Probing the relationship between ecosystem perceptions and approaches to environmental governance: an exploratory content analysis of seven water dilemmas

Figures & data

Table 1. A typology of ecosystem perception in terms of resilience.

Type of resilience	Dimensions
	System boundary	Desirable system attributes	Relationships among elements	Proxies/measures of resilience
Engineering	Ecological boundaries, typically at the level of populations and communities	Efficiency of function	Linear	Maximum sustained yield
		Constancy and predictability	Behaviour around a single equilibrium	Carrying capacity
		Ability to resist disturbance and change		speed of return to equilibrium
		Far from instability
Ecological	Ecological boundaries	Persistent	Non-linear dynamics	Adaptive capacity
		Able to withstand disturbances and maintain function	Multiple stability domains	Size of stability domains
		Adaptive	Thresholds	Magnitude of disturbance tolerated before structural changes in controlling variables and processes
			Limited predictability
			Systems go through adaptive cycle and are part of panarchy
Social-ecological	Boundaries may be bio-physical, ecological, social and/or a combination	Capacity to absorb shocks and still maintain function	Interconnectedness between social and ecological systems	Adaptive capacity – learning, innovation, flexibility
		Capacity for renewal, re-organisation and development	Multiple thresholds	Capacities for self-organisation, adaptation and learning
		Responsiveness between ecosystem dynamics and management/governance which is flexible and adaptive	Uncertainty and nonlinearity	Resilience surrogates
			Panarchy
Epistemic	Contested (soft) boundaries	Negotiable and flexible	Nonlinear and dynamic	Adaptive capacity
	Stakeholder/purpose defined systems	Plasticity	Inherently unstable	Collective action
		Learning oriented	People and their environment are structurally coupled and co-specify	Ability to generate scenarios and options
				Capacity of the coupled system to learn co-dependently

Source: adapted from Plummer et al. (2012).

Table 2. Environmental governance models and key analytical considerations (Glasbergen, 1998; Lemos & Agrawal, 2006).

Model	Considerations
	Who is primarily involved in governance?	How are decisions made?	What are the outcomes (how does change occur)?
State	Government (state, agencies, legislators, centralised, bureaucracy, regulators, administrators) is the main entity	Decision are made through ‘formal’ policy processes with an emphasis on legal/regulatory aspect	Change takes place through regulations, rules, prescriptions, proscriptions, legislations, acts, standards, policies, plans, procedures
			Bureaucratic administration and enforcement
Market	State (government) facilitates market processes to varying degrees which mediate the interactions of corporations, private businesses and citizens	Consumers and industries make choices with the environmental costs of production incorporated	Price or allocation mechanisms account for environmental costs and/or considerations (e.g. taxes, fees, tradable permits, market exchanges, certification)
Civil society	Citizens, non-governmental organisations (NGO), community, stakeholders	Determinations achieved through democracy (‘participatory ideal’ and ‘rejectionist approach’), with emphasis placed on broad participation, deliberation, consensus, public debate, civil opposition	Interventions occur at small scales (involving resource users) and through decentralisation
			Informal institutions are emphasized where authority and legitimacy is connected to community-based processes
Hybridised forms	Governance is a shared endeavour	Decisions are made in a myriad of ways (e.g. problem-solving process, deliberation, negotiation, joint policy practices), but some degree of power sharing is present	The following outcomes are examples from some popular hybrid environmental governance forms
			Co-management: cooperative agreements, joint-management boards, voluntary/negotiated agreements
			Public-private: concessionary arrangements, self-regulation
			Private-social: payments for ecosystem services, carbon sequestration

Figure 1. Geographic location of cases.

Figure 2. Resilience fingerprints for each case. Notes: axes of the radar graph correspond to the four considerations of resilience paradigms: top = system boundary, right = system attributes, lower = relationships and functions, and left = proxies/measures of resilience. Line colours correspond to resilience types: blue = engineering, black = ecological, orange = social-ecological, and purple = epistemic.

Figure 3. Governance fingerprints for each case. Notes: axes of the radar graph correspond to the three considerations of governance approaches: top = actors, lower right = processes and lower left = outcomes. Line colours correspond to governance approaches: blue = state, black = market, orange = civil society and purple = hybrid forms.

Table

Case	Document (citation)
Australia coastal management	Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council. (2006). National cooperative approach to integrated coastal zone management. Framework and implementation plan. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government. Retrieved from http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/national-cooperative-approach-integrated-coastal-zone-management-framework-and
	O’Toole, K., Haward, M., Coffey, B., Leith, P., Rees, C., Quinn, G., Wescott, G., Scarborough, H., Wallis, A., Keneley, M., Macgarvey, A., Miller, K., Baxter, T., Kriwoken, L., Mount, R., Nursey-Bray, M., & Vince, J. (2013). Knowledge systems theme. Final report. CSIRO.
	Stocker, L., Bruekers, G., Danese, C., Hofmeester, C., Shaw, J., Petrova, S., Middle, G., Pokrant, B., & Zafrin, S. (n.d.). Final report: Governance theme. CSIRO.
Australia flooding	Brisbane City Council. (2012). Brisbane City Council disaster management plan. Retrieved from http://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/downloads/community/community_safety/Section%201%20-%20Disaster%20Management%20Plan%20-%20no%20signature%20copy.pdf
	Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry. (2012). Final report of the Queensland Floods Commission of Inquiry. Retrieved from http://www.floodcommission.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/11,698/QFCI-Final-Report-March-2012.pdf
	Wenger, C., Hussey, K., & Pittock, J. (2013). Living with floods: Key lessons from Australia and abroad. Gold Coast, Australia: National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility.
Baltic	Heeb, A. (2012). Constructed wetlands and flood control a synthesis of four Baltic COMPASS case studies. Part I: Background report – September 2012. Retrieved from http://www.balticcompass.org/PDF/Reports/WetlandsFloods-synthesis-AH-final.pdf
	Larsen, R.K. (2012). Governance innovations for improved phosphorus management and reuse – voices from the Baltic Sea Region. Retrieved from http://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/SEI-BalticCOMPASS-GovernanceInnovationsForImprovedPhosphorusManagementAndReuse-2012.pdf
	Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI). (2013). The common agricultural policy post-2013: Could reforms make Baltic Sea Region farms more sustainable? Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm Environment Institute.
Indonesia	Ancestral Land/Domain Watch (ADLAW). 2013. The Palawan Oil Palm Geotagged Report 2013. 94 pp.
	Meijaard, E., Stanley, S.A., Pollard, E.H.B., Gouyon, A., & Paoli, G. (2006). Practitioners guide to managing High Conservation Value Forest in Indonesia: A case study from East Kalimantan. Samarinda, Indonesia: The Nature Conservancy. Retrieved from http://www.hcvnetwork.org/resources/assessments/Practitioners%20Guide%20to%20HCVF%20in%20Indonesia%20_Kalimantan.pdf
	Larsen, R.K., Osbeck, M., Jiwan, N., Rompas, A., Nito, J., & Tarigan, A. (2012). Competing water claims in biofuel feedstock operations in Central Kalimantan. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm Environment Institute. Retrieved from http://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/SEI-WorkingPaper-Larsen-CompetingWaterClaimsInBiofuel-2012.pdf
Niagara	Environmental Sustainability Research Centre (ESRC). 2013. Liquid Assets: Assessing Water’s Contribution to Niagara. WaterSmart Niagara, Niagara Region. 80 pp.
	International Joint Commission (IJC). (2011). 15th biennial report on Great Lakes water quality. Retrieved from http://www.ijc.org/files/tinymce/uploaded/15biennial_report_web-final.pdf
	Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority (NPCA). (2011). Assessment report – Niagara peninsula source protection area. Retrieved from http://www.sourceprotection-niagara.ca/assess_report.html
UK	Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2011). Defra statement on the principles of River Basin Planning Guidance and the future direction of Water Framework Directive implementation. Retrieved from http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/defra_sop_2011.pdf
	Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2013). Catchment based approach: Improving the quality of our water environment. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/204,231/pb13934-water-environment-catchment-based-approach.pdf
	Tweed Forum. (2010). Tweed catchment management plan. Tweed Forum: Roxburgshire, Scotland. Retrieved from http://www.tweedforum.org/catchment-management-planning/catchment-management-plan
Tunisia	El Hedi Louati, M. & Bucknall, J. (2010). Tunisia’s experience in water resource mobilization and management. Retrieved from http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDR2010/Resources/5,287,678-1,255,547,194,560/WDR2010_BG_Note_Louati.pdf
	Sghaier, M., Ouessar, M., Catacutan, D.C., & Briki, M. (n.d.). Context of Oum Zessar Watershed Tunisia. Retrieved from http://www.oss-online.org/sites/default/files/projet/contexte_oum_zessar.pdf
	Tunis International Center for Environmental Technologies. 2009. Institutional framework and decision-making practices for water management in Tunisia: Toward the development of a strategy for improved groundwater management. Retrieved from http://environ.chemeng.ntua.gr/ineco/UserFiles/File/Deliverables/Publishable%20Report%20-%20Tunisia.pdf

Plummer, R., Baird, J., Dupont, D., & Renzetti, S. (2012). Work package one: Ecological components of ecosystems (Climate Adaptation and Water Governance (CADWAGO) Project Meeting Presentation). Sippy Downs: University of the Sunshine Coast.

 Google Scholar

Glasbergen, P. (1998). The question of environmental governance. In P. Glasbergen (Ed.), Co-operative environmental governance: Public-private agreements as a policy strategy (pp. 1–18). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. doi:10.1007/978-94-011-5143-6_1

 Google Scholar

Lemos, M. C., & Agrawal, A. (2006). Environmental governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31, 297–325. doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.31.042605.135621

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar