Societal Response, Governance, and Managing Ecosystem Service Risks
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.
KeywordsActors Institutions Hierarchies Markets Community management Cooperation Hybrid governance forms Socio-ecological systems
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 18.Alberti A, Bertucci G. Replicating innovations in governance: an overview. New York: United Nations Publication; 2006.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
- 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.