Synthesizing theories of natural resource management and governance

Cox, Michael; Villamayor-Tomás, Sergio; Epstein, Graham; Evans, Louisa; Ban, Natalie C.; Fleischman, Forrest; Nenadović, Mateja; García-López, Gustavo

doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.04.011

Cited by 62 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The proposed network property CSD here, by adopting the term ''consilience,'' attempts to evaluate the collective contribution of all factors (topology and node activities) in a networked system towards its performance in terms of certain functional goals. In particular, the concept of the CSD may provide a new methodological tool for the research on global environmental change because in such research the integration of knowledge from different disciplines, collective action, and public support are of paramount importance (Alexander et al 2015;Bernauer et al 2016;Cox et al 2016). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Quantitatively Understanding the Complexity of Social-Ecological Systems—From Connection to Consilience

Shi

Wang

et al. 2017

Int J Disaster Risk Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The complexity of social-ecological systems (SES) is rooted in the outcomes of node activities connected by network topology. Thus far, in network dynamics research, the connectivity degree (CND), indicating how many nodes are connected to a given node, has been the dominant concept. However, connectivity focuses only on network topology, neglecting the crucial relation to node activities, and thereby leaving system outcomes largely unexplained. Inspired by the phenomenon of ''consensus of wills and coordination of activities'' often observed in disaster risk management, we propose a new concept of network characteristic, the consilience degree (CSD), aiming to measure the way in which network topology and node activities together contribute to system outcomes. The CSD captures the fact that nodes may assume different states that make their activities more or less compatible. Connecting two nodes with in/compatible states will lead to outcomes that are un/desirable from the perspective of the SES in question. We mathematically prove that the CSD is a generalized CND, and the CND is a special case of CSD. As a general, fundamental concept, the CSD can facilitate the development of a new framework of network properties, models, and theories that allows us to understand patterns of network behavior that cannot be explained in terms of connectivity alone. We further demonstrate that a co-evolutionary mechanism can naturally improve the CSD. Given the generality of co-evolution in SES, we argue that the CSD is an inherent attribute rather than an artificial concept, which underpins the fundamental importance of the CSD to the study of SES.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards Quantitatively Understanding the Complexity of Social-Ecological Systems—From Connection to Consilience

Shi

Wang

et al. 2017

Int J Disaster Risk Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hence, benefit sharing aims to address these very problems. However, if we look at sustainability of the entire system as a primary objective, then one should remember that benefit sharing could only serve as an intermediate outcome [107], whereas the final outcome should be correspondingly more system-oriented, for example, establishment of a resilient society able to adapt to ever changing environment. Therefore, it is highly likely that underemphasizing resource sustainability, as a side-effect of overemphasizing economic and/or social aspects, will lead to new levels of stress (also known as rebound effect when improved efficiency and technology lead to increased use, see also [108]); or become an obstacle already at the implementation phase of agreed terms and distribution of benefits when parties realize the resource scarcity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reframing for Sustainability: Exploring Transformative Power of Benefit Sharing

Soliev

Theesfeld

2017

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is broadly agreed that development needs and effects from changing environment will increase pressure on the ways natural resources are utilized and shared at present. In most parts of the world, resource stress has already reached unprecedented levels setting resource sustainability high on the policy agenda on multiple governance levels. This paper aims to explain how the benefit sharing approach can help reframe the debate for sustainability, its advantages and disadvantages for transforming governance challenges and adapting to increasing resource stress. We bring together fragmented discussions of benefit sharing from three resource domains: water, land, and biodiversity. Both theoretical and empirical examples are provided to aid understanding of how benefit sharing can facilitate adaptive governance processes in complex socio-ecological systems. The findings highlight importance of integrating the long-term perspective when societies move from volumes toward values of shared natural resources, as well as setting environmental conservation and equitable allocation as the top priority for benefit sharing to be sustainable.

show abstract

“…The boundaries of the review are therefore restricted to the intersection of new institutional economics with subsidiarity and drought adaptation. This requires excluding several important and relevant areas in light of a recent review of frameworks for examining social-natural systems, which identified 63 theories linking social and natural systems in 117 studies (Cox et al 2016). Relevant literature in political science (federalism, multi-level governance) as well as a range of interdisciplinary approaches focussed on institutional fit and interplay are beyond the scope of this analysis, although many of these other theoretical perspectives share similar conceptual foundations and assumptions as those associated with new institutional economics (cf.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Relevant literature in political science (federalism, multi-level governance) as well as a range of interdisciplinary approaches focussed on institutional fit and interplay are beyond the scope of this analysis, although many of these other theoretical perspectives share similar conceptual foundations and assumptions as those associated with new institutional economics (cf. Cox et al 2016). As a consequence, the insights from new institutional economics may be trans-lated or integrated into other fields to form hypotheses and propositions for future research.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decentralisation and drought adaptation: Applying the subsidiarity principle in transboundary river basins

Garrick

2018

Int J Commons

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Determining how to adapt to freshwater scarcity and variability has become an important question for institutional analysis and development. This paper addresses the assignment challenge in drought adaptation, namely the challenge of assigning and coordinating governance responsibilities across nested levels of social organisation. The subsidiarity principle suggests that adaptation decisions and associated governance responsibilities should occur at the lowest level at which they can be performed competently. Droughts and related slow-onset 'shocks' throw into question which level is lowest, and how this varies with the duration, severity and extent of the event. This paper explores the potential for the subsidiarity principle to guide the assignment and assessment of governance responsibilities associated with drought adaptation. It reviews literature at the intersection of common pool resource studies and new institutional economics to elaborate four diagnostic questions: (1) what are the opportunities and limits of decentralised (independent) drought adaptation?; (2) how are social dilemmas and spillovers associated with drought adaptation managed?; (3) when do higher level institutions complement versus crowd out decentralised adaptation?; and (4) how does adaptation by individuals and groups affect adaptive efficiency? An illustrative comparison of drought adaptation in the US portions of the Colorado and Rio Grande Rivers of North America demonstrates: (i) the potential and limits of decentralised adaptation through urban water conservation and irrigation efficiency (ii) the importance of both formal and informal coordination institutions (e.g. river basin organisations) to address cross-border externalities, including conflicts and economies of scale, and (iii) the pivotal role of groundwater management for adaptive efficiency, requiring a balance between local, short-term dependence on groundwater for drought adaptation with transboundary, long-term outcomes caused by unsustainable extractions. 302Dustin E. Garrick

show abstract

Synthesizing theories of natural resource management and governance

Cited by 62 publications

References 34 publications

Towards Quantitatively Understanding the Complexity of Social-Ecological Systems—From Connection to Consilience

Towards Quantitatively Understanding the Complexity of Social-Ecological Systems—From Connection to Consilience

Reframing for Sustainability: Exploring Transformative Power of Benefit Sharing

Decentralisation and drought adaptation: Applying the subsidiarity principle in transboundary river basins

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About