How does network governance affect social-ecological fit across the land–sea interface? An empirical assessment from the Lesser Antilles

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Governance across the land-sea interface presents many challenges related to (1) the engagement of diverse actors and systems of knowledge, (2) the coordinated management of shared ecological resources, and (3) the development of mechanisms to address or account for biogeochemical (e.g., nutrient flows) and ecological (e.g., species movements) interdependencies between marine and terrestrial systems. If left unaddressed, these challenges can lead to multiple problems of social-ecological fit stemming from governance fragmentation or inattention to various components of land-sea systems. Network governance is hypothesized to address these multiple challenges, yet its specific role in affecting social-ecological fit across the land-sea interface is not well understood. We aim to improve this understanding by examining how network governance affects social-ecological fit across the land-sea interface in two empirical case studies from the Lesser Antilles: Dominica and Saint Lucia. We found that network governance plays a clear role in coordinating management of shared resources and providing capacity to address interactions between ecological entities. Yet, its potential role in engaging diverse actors and addressing, specifically, biogeochemical interactions across the land-sea interface has not been fully realized. Our research suggests that network governance is beneficial, but not sufficient, to improve social-ecological fit across the land-sea interface. Strategically leveraging the network processes (e.g., triadic closure) leading to the existing governance networks could prove useful in addressing the current deficiencies in the networks. Additionally, the interplay between hierarchical and networked modes of governance appears to be a critical issue in determining social-ecological fit at the land-sea interface.

Improving network approaches to the study of complex social–ecological interdependencies

“…Lesser Antilles 56 Overall neither positive or negative, but there was a positive tendency to form closed four cycles across the critical sea-land interface. However, there was also a negative overall Not tested tendency of actors with a sea versus land focus not to engage with each other.…”

“…The first spans the coral triangle and beyond in the Indo West Pacific and includes 13 states 55 . The second is based in the Lesser Antilles in the Caribbean Sea and focuses on two regions: the southwest coast of Dominica and the southeast coast of Saint Lucia 56 . Three studies fit in the lowest level of aggregation.…”

Navigating multi‐level natural resource governance: an analytical guide

“…The “problem of fit” suggests that very often governance systems do not match onto the biophysical system, leading to challenges in the effectiveness of governance systems and the need for bridging organizations, coordination arrangements or the formation of collaborative structures (Cash et al ., ; Guerrero et al ., ; Sayles and Baggio, ). The formation of networks may also be a response to the problem of fit, with actors seeking out other actors through formal or informal networking (Pittman and Armitage, ).…”

Are we seeing the whole picture in land-sea systems? Opportunities and challenges for operationalizing the ES concept

“…If the interface is perceived as a boundary between land and sea intrinsic connections within the system can be overlooked, challenging an ES approach. The perception of a boundary induce that different scientific disciplines and governance instruments address the two environments included in land-sea systems (Arkema et al, 2015;Carpenter et al, 2009;Norgaard, 2010;Pittman and Armitage, 2017). Scientific disciplines and stakeholders focused on terrestrial environments and those focused on marine environments often work in distinct silos, resulting in segmented science and governance (Ruttenberg and Granek, 2011).…”

“…If these connections are not perceived, realized and articulated as part of integrated governance schemes, the social-ecological systems involved are vulnerable to changes (Ruttenberg and Granek, 2011). Consequently, the ability to efficiently manage interconnected environments may be compromised, potentially affecting the sustainable supply of ES and the timely detection of possible synergies and trade-offs among ES (Alonso Roldán et al, 2015;Palomo et al, 2011;Pittman and Armitage, 2017;Puente-Rodríguez et al, 2015). For example, if land use policies or environmental regulations in agricultural regions do not take into consideration the impact of run-off on coastal and marine environments downstream, it limits the ability of marine planners to conserve fish stocks through actions controlling fishing pressure, as stocks will also respond to water pollution introduced from upstream land use practices.…”