Identifying governance strategies that effectively support ecosystem services, resource sustainability, and biodiversity

Abstract

Conservation scientists, national governments, and international conservation groups seek to devise, and implement, governance strategies that mitigate human impact on the environment. However, few studies to date have systematically investigated the performance of different systems of governance in achieving successful conservation outcomes. Here, we use a newly-developed analytic framework to conduct analyses of a suite of case studies, linking different governance strategies to standardized scores for delivering ecosystem services, achieving sustainable use of natural resources, and conserving biodiversity, at both local and international levels. Our results: (i) confirm the benefits of adaptive management; and (ii) reveal strong associations for the role of leadership. Our work provides a critical step toward implementing empirically justified governance strategies that are capable of improving the management of human-altered environments, with benefits for both biodiversity and people.

Fig. 1.

Conceptual framework for analyzing the performance of different governance strategies. (A) The framework grouped variables into four main categories: (i) initial capacity; (ii) management priorities; (iii) main processes and tools aimed at those priorities; and (iv) the economic, societal, and ecological impacts of these governance strategies. Impacts were subsequently assessed and procedures were evaluated (no variables were included for this category). (B) For statistical analyses, variables were chosen that represented the logical structure of the framework. IT models were then used to examine which (combination of) variables from categories (i)–(iii) best explained variation in three environmental response variables of category (iv): provision of ecosystem services; sustainability of resource use; and conservation of biodiversity. Potential associations with the three priority-setting variables were analyzed separately, for reasons explained in Materials and Methods. For details on variable selection, see Materials and Methods, Table S2, and Table S3, and for results, see main text, Fig. 2, and Table S4.

Fig. 2.

Key associations between governance strategies and three environmental response variables. (A) Provision of ecosystem services. (B) Sustainability of resource use. (C) Conservation of biodiversity. Based on the independent assessment of case studies (Materials and Methods), variables were assigned along a three- or five-point scale, with all three environmental response variables ranging from −2 for “very low” status or “>10% decrease in 10 years” as a trend, to +2 for “very high” status or “>10% increase in 10 years” as a trend. Although statistical analyses were conducted separately for local (black open symbols and black lines) and international (gray open symbols and gray lines) case studies (see main text and Materials and Methods), some panels show data for both levels of scale to illustrate consistency of patterns. Putative relationships at the local scale were examined in IT models using multiple predictor variables, and results served as candidate hypotheses for targeted testing of associations at international level (for results, see main text). Symbol size is proportional to the number of overlapping data points (i.e., case studies), some adjacent data points are jittered slightly for clarity, and lines are best fits from univariate linear regressions. Two local case studies, which had been omitted from IT models because of missing data, are included in plots for completeness, where appropriate. For a schematic illustration of the underlying analytic framework, see Fig. 1.