huylenbroeck, G., & Durand, G. (2003). Multifunctionality agriculture: A new paradigm for European agriculture and rural development. Hampshire: Ashgate.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/
- Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar