Advertisement

Societal Response, Governance, and Managing Ecosystem Service Risks

  • Barbara SchröterEmail author
  • Claas Meyer
  • Carsten Mann
  • Claudia Sattler
Chapter

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.

Keywords

Actors Institutions Hierarchies Markets Community management Cooperation Hybrid governance forms Socio-ecological systems 

References

  1. 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. 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. 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. 4.
    Vatn A. An institutional analysis of payments for environmental services. Ecol Econ. 2010;69:1245–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Loft L, Mann C, Hansjürgens B. Challenges in ecosystem services governance: multi-levels, multi-actors, multi-rationalities. Ecosyst Serv. 2015;16:150–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Farley J, Costanza R. Payments for ecosystem services: from local to global. Ecol Econ. 2010;69(11):2060–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carlsson LG, Sandström AC. Network governance of the commons. Int J Commons. 2008;2(1):33–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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. 11.
    Putz FE, Redford KH. Dangers of carbon-based conservation. Glob Environ Chang. 2009;19:400–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Young OR. The institutional dimensions of environmental change: fit, interplay, and scale. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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. 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. 15.
    Folke C, Hahn T, Olsson P, Norberg J. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2005;30(1):441–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Alberti A, Bertucci G. Replicating innovations in governance: an overview. New York: United Nations Publication; 2006.Google Scholar
  19. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara Schröter
    • 1
    Email author
  • Claas Meyer
    • 1
  • Carsten Mann
    • 2
  • Claudia Sattler
    • 1
  1. 1.Working Group “Governance of Ecosystem Services”Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF)MünchebergGermany
  2. 2.Department of Sustainable Forest Resource EconomicsEberswalde University for Sustainable DevelopmentEberswaldeGermany

Personalised recommendations