Measuring good governance for complex ecosystems: Perceptions of coral reef-dependent communities in the Caribbean
Introduction
Globally, increasing pressures on natural resources present management challenges, particularly for complex and dynamic social-ecological systems. Many symptoms of environmental decline have been ultimately attributed to poor governance. This has failed to limit anthropogenic impacts and constrained effective management (Hughes et al., 2010, Mora et al., 2009). With environmental pressures exacerbated by the threat of climate change, there is demand for improved governance solutions (Cash et al., 2006). Governance is defined here as the structures and processes that determine how decisions are made, power is exercised and responsibilities allocated (Graham et al., 2003). Contemporary thinking recognises resource governance as broader than government, involving both formal and informal processes (Mahon et al., 2009). Governance not only comprises rules and regulations; it also includes interactions among many actors in society beyond government, including civil society and the private sector (Kooiman et al., 2005).
Governance ‘quality’ can be measured against articulated standards of ‘good governance’. This is important if areas for improvement are to be identified (Chuenpagdee, 2011). To date, effectiveness has commonly only been inferred via measurement of ecological, social, or economic outcomes under particular governance arrangements (Cinner et al., 2012a, Evans et al., 2011, Gutiérrez et al., 2011). However, there are compelling reasons to assess governance process as well as outcomes, as these are expected to improve the quality of decision-making and implementation (Mahon et al., 2009, Rauschmayer et al., 2009). A range of procedural principles expected to support more effective management have been proposed (Armitage et al., 2007, Biermann, 2007, Graham et al., 2003, Kooiman et al., 2005, Lockwood, 2010, Ostrom, 1990), and empirical studies have shown how particular governance principles influence outcomes of resource management (e.g. transparency, Mora et al., 2009; participation, Persha et al., 2011). Developments in the fields of common pool resource governance, co-management and institutional analysis have also contributed to an understanding of the structural characteristics of governance systems likely to facilitate or inhibit the application of good governance principles (Agrawal, 2001, Anderies et al., 2004, Armitage et al., 2007, Fanning et al., 2013, Imperial and Yandle, 2005, Ostrom, 1990).
Despite increasing interest in natural resource governance, few studies assess how those being governed perceive the application of governance principles. These perceptions are important, as governance success relies to a high degree on the perceived fit and acceptance of institutions by resource users and the public (DeCaro and Stokes, 2013). Community perceptions of governance and management arrangements can influence resource use behaviour (Gelcich et al., 2008, Gelcich et al., 2005, McClanahan et al., 2005, Warner and Pomeroy, 2012). Perceptions have potential implications for willingness to engage in decision-making, levels of support for management, and compliance with regulations (Mora et al., 2009, Raakjær Nielsen and Mathiesen, 2003). Measuring perceptions can indicate the degree to which governance systems are endorsed by community members (DeCaro and Stokes, 2013). A number of studies explore community perceptions of particular governance principles (e.g. participation or legitimacy) and their implications for resource management (Dalton et al., 2012, Pita et al., 2010, Raakjær Nielsen and Mathiesen, 2003). However, no studies to date have examined community members’ perceptions in relation to a wide range of procedural principles. Furthermore, none have explored links between these perceptions and structural arrangements across multiple sites and social-ecological contexts. Such studies are needed to further understand the role of governance structures and processes in shaping relationships between governing systems and those governed.
While methods for evaluating the health of ecological, social or economic systems are relatively well established, on-going monitoring of governance structures and processes is comparatively rare, inhibiting proactive improvement (Dale et al., 2013, Plummer and Armitage, 2007). Qualitative research remains essential to the understanding of complex governance systems, but quantitative indicators of governance quality can support monitoring and aid diagnosis of governance weaknesses (Kaufmann et al., 2000). Previous studies largely comprise either comparative assessments at national scale, which may mask local differences, or detailed case studies, which make generalisation difficult (Engle and Lemos, 2010). Recent work suggests that context is critical, requiring examination of combinations of variables associated with positive or negative outcomes (Armitage et al., 2007, Basurto et al., 2013). This paper seeks to capture both local and national differences. By studying three communities within each of four countries in the Wider Caribbean Region, we explore differences within and between countries in a diverse region, highlighting important implications for coral reef managers. This knowledge can help design institutions appropriate to both the environmental problems to be addressed and the local circumstances (DeCaro and Stokes, 2013, Ostrom, 2007).
The aim of this study is to measure community perceptions of good governance principles and assess their relationship to governance structures in twelve coral reef-dependent sites across four countries. The specific objectives were to: (1) assess perceptions of reef governance in relation to established ‘good governance’ principles; (2) identify any underlying themes driving differences in perceptions of principles; and (3) characterise governance structures associated with different perceptions.
A wide variety of frameworks informing the design of natural resource governance arrangements have been proposed. These fall into three broad categories. First, ‘substantial’ principles such as efficiency, equity, and sustainability direct the development of governance goals and outcomes (Agrawal, 2001, Bavinck and Chuenpagdee, 2005, Mahon et al., 2005, Ostrom, 2007). Second, procedural principles encompass the rules, norms and values that guide decision-making processes (Bavinck et al., 2005). Third, a number of frameworks provide recommendations for structural characteristics of institutional arrangements (Agrawal, 2001, Fanning et al., 2007, Ostrom, 1990, Pomeroy, 2007). The latter two are the focus of this paper, which explores perceptions of procedural principles (hereafter ‘principles’), and the structural characteristics that may facilitate their implementation. Relevant developments in governance theory are reviewed in the following sections, and concepts underpinning the metrics used in this study are discussed.
Effective governance is ultimately judged on environmental and social outcomes, but the considerable time lag between governance processes and their outcomes means ‘good governance’ indicators are required in the early stages. Though the correspondence between good governance and good outcomes is an active area of research, this relationship is complex and remains largely undefined. Good governance principles provide a normative basis to guide the processes through which governance goals are developed and achieved (Kooiman et al., 2005, Lockwood, 2010). In doing so, they provide a ‘conceptual yardstick’ against which to evaluate the quality of governance (Kooiman et al., 2005). The application of these principles is expected to lead to improved management of marine resources. Procedural principles are particularly critical to contemporary theories of governance, which focus on interactions and processes rather than prescribing goals (Kooiman et al., 2005, Ostrom, 2007). Principles set standards for how interactions among components of the governance system, i.e. within and between the ‘governing system’ and the social ‘system-to-be-governed’, are undertaken. Measurement of their application in different governance systems must therefore consider the perspective of those being governed.
Research has increasingly examined good governance principles, both in general (e.g. Kaufmann et al., 2010), and specifically in relation to natural resources management and protected areas (Graham et al., 2003, Kooiman et al., 2005, Jentoft et al., 2007, Biermann et al., 2010, Lockwood, 2010, Lockwood et al., 2012). Such principles are thought to be relevant across the broad range of circumstances and diverse governance arrangements under which natural resources are managed (Graham et al., 2003). This study draws on seven principles of good governance outlined specifically in relation to natural resources management: legitimacy, transparency, accountability, inclusiveness, fairness, connectivity and resilience (Lockwood, 2010; Table 1). This framework is based on literature review, expert panel exercises and field trials, thus it shares common principles with many other governance frameworks (e.g. Armitage et al., 2007, Biermann, 2007, Graham et al., 2003, Kooiman et al., 2005). For each principle, Lockwood (2010) proposes a series of corresponding ‘performance outcomes’ that can be used to identify good governance. In this study we consider one performance outcome for each principle (Table 1), selecting those likely to be observable and easily understood by community members.
In recent decades, efforts to identify governance structures that support sustainable, adaptive management of marine ecosystems have intensified (Agrawal, 2001, Anderies et al., 2004, Armitage et al., 2007, Fanning et al., 2013, Imperial and Yandle, 2005, Ostrom, 1990). Conventional approaches are perceived as having failed to manage common pool resources sustainably, neglecting to account for uncertainty, address issues of equity, and engender support of stakeholders (Costanza, 1998, Gutiérrez et al., 2011, Ostrom, 2007). In response, hierarchical modes of governance, in which resources are managed primarily through formal institutions established by nation states, have moved towards more inclusive approaches. These emphasise devolution or decentralisation of management, participation of stakeholders, and wider distribution of decision-making power (Armitage et al., 2007, Folke et al., 2005, Lockwood, 2010). Co-management approaches, in which power and responsibility are shared between government and local stakeholders, have been central to this trend (Berkes, 2007).
Empirical studies have examined the extent to which governance arrangements reflect guidance for effective institutional design, and the implications for governance outcomes (e.g. Cinner et al., 2012a, Cinner et al., 2012b, Gelcich et al., 2006). However, few studies have quantitatively examined the role of governance structures in facilitating the implementation of ‘good governance’ principles. We address this by exploring relationships between governance structures and community members’ perceptions of principles among study sites. Research investigating characteristics conducive to the establishment and maintenance of sustainable institutions has moved towards a diagnostic approach, seeking to understand successful combinations of structural and contextual factors (Basurto, 2013, Ostrom, 2007, Ostrom, 2009). Though this study was not designed based on Ostrom's (2007) diagnostic framework for analysis of social-ecological systems, we contribute to operationalising part of the framework corresponding to five key characteristics of the governance system (GS) (Table 2), while the governance principles discussed (Section 1.1.1) are relevant to the interactions (I) component of the framework. Selection of indicators was based on a review of relevant literature and provides a point of departure for comparison across study location.
Section snippets
Marine resource governance in the Caribbean
Coral reefs provide a relevant context for investigating governance quality as their exceptionally high biodiversity occurs in nearshore environments accessible to large coastal populations (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). As common pool resources, they provide ecosystem services that contribute to the wellbeing of millions of people, supporting productive fisheries, tourism, coastal defence, and cultural values (Moberg and Rönnbäck, 2003). Approximately 10% of the world's coral reef resources
Data collection
Collection of data on perceptions of reef governance formed part of a household survey (n = 871) using face-to-face semi-structured interviews undertaken in twelve communities between February 2011 and August 2012 (Table 4). The target sample in each community included up to 50 direct reef-resource users, and a minimum of 25 randomly selected community members, who were in many cases considered to be indirect resource users. Based on their level of dependency on reefs in the Caribbean, two groups
Measuring perceptions of good governance principles
Valid responses recorded during interviews varied from 62% to 99% of interviewees for each statement. Cronbach's reliability analysis showed that responses to all seven questions formed a reliable scale of governance perceptions (α = 0.74), which would not have been improved by removing any of the questions from the analysis (Table 5).
In total, respondents agreed with 34–68% of all statements in each community (Table 5). The lowest overall agreement was in the community of Holetown in Barbados,
Measuring perceptions of good governance principles
This study uniquely contributes to the current debate on good governance for effective natural resource management by developing metrics for community perceptions of the application of governance principles. Responses formed a coherent scale across 12 Caribbean communities. Diverse opinions on the application of governance principles were expressed both within and between the study communities. Opinions differed even where structural arrangements for coral reef governance were the same,
Conclusion
Caribbean coral reefs and the communities dependent on them are among many social-ecological systems facing increasing threats in the context of global environmental change and growing demand for resources. Improved governance arrangements are essential if the causes of environmental decline are to be addressed and effective responses made to current and future threats. This study explored community members’ perceptions of good governance principles, and developed a robust scale to measure
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the generosity and hospitality of the Caribbean communities who gave their time for interviews, and numerous partners and collaborators in each country who supported the research team. D Gill, M Phillips, R Ford, S Bonilla, S Brune, S Gardiner, J Pollock, L Chicas, C Guerrero, C Barrow and C Hinds assisted with data collection and data entry. Thanks to N Polunin for useful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript, and to three anonymous reviewers, whose comments
References (112)
Common property institutions and sustainable governance of resources
World Dev.
(2001)Linking multi-level governance to local common-pool resource theory using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis: insights from twenty years of biodiversity conservation in Costa Rica
Global Environ. Chang.
(2013)- et al.
The social–ecological system framework as a knowledge classificatory system for benthic small-scale fisheries
Global Environ. Chang.
(2013) - et al.
Power struggle, dispute and alliance over local resources: analyzing “democratic” decentralization of natural resources through the lenses of Africa inland fisheries
World Dev.
(2009) - et al.
Are we adapting to climate change?
Global Environ. Chang.
(2011) “Earth system governance” as a crosscutting theme of global change research
Global Environ. Chang.
(2007)Coral reefs: building a better crystal ball
Curr. Biol.
(2013)Marine protected areas: a tool for integrated coastal management in Belize
Ocean Coast. Manag.
(2005)- et al.
Institutional designs of customary fisheries management arrangements in Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and Mexico
Mar. Policy
(2012) - et al.
Unpacking governance: building adaptive capacity to climate change of river basins in Brazil
Global Environ. Chang.
(2010)
Assessing the impact of fisheries co-management interventions in developing countries: a meta-analysis
J. Environ. Manage.
Ecological knowledge interactions in marine governance in Kenya
Ocean Coast. Manag.
Applying the large marine ecosystem (LME) governance framework in the Wider Caribbean Region
Mar. Policy
A large marine ecosystem governance framework
Mar. Policy
Coral reefs as novel ecosystems: embracing new futures
Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.
Fishery management as a governance network: examples from the Gulf of Maine and the potential for communication network analysis research in fisheries
Mar. Policy
Compliance in the Barents Sea fisheries. How fishermen account for conformity with rules
Mar. Policy
Rising to the challenge of sustaining coral reef resilience
Trends Ecol. Evol.
Legitimacy and disappointment in fisheries management
Mar. Policy
Limits of governability: institutional implications for fisheries and coastal governance
Mar. Policy
Social theory and fisheries co-management
Mar. Policy
Fishery decline in Utila: disentangling the web of governance
Mar. Policy
Good governance for terrestrial protected areas: a framework, principles and performance outcomes
J. Environ. Manage.
Marine biodiversity conservation governance and management: regime requirements for global environmental change
Ocean Coast. Manag.
Engaging stakeholders in fisheries and marine research
Mar. Policy
A governance perspective on the large marine ecosystem approach
Mar. Policy
Ecosystem services of the tropical seascape: interactions, substitutions and restoration
Ocean Coast. Manag.
Coral reef management and conservation in light of rapidly evolving ecological paradigms
Trends Ecol. Evol.
Stakeholders’ participation in the fisheries management decision-making process: Fishers’ perceptions of participation
Mar. Policy
A resilience-based framework for evaluating adaptive co-management: linking ecology, economics and society in a complex world
Ecol. Econ.
Comparative analysis of coastal resource co-management in the Caribbean
Ocean Coast. Manag.
The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process
Mar. Policy
Conditions affecting the success of fisheries co-management: lessons from Asia
Mar. Policy
Marine Zoning in Saint Kitts and Nevis: A Path Towards Sustainable Management of Marine Resources
Region-wide temporal and spatial variation in Caribbean reef architecture: is coral cover the whole story?
Glob. Chang. Biol.
A framework to analyze the robustness of social–ecological systems from an institutional perspective
Ecol. Soc.
Adaptive Co-management: Collaboration, Learning, and Multi-level Governance
Current governance principles
Challenges and concerns revisited
Adaptive co-management and complexity: exploring the many faces of co-management
Earth system governance: a research framework
Int. Environ. Agreem. Polit. Law Econ.
Social networks in natural resource management: what is there to learn from a structural perspective?
Ecol. Soc.
Vulnerability and Perceptions in the Coastal Communities of Belize: Case Study of San Pedro, Placencia and Port Loyola. WWF-CA – NOAA – EAP Zamorano
Socioeconomic Manual for Coral Reef Management
Reefs at Risk Revisited
Caribbean Sea Ecosystem Assessment (CARSEA). A sub-global component of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA)
Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world
Ecol. Soc.
Interactive governance for marine conservation: an illustration
Bull. Mar. Sci.
Comanagement of coral reef social–ecological systems
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.
Coastal Capital: Belize. The Economic Contribution of Belize's Coral Reefs and Mangroves
Cited by (68)
Reservoir fisheries governance quality index: Development and validation
2024, Ecological IndicatorsClimate change impacts outweigh conservation efforts in coral reefs that are highly exposed to thermal stresses in Zanzibar, Tanzania
2023, Ocean and Coastal ManagementThe quality of fisheries governance assessed using a participatory, multi-criteria framework: A case study from Murcia, Spain
2021, Marine PolicyCitation Excerpt :Governance is defined here as the structures and processes (formal and informal) that determine how decision-making occurs, power is shared, and responsibility is allocated [13–15]. Participatory governance emphasizes democratic engagement and deliberative processes steering the complex set of interactions among stakeholders, with different needs, demands, and interests, whose activities are often managed by multiple agencies and regulations [16,17]. Interactive [18–20] and more recently, ethical [15,21–24] governance frameworks suggest that fishery resources should be managed with the input of not only the government (at all appropriate levels), but also the private sector and civil society to improve fisheries sustainability [5,12,13].