Governance of ecosystem services: a review of empirical literature

Figures & data

Table 1. Four governance modes that guide the analysis. Examples in the end of each description are based on the literature review of this paper

Scientific-technical governance highlights the role of scientific and technical arguments to guide decision-making (Sutherland et al. 2004, Huth and Possingham 2011, Primmer et al. 2015). The expertise and knowledge of experts play an important role. Transfer of knowledge from research to practice requires co-operation with researchers and decision-makers (Barton et al. 2018). An example of this mode of governance is a process of land-use planning in which scientific and technical arguments are favored when decisions about trade-offs must be made (Paavola and Hubacek 2013).

Governing strategic behavior emphasizes the transformative capacity of governance arrangements and their interactions (Primmer et al. 2015). It relates to corporate and market-based approaches and can be used to nudge behavior (Primmer 2011). This governance mode includes lobbying to influence policies and to protect certain interests (Newig and Fritsch 2009). Typical examples in ES research are payments for ES (PES) schemes in which ES providers obtain financial compensation for the provision of ES (e.g. Börner et al. 2010, Van Hecken and Bastiaensen 2010, Rival 2010).

(Adaptive) collaborative governance emphasizes collective learning and bottom-up participation that originate from actors who affect or are affected by ES (Paloniemi and Vilja 2009, Sandström 2009, Saarikoski et al. 2012, Primmer et al. 2015). Adaptive governance aims to increase the responsive capacity to changing circumstances, including changing societal values, through collective learning (Olsson et al. 2006, Burkhard et al. 2012). Besides being bottom-up, collaborative governance includes open and transparent processes of collective problem-solving (Newig and Fritsch 2009). This mode of governance aims to find common solutions that might increase acceptance levels of affected actors. Examples are ecosystem stewardship (Olsson et al. 2008, Chapin et al. 2015) and participatory approaches in which involved actors shape the process and its outcome, thereby facilitating local learning (Cork et al. 2006).

Hierarchical governance refers to regulatory mechanisms influencing ES and the other three modes of governance (Primmer et al. 2015). Hierarchical governance can generate effects through the other three modes of governance and as such often encapsulates them. Contrary to collaborative governance, state actors are the main actors and formal institutions play a major role in hierarchical governance. As policies are often interlinked across levels (e.g. international policies with effects on the national and/or local level), hierarchical governance has frequently been studied as multi-level governance consisting of vertical interactions of different governance levels, but also using policy mix analysis (Ring and Barton 2015). In the context of ES governance, scale mismatches are frequently identified when ecosystem boundaries do not match with the borders of administrative units (Borgström et al. 2006).

Figure 1. (a) The number of publications on ES (brown dots) and of publications including the terms ‘governance’ and ‘ecosystem services’ in their abstract (blue square). (b) The percentage of all ES publications that include governance has increased over time (P = 0.001). The gray line shows a best fit line from a linear regression

Figure 2. Type of publication between 2006 and 2019 (n = 262). Shown values are relative for the year

Figure 3. World map showing the distribution of empirical ES governance studies. The colour intensity illustrates the number of studies within a given country. There were 17 studies at the supranational or global scale that are not shown on the map

Figure 4. The frequency of each of the four modes of governance in studies by scale, grouped according to authors’ own spatial categories: local (n = 68) – villages, cities and municipalities; region (n = 90) – counties, states, national parks, ecoregions; country (n = 53) – political unit; supranational (n = 12) – multiple countries, e.g. European Union, South America; global (n = 6) – global perspective, no spatial focus

Figure 5. Links between data collection methods (left-hand side) and data analysis methods (right-hand side) of qualitative (top, n = 95), quantitative (middle, n = 23), and mix-methods publications (bottom, n = 39) in our review. Note that numbers represent the number of links between data collection and data analysis methods, not the number of papers (e.g. in the same paper, ‘interviews’, a data collection method, can be linked to both ‘scenarios’ and ‘content analysis’, which are data analysis methods)

Figure 6. Occurrence of different governance modes in the reviewed publications (n = 157). The size of the circles illustrates how often the (combination of) governance modes occurred in the reviewed sample, which is also given by the number. 1* represents the one publication combining the three governance modes adaptive, hierarchical and strategic behavior. 1^ represents the one publication combining all four governance modes

Figure 7. Residuals from a chi-square contingency test, where dark blue colours indicate more papers published than expected for a particular governance type at that spatial scale, and dark red colours indicate fewer papers published than expected. The ‘Largest’ scale indicates that supranational and global scales were combined for the analysis, but results in this column should be interpreted with caution since a few expected values were less than five

Sutherland WJ, Pullin AS, Dolman PM, Knight TM. 2004. The need for evidence-based conservation. Trends Ecol Evol. 19(6):305–308. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2004.03.018.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Huth N, Possingham HP. 2011. Basic ecological theory can inform habitat restoration for woodland birds. J Appl Ecol. 48(2):293–300. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2010.01936.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Primmer E, Jokinen P, Blicharska M, Barton DN, Bugter R, Potschin M. 2015. Governance of ecosystem services: a framework for empirical analysis. Ecosyst Serv. 16:158–166. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.05.002.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Barton DN, Kelemen E, Dick J, Martin-Lopez B, Gómez-Baggethun E, Jacobs S, Hendriks CMA, Termansen M, García- Llorente M, Primmer E, et al. 2018. (dis) integrated valuation – assessing the information gaps in ecosystem service appraisals for governance support. Ecosyst Serv. 29:529–541. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.021.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Paavola J, Hubacek K. 2013. Ecosystem services, governance, and stakeholder participation: an introduction. Ecol Soc. 18(4):art42. doi:10.5751/ES-06019-180442.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Primmer E. 2011. Analysis of institutional adaptation: integration of biodiversity conservation into forestry. J Clean Prod. 19(16):1822–1832. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.04.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Newig J, Fritsch O. 2009. Environmental governance: participatory, multi-level - and effective? Environ Policy Governance. 19(3):197–214. doi:10.1002/eet.509.

 Google Scholar

Börner J, Wunder S, Wertz-Kanounnikoff S, Tito MR, Pereira L, Nascimento N. 2010. Direct conservation payments in the Brazilian Amazon: scope and equity implications. Ecol Econ. 69(6):1272–1282. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Van Hecken G, Bastiaensen J. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services in Nicaragua: do market-based approaches work? Dev Change. 41(3):421–444. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7660.2010.01644.x.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Rival L. 2010. Ecuador’s Yasuní-ITT Initiative: the old and new values of petroleum. Ecol Econ. 70(2):358–365. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.09.007.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Paloniemi R, Vilja V. 2009. Changing ecological and cultural states and preferences of nature conservation policy: the case of nature values trade in South-Western Finland. J Rural Stud. 25(1):87–97. doi:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.06.004.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sandström C. 2009. Institutional dimensions of comanagement: participation, power, and process. Soc Nat Resour. 22(3):230–244. doi:10.1080/08941920802183354.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Saarikoski H, AAkerman M, Primmer E. 2012. The challenge of governance in regional forest planning: an analysis of participatory forest program processes in Finland. Soc Nat Resour. 25(7):667–682. doi:10.1080/08941920.2011.630061.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Olsson P, Gunderson LH, Carpenter SR, Ryan P, Lebel L, Folke C, Holling CS. 2006. Shooting the rapids : navigating transitions to A. Ecol Soc. 11(1):18. doi:10.5751/ES-01595-110118.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Burkhard B, de Groot R, Costanza R, Seppelt R, Jørgensen SE, Potschin M. 2012. Solutions for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecol Indic. 21:1–6. doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.03.008.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Olsson P, Folke C, Hughes TP. 2008. Navigating the transition to ecosystem-based management of the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 105(28):9489–9494. doi:10.1073/pnas.0706905105.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chapin FS, Sommerkorn M, Robards MD, Hillmer-Pegram K. 2015. Ecosystem stewardship: a resilience framework for arctic conservation. Global Environ Change. 34:207–217. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.07.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cork SJ, Peterson GD, Bennett EM, Petschel-Held G, Zurek M. 2006. Synthesis of the storylines. Ecol Soc. 12(2):11. doi:10.5751/ES-01798-110211.

 Google Scholar

Ring I, Barton DN. 2015. Economic instruments in policy mixes for biodiversity conservation and ecosystem governance. In: Martinez-Alier J, editor. Handbook of ecological economics. Glos, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing; p. 413–449.

 Google Scholar

Borgström S, Elmqvist T, Angelstam P, Alfsen-Norodom C. 2006. Scale mismatches in management of urban landscapes. Ecol Soc. 11(2):16. doi:10.5751/ES-01819-110216.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar