Elsevier

Global Environmental Change

Volume 29, November 2014, Pages 105-117
Global Environmental Change

Measuring good governance for complex ecosystems: Perceptions of coral reef-dependent communities in the Caribbean

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.08.004Get rights and content

Highlights

  • We analyse empirical evidence linking community perceptions and reef governance.

  • Resource user perceptions form two themes: institutional acceptance and engagement.

  • Governance structures that support positive perceptions are identified.

  • Novel governance metrics contribute to understanding institutional fit.

  • Governance perceptions have implications for managers aiming to change user behaviour.

Abstract

Good governance is widely seen as a prerequisite for effective natural resources management in the context of environmental decline and increasing anthropogenic pressures. Few studies quantitatively examine governance principles, or explore links between perceptions of community members and the governance that shapes their behaviour. Comparative work, spanning multiple sites and contexts, is rare. This paper measures community members’ perceptions of governance in twelve coral reef-dependent communities across four countries in the Wider Caribbean Region. In relation to established principles of ‘good governance’, multiple correspondence analysis indicates that perceptions can be reliably described using two themes, institutional acceptance and engagement. These explain over 50% of variation in individual perceptions. These measurable themes provide an indication of the social fit of governance arrangements, and have implications for expected outcomes, including support for management and compliance with regulations. Cluster analysis provides unique empirical evidence linking structural characteristics of governance to community perceptions; four of five good governance indicators were present in communities with positive perceptions. Results suggest a combination of supportive structures and processes are necessary to achieve governance systems positively perceived by community members. Findings are relevant to those seeking to design management systems and governance structures that are appropriate to local circumstances and will engender stakeholder support.

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)

  • L. Evans et al.

    Assessing the impact of fisheries co-management interventions in developing countries: a meta-analysis

    J. Environ. Manage.

    (2011)
  • L.S. Evans

    Ecological knowledge interactions in marine governance in Kenya

    Ocean Coast. Manag.

    (2010)
  • L. Fanning et al.

    Applying the large marine ecosystem (LME) governance framework in the Wider Caribbean Region

    Mar. Policy

    (2013)
  • L. Fanning et al.

    A large marine ecosystem governance framework

    Mar. Policy

    (2007)
  • N.A. Graham et al.

    Coral reefs as novel ecosystems: embracing new futures

    Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.

    (2014)
  • T.W. Hartley

    Fishery management as a governance network: examples from the Gulf of Maine and the potential for communication network analysis research in fisheries

    Mar. Policy

    (2010)
  • G. Hønneland

    Compliance in the Barents Sea fisheries. How fishermen account for conformity with rules

    Mar. Policy

    (2000)
  • T.P. Hughes et al.

    Rising to the challenge of sustaining coral reef resilience

    Trends Ecol. Evol.

    (2010)
  • S. Jentoft

    Legitimacy and disappointment in fisheries management

    Mar. Policy

    (2000)
  • S. Jentoft

    Limits of governability: institutional implications for fisheries and coastal governance

    Mar. Policy

    (2007)
  • S. Jentoft et al.

    Social theory and fisheries co-management

    Mar. Policy

    (1998)
  • R.C. Korda et al.

    Fishery decline in Utila: disentangling the web of governance

    Mar. Policy

    (2008)
  • M. Lockwood

    Good governance for terrestrial protected areas: a framework, principles and performance outcomes

    J. Environ. Manage.

    (2010)
  • M. Lockwood et al.

    Marine biodiversity conservation governance and management: regime requirements for global environmental change

    Ocean Coast. Manag.

    (2012)
  • S. Mackinson et al.

    Engaging stakeholders in fisheries and marine research

    Mar. Policy

    (2011)
  • R. Mahon et al.

    A governance perspective on the large marine ecosystem approach

    Mar. Policy

    (2009)
  • F. Moberg et al.

    Ecosystem services of the tropical seascape: interactions, substitutions and restoration

    Ocean Coast. Manag.

    (2003)
  • P.J. Mumby et al.

    Coral reef management and conservation in light of rapidly evolving ecological paradigms

    Trends Ecol. Evol.

    (2008)
  • C. Pita et al.

    Stakeholders’ participation in the fisheries management decision-making process: Fishers’ perceptions of participation

    Mar. Policy

    (2010)
  • R. Plummer et al.

    A resilience-based framework for evaluating adaptive co-management: linking ecology, economics and society in a complex world

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2007)
  • R. Pomeroy et al.

    Comparative analysis of coastal resource co-management in the Caribbean

    Ocean Coast. Manag.

    (2004)
  • R.S. Pomeroy et al.

    The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial planning process

    Mar. Policy

    (2008)
  • R.S. Pomeroy et al.

    Conditions affecting the success of fisheries co-management: lessons from Asia

    Mar. Policy

    (2001)
  • V.N. Agostini et al.

    Marine Zoning in Saint Kitts and Nevis: A Path Towards Sustainable Management of Marine Resources

    (2010)
  • L. Alvarez-Filip et al.

    Region-wide temporal and spatial variation in Caribbean reef architecture: is coral cover the whole story?

    Glob. Chang. Biol.

    (2011)
  • J.M. Anderies et al.

    A framework to analyze the robustness of social–ecological systems from an institutional perspective

    Ecol. Soc.

    (2004)
  • D. Armitage et al.

    Adaptive Co-management: Collaboration, Learning, and Multi-level Governance

    (2007)
  • M. Bavinck et al.

    Current governance principles

  • M. Bavinck et al.

    Challenges and concerns revisited

  • F. Berkes

    Adaptive co-management and complexity: exploring the many faces of co-management

  • F. Biermann et al.

    Earth system governance: a research framework

    Int. Environ. Agreem. Polit. Law Econ.

    (2010)
  • Ö. Bodin et al.

    Social networks in natural resource management: what is there to learn from a structural perspective?

    Ecol. Soc.

    (2006)
  • S. Brune et al.

    Vulnerability and Perceptions in the Coastal Communities of Belize: Case Study of San Pedro, Placencia and Port Loyola. WWF-CA – NOAA – EAP Zamorano

    (2008)
  • L. Bunce et al.

    Socioeconomic Manual for Coral Reef Management

    (2000)
  • L. Burke et al.

    Reefs at Risk Revisited

    (2011)
  • CARSEA

    Caribbean Sea Ecosystem Assessment (CARSEA). A sub-global component of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA)

  • D. Cash et al.

    Scale and cross-scale dynamics: governance and information in a multilevel world

    Ecol. Soc.

    (2006)
  • R. Chuenpagdee

    Interactive governance for marine conservation: an illustration

    Bull. Mar. Sci.

    (2011)
  • J.E. Cinner et al.

    Comanagement of coral reef social–ecological systems

    Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A.

    (2012)
  • E. Cooper et al.

    Coastal Capital: Belize. The Economic Contribution of Belize's Coral Reefs and Mangroves

    (2009)
  • Cited by (68)

    • The quality of fisheries governance assessed using a participatory, multi-criteria framework: A case study from Murcia, Spain

      2021, Marine Policy
      Citation 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].

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text