Institutional Fit and River Basin Governance: a New Approach Using Multiple Composite Measures

Abstract

ABSTRACT. The notion that effective environmental governance depends in part on achieving a reasonable fit between institutional arrangements and the features of ecosystems and their interconnections with users has been central to much thinking about social-ecological systems for more than a decade. Based on expert consultations this study proposes a set of six dimensions of fit for water governance regimes and then empirically explores variation in measures of these in 28 case studies of national parts of river basins in Europe, Asia, Latin America, and Africa drawing on a database compiled by the Twin2Go project. The six measures capture different but potentially important dimensions of fit: allocation, integration, conservation, basinization, participation, and adaptation. Based on combinations of responses to a standard questionnaire filled in by groups of experts in each basin we derived quantitative measures for each indicator. Substantial variation in these measures of fit was apparent among basins in developing and developed countries. Geographical location is not a barrier to high institutional fit; but within basins different measures of fit often diverge. This suggests it is difficult, but not impossible, to simultaneously achieve a high fit against multiple challenging conditions. Comparing multidimensional fit profiles give a sense of how well water governance regimes are equipped for dealing with a range of natural resource and use-related conditions and suggests areas for priority intervention. The findings of this study thus confirm and help explain previous work that has concluded that context is important for understanding the variable consequences of institutional reform on water governance practices as well as on social and environmental outcomes.

Network structure and institutional complexity in an ecology of water management games

“…The current level of institutional diversity provides many opportunities for collaboration, as well as policy learning and innovation in the face of complexity and uncertainty (Ostrom 2005). One way to think about this is a problem of institutional "fit" (Lebel et al 2013)-how well does a particular set of complex institutions fit into the social ecological context in which it exists?…”

Using insights from pragmatism to develop reforms that strengthen institutional competence for conserving biodiversity

“…These reforms build on the concept of achieving fit between institutions and ecosystems, which is thought to improve ecological outcomes (Lebel et al 2013;Galaz et al 2008), and use case study literature to identify areas where institutional change has led to improvements in outcomes. Although these methods are widely used, the causal link between institutions and ecological outcomes remains one of the most difficult challenges in environmental governance (Young 2013).…”

Metapopulation perspective to institutional fit: maintenance of dynamic habitat networks

“…Ecology and Society 22(2): 30 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol22/iss2/art30/ has been estimated qualitatively based on interviews and policy documents (Munck af Rosenchöld et al 2014), by calculating similarity metrics between ecological systems and policy descriptions (Ekstrom and Young 2009), or by counting fit measures from expert questionnaire replies (Lebel et al 2013). …”

“…Institutional fit has been measured from spatial , Moss 2012, Lebel et al 2013), temporal (Pérez-Nordtvedt et al 2008, Munck af Rosenschöld et al 2014, and functional (Ekstrom and Young 2009) perspectives. Functional fit measures whether the key functions of the managed system are addressed by the managing institution (Ekstrom and Young 2009), whereas spatial fit refers to mismatches in the spatial extent of administration versus that of managed ecological systems .…”