Collaborative environmental governance: Achieving collective action in social-ecological systems
Collaborative governance
By its nature, environmental governance requires collaboration. However, studies have shown that various types of stakeholders often lack the willingness to deliberate and contribute to jointly negotiated solutions to common environmental problems. Bodin reviews studies and cases that elucidate when, if, and how collaboration can be effective and what kind of environmental problems are most fruitfully addressed in this way. The piece provides general conclusions about the benefits and constraints of collaborative approaches to environmental management and governance and points out that there remain substantial knowledge gaps and key areas where more research is needed.
Science, this issue p. eaan1114
Structured Abstract
BACKGROUND
Current and future generations are confronted with the complex task of devising sustainable solutions to environmental problems. The coming decade might determine whether humanity will be able to set a course toward a future of continued prosperity on a planet whose ecosystems will deliver the needed goods and services. A crucial piece of this puzzle is achieving effective collaboration among different public and private actors and stakeholders. Calls for solving environmental problems through collaborative governance emphasize benefits from local to global scales—from artisanal fishermen avoiding the overfishing of local fish stocks by together agreeing upon sustainable practices, to states jointly committing to implement adequate measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Although commonly advocated, achieving successful collaborations when confronted with complex environmental problems spanning geographical scales and jurisdictional boundaries is an area where substantial knowledge gaps remain.
ADVANCES
A growing amount of empirical evidence shows the effectiveness of actors engaged in different collaborative governance arrangements in addressing environmental problems. However, studies also show that actors sometimes collaborate only as a means of advocating their own interests, while largely lacking a willingness to contribute towards jointly negotiated solutions to common problems. Hence, collaboration is sometimes unable to deliver any tangible outcomes, or merely produces symbolic outcomes such as aggregated wish lists where conflicts of interest are left untouched.
Clearly, no single blueprint exists for how to succeed by using collaborative approaches to solve environmental problems. One way of approaching this puzzle is through the lenses of the participating actors and the ways in which they engage in collaboration with each other. This approach entails directing attention to who the actors are, what their interests and motives are, who they collaborate with, and how the structures of such “collaborative networks” relate to the actors’ joint abilities to address different environmental problems.
Emerging insights from recent research suggest that the effectiveness of different collaborative network structures in addressing environmental problems depends on how those problems unfold with respect to the following characteristics: (i) varying levels of risk that actors free-ride on others’ efforts; (ii) varying levels of knowledge gaps, signifying different needs for social learning and deliberation among actors with different backgrounds, experiences, and interests; and (iii) whether these problems are, for all practical purposes, permanent or just temporary.
Also, long-standing research questions regarding whether governance structures that are adequately aligned with ecosystem structures and processes are more effective have recently been addressed empirically. Early results suggest several ways in which misalignments between the structure of a collaborative network and the biophysical environment reduce the ability to address environmental problems effectively.
OUTLOOK
A more nuanced understanding of whether collaborative governance is the most effective way of solving environmental problems is needed. The capacity of collaborative governance to deliver sustainable solutions for any given environmental problem ranges from highly effective to essentially worthless. Future efforts must establish which factors determine the exact location of any collaborative arrangement on this continuum.
Emerging insights suggest that where a collaborative arrangement falls on the spectrum results from a complex interplay between several factors. The characteristics of the underlying collective action problem are one factor. Others are the characteristics of the underlying biophysical system and how these align with the ways in which collaborative governance arrangements are constructed, institutionally embedded, and managed. Finally, the patterns in which actors collaborate with each other (or do not) is a factor that potentially determines the effects that the other factors have on a collaborative arrangement’s ability to solve environmental problems.
Small-scale fishermen preparing their nets.
Although collaborative approaches to environmental governance are increasingly advocated, a better understanding of if and how multiactor collaboration in interlinked social-ecological systems is able to effectively address various environmental problems is urgently needed.
Photo: Nature Picture Library/Alamy Stock Photo
Abstract
Managing ecosystems is challenging because of the high number of stakeholders, the permeability of man-made political and jurisdictional demarcations in relation to the temporal and spatial extent of biophysical processes, and a limited understanding of complex ecosystem and societal dynamics. Given these conditions, collaborative governance is commonly put forward as the preferred means of addressing environmental problems. Under this paradigm, a deeper understanding of if, when, and how collaboration is effective, and when other means of addressing environmental problems are better suited, is needed. Interdisciplinary research on collaborative networks demonstrates that which actors get involved, with whom they collaborate, and in what ways they are tied to the structures of the ecosystems have profound implications on actors’ abilities to address different types of environmental problems.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Already a Subscriber?Sign In
References and Notes
1
M. Lubell, Governing institutional complexity: The ecology of games framework. Policy Stud. J. 41, 537–559 (2013). 10.1111/psj.12028
2
O. R. Young, The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change: Fit, Interplay, and Scale (MIT Press, 2002).
3
V. Galaz, T. Hahn, P. Olsson, C. Folke, U. Svedin, in Institutions and Environmental Change: Principal Findings, Applications, and Research Frontiers, O. R. Young, H. Schroeder, L. A. King, Eds. (MIT Press, 2008), pp. 147–186.
4
G. Epstein, J. Pittman, S. M. Alexander, S. Berdej, T. Dyck, U. Kreitmair, K. J. Rathwell, S. Villamayor-Tomas, J. Vogt, D. Armitage, Institutional fit and the sustainability of social–ecological systems. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 14, 34–40 (2015). 10.1016/j.cosust.2015.03.005
5
G. S. Cumming, D. H. M. Cumming, C. L. Redman, Scale mismatches in social-ecological systems: Causes, consequences, and solutions. Ecol. Soc. 11, 14 (2006). 10.5751/ES-01569-110114
6
J. Edelenbos, I. van Meerkerk, Connective capacity in water governance practices: The meaning of trust and boundary spanning for integrated performance. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 12, 25–29 (2015). 10.1016/j.cosust.2014.08.009
7
B. A. Cosens, Legitimacy, adaptation, and resilience in ecosystem management. Ecol. Soc. 18, 3 (2013). 10.5751/ES-05093-180103
8
B. Walker, S. Barrett, S. Polasky, V. Galaz, C. Folke, G. Engström, F. Ackerman, K. Arrow, S. Carpenter, K. Chopra, G. Daily, P. Ehrlich, T. Hughes, N. Kautsky, S. Levin, K.-G. Mäler, J. Shogren, J. Vincent, T. Xepapadeas, A. de Zeeuw, Looming global-scale failures and missing institutions. Science 325, 1345–1346 (2009). 10.1126/science.1175325
9
N. L. Christensen, A. M. Bartuska, J. H. Brown, S. Carpenter, C. D’Antonio, R. Francis, J. F. Franklin, J. A. MacMahon, R. F. Noss, D. J. Parsons, C. H. Peterson, M. G. Turner, R. G. Woodmansee, The report of the Ecological Society of America Committee on the Scientific Basis for Ecosystem Management. Ecol. Appl. 6, 665–691 (1996). 10.2307/2269460
10
C. Folke, T. Hahn, P. Olsson, J. Norberg, Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30, 441–473 (2005). 10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511
11
M. S. Reed, A. C. Evely, G. Cundill, I. Fazey, J. Glass, A. Laing, J. Newig, B. Parrish, C. Prell, C. Raymond, L. C. Stringer, What is social learning? Ecol. Soc. 15, r1 (2010). 10.5751/ES-03564-1504r01
12
M. Tengö, E. S. Brondizio, T. Elmqvist, P. Malmer, M. Spierenburg, Connecting diverse knowledge systems for enhanced ecosystem governance: The multiple evidence base approach. Ambio 43, 579–591 (2014). 10.1007/s13280-014-0501-3
13
P. Matouš, Y. Todo, D. Mojo, Roles of extension and ethno-religious networks in acceptance of resource-conserving agriculture among Ethiopian farmers. Int. J. Agric. Sustain. 11, 301–316 (2012). 10.1080/14735903.2012.751701
14
P. A. Sabatier, An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sci. 21, 129–168 (1988). 10.1007/BF00136406
15
M. Fischer, Coalition structures and policy change in a consensus democracy. Policy Stud. J. 42, 344–366 (2014). 10.1111/psj.12064
16
I. van Meerkerk, J. Edelenbos, The effects of boundary spanners on trust and performance of urban governance networks: Findings from survey research on urban development projects in the Netherlands. Policy Sci. 47, 3–24 (2014). 10.1007/s11077-013-9181-2
17
H. Österblom, Ö. Bodin, Global cooperation among diverse organizations to reduce illegal fishing in the Southern Ocean. Conserv. Biol. 26, 638–648 (2012). 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01850.x
18
T. Dietz, E. Ostrom, P. C. Stern, The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302, 1907–1912 (2003). 10.1126/science.1091015
19
T. M. Koontz, C. W. Thomas, What do we know and need to know about the environmental outcomes of collaborative management? Public Adm. Rev. 66, 111–121 (2006). 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00671.x
20
J. Munck af Rosenschöld, N. Honkela, J. I. Hukkinen, Addressing the temporal fit of institutions: The regulation of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in Europe. Ecol. Soc. 19, 30 (2014). 10.5751/ES-07033-190430
21
J. Raab, R. S. Mannak, B. Cambre, Combining structure, governance, and context: A configurational approach to network effectiveness. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 25, 479–511 (2015). 10.1093/jopart/mut039
22
A. D. Henry, M. Lubell, M. McCoy, Belief systems and social capital as drivers of policy network structure: The case of California regional planning. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 21, 419–444 (2011). 10.1093/jopart/muq042
23
E.-H. Klijn, C. Skelcher, Democracy and governance networks: Compatible or not? Public Adm. 85, 587–608 (2007). 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00662.x
24
F. R. Westley, O. Tjornbo, L. Schultz, P. Olsson, C. Folke, B. Crona, Ö. Bodin, A theory of transformative agency in linked social-ecological systems. Ecol. Soc. 18, 27 (2013). 10.5751/ES-05072-180327
25
E.-H. Klijn, B. Steijn, J. Edelenbos, The impact of network management on outcomes in governance networks. Public Adm. 88, 1063–1082 (2010). 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2010.01826.x
26
M. Shellenberger, T. Nordhaus, The death of environmentalism, Geopolit. Hist. Int. Relations 1, 121–163 (2009).
27
A. Zachrisson, K. Beland Lindahl, Conflict resolution through collaboration: Preconditions and limitations in forest and nature conservation controversies. For. Policy Econ. 33, 39–46 (2013). 10.1016/j.forpol.2013.04.008
28
T. A. Muñoz-Erickson, B. B. Cutts, E. K. Larson, K. J. Darby, M. Neff, A. Wutich, B. Bolin, Spanning boundaries in an Arizona watershed partnership: Information networks as tools for entrenchment or ties for collaboration? Ecol. Soc. 15, 22 (2010). 10.5751/ES-03390-150322
29
A. P. Castro, E. Nielsen, Indigenous people and co-management: Implications for conflict management. Environ. Sci. Policy 4, 229–239 (2001). 10.1016/S1462-9011(01)00022-3
30
P. A. Walker, P. T. Hurley, Collaboration derailed: The politics of “community-based” resource management in Nevada County. Soc. Nat. Resour. 17, 735–751 (2004). 10.1080/08941920490480723
31
R. F. Brummel, K. C. Nelson, P. J. Jakes, Burning through organizational boundaries? Examining inter-organizational communication networks in policy-mandated collaborative bushfire planning groups. Glob. Environ. Change 22, 516–528 (2012). 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.12.004
32
T. A. Scott, C. W. Thomas, Unpacking the collaborative toolbox: Why and when do public managers choose collaborative governance strategies? Policy Stud. J. 45, 191–214 (2016). 10.1111/psj.12162
33
C. Ansell, A. Gash, Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 18, 543–571 (2007). 10.1093/jopart/mum032
34
R. R. J. McAllister, R. McCrea, M. N. Lubell, Policy networks, stakeholder interactions and climate adaptation in the region of South East Queensland, Australia. Reg. Environ. Change 14, 527–539 (2014). 10.1007/s10113-013-0489-4
35
D. Nohrstedt, Ö. Bodin, Evolutionary dynamics of crisis preparedness collaboration: Resources, turbulence and network change in Swedish municipalities. Public Policy 5, 134–155 (2014). 10.1002/rhc3.12055
36
B. Nykvist, Does social learning lead to better natural resource management? A case study of the modern farming community of practice in Sweden. Soc. Nat. Resour. 27, 436–450 (2014). 10.1080/08941920.2013.861562
37
P. Matous, Y. Todo, Exploring dynamic mechanisms of learning networks for resource conservation. Ecol. Soc. 20, 36 (2015). 10.5751/ES-07602-200236
38
A. D. Henry, B. Vollan, Networks and the challenge of sustainable development. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 39, 583–610 (2014). 10.1146/annurev-environ-101813-013246
39
Ö. Bodin, B. I. Crona, The role of social networks in natural resource governance: What relational patterns make a difference? Glob. Environ. Change 19, 366–374 (2009). 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.05.002
40
C. S. Holling, G. K. Meffe, Command and control and the pathology of natural resource management. Conserv. Biol. 10, 328–337 (1996). 10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10020328.x
41
C. Folke, L. Pritchard Jr., F. Berkes, J. Colding, U. Svedin, The problem of fit between ecosystems and institutions: Ten years later. Ecol. Soc. 12, 30 (2007). 10.5751/ES-02064-120130
42
J. S. Sayles, J. A. Baggio, Social-ecological network analysis of scale mismatches in estuary watershed restoration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, E1776–E1785 (2017). 10.1073/pnas.1604405114
43
Ö. Bodin, G. Robins, R. R. J. McAllister, A. M. Guerrero, B. Crona, M. Tengö, M. Lubell, Theorizing benefits and constraints in collaborative environmental governance: A transdisciplinary social-ecological network approach for empirical investigations. Ecol. Soc. 21, 40 (2016). 10.5751/ES-08368-210140
44
L. E. Dee, S. Allesina, A. Bonn, A. Eklöf, S. D. Gaines, J. Hines, U. Jacob, E. McDonald-Madden, H. Possingham, M. Schröter, R. M. Thompson, Operationalizing network theory for ecosystem service assessments. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32, 118–130 (2017). 10.1016/j.tree.2016.10.011
45
J. A. Ekstrom, O. R. Young, Evaluating functional fit between a set of institutions and an ecosystem. Ecol. Soc. 14, 16 (2009). 10.5751/ES-02930-140216
46
K. Ingold, Network structures within policy processes: Coalitions, power, and brokerage in Swiss climate policy. Policy Stud. J. 39, 435–459 (2011). 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2011.00416.x
47
C. T. Gallemore, R. D. Prasti H, M. Moeliono, Discursive barriers and cross-scale forest governance in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. Ecol. Soc. 19, 18 (2014). 10.5751/ES-06418-190218
48
L. Jasny, J. Waggle, D. R. Fisher, An empirical examination of echo chambers in US climate policy networks. Nat. Clim. Chang. 5, 782–786 (2015). 10.1038/nclimate2666
49
M. L. Barnes, J. Lynham, K. Kalberg, P. Leung, Social networks and environmental outcomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 113, 6466–6471 (2016). 10.1073/pnas.1523245113
50
Ö. Bodin, A. Sandström, B. Crona, Collaborative networks for effective ecosystem-based management: A set of working hypotheses. Policy Stud. J. 45, 289–314 (2017). 10.1111/psj.12146
51
T. W. Valente, Network interventions. Science 337, 49–53 (2012). 10.1126/science.1217330
52
M. E. Isaac, Agricultural information exchange and organizational ties: The effect of network topology on managing agrodiversity. Agric. Syst. 109, 9–15 (2012). 10.1016/j.agsy.2012.01.011
53
F. Westley, P. Olsson, C. Folke, T. Homer-Dixon, H. Vredenburg, D. Loorbach, J. Thompson, M. Nilsson, E. Lambin, J. Sendzimir, B. Banerjee, V. Galaz, S. van der Leeuw, Tipping toward sustainability: Emerging pathways of transformation. Ambio 40, 762–780 (2011). 22338714
54
B. Uzzi, J. Spiro, Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. Am. J. Sociol. 111, 447–504 (2005). 10.1086/432782
55
A.-M. Dowd, N. Marshall, A. Fleming, E. Jakku, E. Gaillard, M. Howden, The role of networks in transforming Australian agriculture. Nat. Clim. Chang. 4, 558–563 (2014). 10.1038/nclimate2275
56
M. Granovetter, The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78, 1360–1380 (1973). 10.1086/225469
57
R. Berardo, The evolution of self-organizing communication networks in high-risk social-ecological systems. Int. J. Commons 8, 236–258 (2014). 10.18352/ijc.463
58
M. Lubell, L. Jasny, A. Hastings, Network governance for invasive species management, Conserv. Lett. 10.1111/conl.12311 (2016).
59
R. Berardo, J. T. Scholz, Self-organizing policy networks: Risk, partner selection, and cooperation in estuaries. Am. J. Pol. Sci. 54, 632–649 (2010). 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00451.x
60
R. R. J. McAllister, B. M. Taylor, B. P. Harman, Partnership networks for urban development: How structure is shaped by risk. Policy Stud. J. 43, 379–398 (2015). 10.1111/psj.12103
61
R. Grundmann, Climate change as a wicked social problem. Nat. Geosci. 9, 562–563 (2016). 10.1038/ngeo2780
62
C. L. Meek, Forms of collaboration and social fit in wildlife management: A comparison of policy networks in Alaska. Glob. Environ. Change 23, 217–228 (2013). 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.003
63
A. Boin, P. ’t Hart, Organising for effective emergency management: Lessons from research. Aust. J. Public Adm. 69, 357–371 (2010). 10.1111/j.1467-8500.2010.00694.x
64
R. Biggs, M. Schlüter, M. L. Schoon, Principles for Building Resilience: Sustaining Ecosystem Services in Social-Ecological Systems (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2014).
65
I. Chadès, T. G. Martin, S. Nicol, M. A. Burgman, H. P. Possingham, Y. M. Buckley, General rules for managing and surveying networks of pests, diseases, and endangered species. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 8323–8328 (2011). 10.1073/pnas.1016846108
66
J. S. Lansing, J. N. Kremer, Emergent properties of Balinese water temple networks: Coadaptation on a rugged fitness landscape. Am. Anthropol. 95, 97–114 (1993). 10.1525/aa.1993.95.1.02a00050
67
P. Wang, G. Robins, P. Pattison, E. Lazega, Exponential random graph models for multilevel networks. Soc. Networks 35, 96–115 (2013). 10.1016/j.socnet.2013.01.004
68
G. Hardin, The tragedy of the commons. Science 162, 1243–1248 (1968). 10.1126/science.162.3859.1243
69
E. Ostrom, Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1990).
70
Ö. Bodin, B. Crona, M. Thyresson, A.-L. Golz, M. Tengö, Conservation success as a function of good alignment of social and ecological structures and processes. Conserv. Biol. 28, 1371–1379 (2014). 10.1111/cobi.12306
71
A. M. Guerrero, Ö. Bodin, R. R. J. McAllister, K. A. Wilson, Achieving social-ecological fit through bottom-up collaborative governance: An empirical investigation. Ecol. Soc. 20, 41 (2015). 10.5751/ES-08035-200441
72
E. Treml, P. I. J. Fidelman, S. Kininmonth, J. Ekstrom, Ö. Bodin, Analyzing the (mis)fit between the institutional and ecological networks of the Indo-West Pacific. Glob. Environ. Change 31, 263–271 (2015). 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.01.012
73
A. Bergsten, D. Galafassi, Ö. Bodin, The problem of spatial fit in social-ecological systems: Detecting mismatches between ecological connectivity and land management in an urban region. Ecol. Soc. 19, 6 (2014). 10.5751/ES-06931-190406
74
A. Bergsten, A. Zetterberg, To model the landscape as a network: A practitioner’s perspective. Landsc. Urban Plan. 119, 35–43 (2013). 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.06.009
75
M. Dallimer, N. Strange, Why socio-political borders and boundaries matter in conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 132–139 (2015). 10.1016/j.tree.2014.12.004
76
S. Kininmonth, A. Bergsten, Ö. Bodin, Closing the collaborative gap: Aligning social and ecological connectivity for better management of interconnected wetlands. Ambio 44, S138–S148 (2015). 10.1007/s13280-014-0605-9
77
E. Ostrom, Polycentric systems for coping with collective action and global environmental change. Glob. Environ. Change 20, 550–557 (2010). 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.004
78
C. Wyborn, R. P. Bixler, Collaboration and nested environmental governance: Scale dependency, scale framing, and cross-scale interactions in collaborative conservation. J. Environ. Manage. 123, 58–67 (2013). 10.1016/j.jenvman.2013.03.014
79
K. Maciejewski, A. De Vos, G. S. Cumming, C. Moore, D. Biggs, Cross-scale feedbacks and scale mismatches as influences on cultural services and the resilience of protected areas. Ecol. Appl. 25, 11–23 (2015). 10.1890/13-2240.1
80
Ö. Bodin, D. Nohrstedt, Formation and performance of collaborative disaster management networks: Evidence from a Swedish wildfire response. Glob. Environ. Change 41, 183–194 (2016). 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.10.004
81
M. Lubell, G. Robins, P. Wang, Network structure and institutional complexity in an ecology of water management games. Ecol. Soc. 19, 23 (2014). 10.5751/ES-06880-190423
82
R. R. J. McAllister, C. J. Robinson, A. Brown, K. Maclean, S. Perry, S. Liu, Balancing collaboration with coordination: Contesting eradication in the Australian plant pest and disease biosecurity system. Int. J. Commons 11, 330 (2017). 10.18352/ijc.701
83
K. C. Nelson, R. F. Brummel, N. Jordan, S. Manson, Social networks in complex human and natural systems: The case of rotational grazing, weak ties, and eastern US dairy landscapes. Agric. Human Values 31, 245–259 (2014).10.1007/s10460-013-9462-6
84
K. Ingold, M. Fischer, Drivers of collaboration to mitigate climate change: An illustration of Swiss climate policy over 15 years. Glob. Environ. Change 24, 88–98 (2014). 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.11.021
85
S. M. Alexander, D. Armitage, P. J. Carrington, Ö. Bodin, Examining horizontal and vertical social ties to achieve social-ecological fit in an emerging marine reserve network. Aquat. Conserv. 10.1002/aqc.2775 (2017).
86
B. Crona, S. Gelcich, Ö. Bodin, The importance of interplay between leadership and social capital in shaping outcomes of rights-based fisheries governance. World Dev. 91, 70–83 (2017). 10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.10.006
87
S. Alexander, D. Armitage, T. Charles, Social networks and transitions to co-management in Jamaican marine reserves and small-scale fisheries. Glob. Environ. Change 35, 213–225 (2015). 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.001
88
R. S. Burt, Structural holes and good ideas. Am. J. Sociol. 110, 349–399 (2004). 10.1086/421787
89
P. Olsson, V. Galaz, W. J. Boonstra, Sustainability transformations: A resilience perspective. Ecol. Soc. 19, 1 (2014). 10.5751/ES-06799-190401
90
M. Barnes, K. Kalberg, M. Pan, P. Leung, When is brokerage negatively associated with economic benefits? Ethnic diversity, competition, and common-pool resources. Soc. Networks 45, 55–65 (2016). 10.1016/j.socnet.2015.11.004
91
A. Sandström, C. Rova, Adaptive co-management networks: A comparative analysis of two fishery conservation areas in Sweden. Ecol. Soc. 15, 14 (2010). 10.5751/ES-03531-150314
92
J. Shore, E. Bernstein, D. Lazer, Facts and figuring: An experimental investigation of network structure and performance in information and solution spaces. Organ. Sci. 26, 1432–1446 (2015). 10.1287/orsc.2015.0980
93
K. G. Provan, P. Kenis, Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 18, 229–252 (2007). 10.1093/jopart/mum015
94
K. Vance-Borland, J. Holley, Conservation stakeholder network mapping, analysis, and weaving. Conserv. Lett. 4, 278–288 (2011). 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00176.x
95
D. G. Rand, S. Arbesman, N. A. Christakis, Dynamic social networks promote cooperation in experiments with humans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 19193–19198 (2011). 10.1073/pnas.1108243108
96
R. Berardo, M. Lubell, Understanding what shapes a polycentric governance system. Public Adm. Rev. 76, 738–751 (2016). 10.1111/puar.12532
97
M. D. McGinnis, Networks of adjacent action situations in polycentric governance. Policy Stud. J. 39, 51–78 (2011). 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00396.x
98
M. Lubell, J. M. Mewhirter, R. Berardo, J. T. Scholz, Transaction costs and the perceived effectiveness of complex institutional systems. Public Adm. Rev. 10.1111/puar.12622 (2016).
99
T. A. Scott, C. W. Thomas, Winners and losers in the ecology of games: Network position, connectivity, and the benefits of collaborative governance regimes. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 31, 59 (2017). 10.1093/jopart/mux009
100
R. Plummer, J. Baird, A. Dzyundzyak, D. Armitage, Ö. Bodin, L. Schultz, Is adaptive co-management delivering? Examining relationships between collaboration, learning and outcomes in UNESCO biosphere reserves. Ecol. Econ. 140, 79–88 (2017). 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.04.028
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Science
Volume 357 • Issue 6352 • 18 August 2017
Copyright
Copyright © 2017 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
This is an article distributed under the terms of the Science Journals Default License.
Authors
Funding Information
http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001862Swedish Research Council Formas: award335228, 2016-01137
