Skip to main content

Societal Response, Governance, and Managing Ecosystem Service Risks

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Atlas of Ecosystem Services

Abstract

In response to the risks ecosystems and ecosystem services (ES) are exposed to, and to guarantee resilience of socio-ecological systems in the long run, human beings have to react; they have to employ certain strategies to direct developments. There are multiple questions to ask: how should they act in a transformative way? How do individuals and organisations structure and coordinate their actions to handel ES risk management? How does collective action look like? Which policy instruments and strategies are used? These questions can be answered by having a look at the governance of ecosystem services. This chapter will introduce the idea of governance and its institutional background. Moreover, it will explain different governance models: hierarchies, markets, and community management - based on cooperation, and networks. Examples from case studies demonstrate that in reality, innovative management approaches are often hybrids of the governance models. To illustrate the examples, we focus on the role of actors and institutions. We conclude by giving attention to the challenges of governance to acheiving a resilient ES management.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Rival L, Muradian R. Introduction: governing the provision of ecosystem services. In: Muradian R, Rival L, editors. Governing the provision of ecosystem services. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 2013. p. 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Vatn A. Environmental governance – the aspect of coordination. In: Brousseau E, Dedeurwaerdere T, Jouvet P-A, Willinger M, editors. Governing global environmental commons: institutions, markets, social preferences and political games. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2012. p. 134.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ménard C. Hybrid modes of organization. Alliances, joint ventures, networks, and other ‘strange’ animals. In: Gibbons R, Roberts J, editors. The handbook of organizational economics. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2012. p. 1066–108.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Vatn A. An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ. 2010;69:1245–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Borrás S, Edler J. The governance of change in socio-technical and innovation systems: three pillars for a conceptual framework. In: The governance of innovation and socio-technical systems: explaining change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Eden L, Hampson FO. Clubs are trump: the formation of international regimes in the absence of a hegemon. In: Hollingsworth JR, Boyer R, editors. Contemporary capitalism: the embeddedness of institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997. p. 361–94.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Loft L, Mann C, Hansjürgens B. Challenges in ecosystem services governance: multi-levels, multi-actors, multi-rationalities. Ecosyst Serv. 2015;16:150–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Farley J, Costanza R. Payments for ecosystem services: from local to global. Ecol Econ. 2010;69(11):2060–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Carlsson LG, Sandström AC. Network governance of the commons. Int J Commons. 2008;2(1):33–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Kiser LL, Ostrom E. The three worlds of action: a metatheoretical synthesis of institutional approaches. In: Ostrom E, editor. Strategies of political inquiry. Beverly Hills: Sage; 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Putz FE, Redford KH. Dangers of carbon-based conservation. Glob Environ Chang. 2009;19:400–1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Young OR. The institutional dimensions of environmental change: fit, interplay, and scale. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2002.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Theesfeld I, Schleyer C, Callois JM, Aznar O. Ex-ante policy assessment from an institutional perspective. A procedure for institutional compatibility assessment (PICA). Berlin: Humboldt University Berlin, Department of Agricultural Economics; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Costanza R, Ostrom E, Low BS, Wilson J. Ecosystems and human systems: a framework for exploring the linkages. In: Costanza R, Low BS, Ostrom E, Wilson J, editors. Institutions, ecosystems, and sustainability. London: CRC Press; 2001. p. 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2005;30(1):441–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Newig J, Kochskämper E, Challies E, Jager NW. Exploring governance learning: how policymakers draw on evidence, experience and intuition in designing participatory flood risk planning. Environ Sci Pol. 2015;55:353–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ekroos J, Leventon J, Fischer J, Newig J, Smith HG. Embedding evidence on conservation interventions within a context of multilevel governance. Conserv Lett. 2017;10(1):139–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Alberti A, Bertucci G. Replicating innovations in governance: an overview. New York: United Nations Publication; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M, Stauffacher M, Martens P, Moll P, et al. Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci. 2012;7(1):25–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Schröter B, Sessin-Dilascio K, Meyer C, Matzdorf B, Sattler C, Meyer A, et al. Multi-level governance through adaptive co-management: conflict resolution in a Brazilian state park. Ecol Process. 2014;3:6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Sattler C, Schröter B. Living by strict rules: co-management as a way to prevent eviction from a conservation area – the case of the Marujá Community in Brazil. Solutions. 2015;6:60–8.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sattler C, Schröter B, Meyer A, Giersch G, Meyer C, Matzdorf B. Multi-level governance in community-based environmental management: a case study comparison from Latin America. Ecol Soc. 2016;21(4):24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Matzdorf B, Biedermann C, Meyer C, Nicolaus K, Sattler C, Schomers S. Paying for green? Payments for ecosystem services in practice. Successful examples of PES from Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States. Müncheberg; 2014. http://www.civiland-zalf.org/download/PayingforGreen_PESinpractice.pdf. Accessed 4 Nov 2017.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Barbara Schröter .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Schröter, B., Meyer, C., Mann, C., Sattler, C. (2019). Societal Response, Governance, and Managing Ecosystem Service Risks. In: Schröter, M., Bonn, A., Klotz, S., Seppelt, R., Baessler, C. (eds) Atlas of Ecosystem Services. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96229-0_50

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics