Bringing polycentric systems into focus for environmental governance

Heikkila, Tanya; Villamayor-Tomás, Sergio; Garrick, Dustin

doi:10.1002/eet.1809

Cited by 91 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bache & Flinders, 2004). All multilevel governance systems therefore entail some degree of polycentrism in that they comprise several, formally independent, centers of authority (e.g., Heikkila et al, 2018;McGinnis & Ostrom, 2011;Pahl-Wostl & Knieper, 2014;Schröder, 2018). However, multilevel governance systems also differ in the division of authority, administrative levels, and constituent policy sectors and actors (Liefferink, Wiering, & Uitenboogaart, 2012).…”

Section: The Division Of Authoritymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Research is also needed to address the breach between the theory and practice of participatory multilevel systems (cf. Dutterer & Margerum, 2015;Huitema et al, 2009;Lee, 1999) and to explore the relationship between new forms of governance, diverging from traditional centralized command-andcontrol systems, and their performance (Heikkila, Villamayor-Tomas, & Garrick, 2018). We note that more empirical research into the relationship between the institutional arrangements of multilevel governance and governance outcomes is therefore required.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessing and explaining policy coherence: A comparative study of water governance and large carnivore governance in Sweden

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper explores the relationship between different types of multilevel governance systems and policy coherence (i.e., uniformity of goals and rules) through a study of the governance systems for water and large carnivores in Sweden. The study objects represent multilevel governance systems for contested natural resources in the same national context, although in different policy areas and with substantial differences in institutional arrangements. We define the characteristics of each governance system through an institutional analysis of official records and compare their perceived ability to promote coherence through a statistical analysis of survey data. Our empirical results both support and problematize common ideas about how different institutional features relate to policy coherence in multilevel governance. The results clearly indicate that multilevel governance systems are challenged by conflicting goals and rules, both within and across governance systems, and that the capacity to address these difficulties is generally perceived as wanting in both types of systems. The results tentatively suggest that clashes with other governance systems are more prominent in polycentric and ecologically based systems, whereas internal goal and rule conflicts are more prevalent in centralized and more traditionally organized systems. The findings contribute to our understanding of the quandaries associated with the design of new governance systems. The study also contributes important insights into what features to focus on in attempts to mitigate the downsides of different institutional arrangements in multilevel governance systems.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

show abstract

Section: The Division Of Authoritymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing and explaining policy coherence: A comparative study of water governance and large carnivore governance in Sweden

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In environmental governance, polycentric governance systems, involving multiple overlapping centers of decision-making interacting within an overarching set of rules, are thought to help address the complex interrelationships within our social and environmental systems [49]. Polycentric governance systems exhibit enhanced adaptive capacity [50,51], adapting by changing rules and behavior as they gain experience.…”

Section: Autopoietic Cohesion Dissipative Cohesionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explaining and Measuring Social-Ecological Pathways: The Case of Global Changes and Water Security

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Social-Ecological Systems framework serves as a valuable framework to explore and understand social and ecological interactions, and pathways in water governance. However, it lacks a robust understanding of change. We argue an analytical and methodological approach to engaging global changes in SES is critical to strengthening the scope and relevance of the SES framework. Relying on SES and resilience thinking, we propose an institutional and cognitive model of change where institutions and natural resources systems co-evolve. Our model of change provides a dynamic understanding of SES that stands on three causal mechanisms: institutional complexity trap, rigidity trap, and learning processes. We illustrate how data cube technology could overcome current limitations and offer reliable avenues for testing hypotheses about the dynamics of Social-Ecological Systems and water security by offering to combine spatial and time data with no major technical requirements for users.

show abstract

“…Together, this paints a nuanced picture on the role of the state in adaptation governance, sometimes leading and sometimes responding, in interaction with non-state actors. Nonetheless, the state remains central in advancing adaptation governance in Santiago, particularly in advancing bold next steps that consolidate current achievements, but this raises questions about the interactive and potentially complementary roles of different actors, suggesting that somewhat ad hoc approaches may actually be productive in initiating institutional development in difficult circumstances.This observation takes on particular significance in light of emerging theory on polycentric governance, which has been rapidly advancing in recent years in climate and environmental governance (e.g.,Heikkila, Villamayor-Tomas, & Garrick, 2018;Jordan et al, 2018;Thiel & Moser, 2018), especially in terms of the role of diverse sources of agency within processes of change. Understanding the dynamics of change in polycentric systems is at the frontier of theory building in this field.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond inputs and outputs: Process‐oriented explanation of institutional change in climate adaptation governance

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate adaptation is a growing imperative across all scales and sectors of governance. This often requires changes in institutions, which can be difficult to realize.Explicitly process-oriented approaches explaining how and why institutional change occurs are lacking. Overcoming this gap is vital to move beyond either input-oriented (e.g., capacity) or output-oriented (e.g., assessment) approaches, to understand how changes actually occur for addressing complex and contested governance issues. This paper analyses causal conditions and mechanisms by which institutions develop in climate adaptation governance. It focuses on urban climate governance through an in-depth case study of Santiago, Chile, over a 12-year period (2005-2017), drawing on primary and secondary data, including 26 semistructured interviews with policy, academic, and civil society actors. It identifies and explains a variety of institutional developments across multiple levels (i.e., programmatic, legislative, and constitutional), through a theory-centric process tracing methodology. This reveals a multiple-response pattern, involving several causal mechanisms and coexisting institutional logics. Findings suggest that although adaptation may be inherently protracted, institutions can nevertheless develop in both related and novel directions.Overall, the paper argues for a new research agenda on process-oriented theorizing and analysis in climate and environmental governance.

show abstract

Bringing polycentric systems into focus for environmental governance

Cited by 91 publications

References 29 publications

Assessing and explaining policy coherence: A comparative study of water governance and large carnivore governance in Sweden

Assessing and explaining policy coherence: A comparative study of water governance and large carnivore governance in Sweden

Explaining and Measuring Social-Ecological Pathways: The Case of Global Changes and Water Security

Beyond inputs and outputs: Process‐oriented explanation of institutional change in climate adaptation governance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About