Philanthropic foundations as agents of environmental governance:a research agenda

Philanthropic foundations play increasingly prominent roles in the environmental arena, yet remain largely under the radar of environmental governance scholars. We build on the small body of existing research on foundations in environmental governance to outline a research agenda on foundations as agents of environmental governance. The agenda identifies current understandings, debates, and research gaps related to three themes: 1) the roles foundations perform in environmental governance, 2) the outcomes of environmental philanthropy, and 3) the sources of foundation legitimacy. We call for more systematic and empirical research using diverse theoretical perspectives and methodological approaches. This research agenda will contribute to literature on agency in environmental governance by providing a more comprehensive picture of who governs the environment and how. Coming at a time when foundations are facing growing public scrutiny, it can also inform contemporary debates and offer practical insights for effective and equitable environmental philanthropy

Embracing conceptual diversity to integrate power and institutional analysis: Introducing a relational typology

Within environmental governance scholarship, an increasing interest in integrating the study of power with institutional analysis is generating novel theoretical and empirical perspectives for understanding human-environment relationships. The array of different approaches employed to integrate power into institutionalist work promises a range of insights. However, building a cohesive research agenda depends on efforts to grapple with the conceptual and theoretical diversity that characterizes the study of power. To this end, we introduce a typology of relationships between power and institutions. The typology brings together diverse conceptualizations of power and institutions within a common analytical space and situates them around two overarching research questions: How does power shape institutions? And how do institutions shape power? The structure of the typology aids researchers in generating specific, operationalizable research questions within the broader research agenda on power and institutions. In the paper, we describe the theoretical basis for the development of the typology, which draws on political ecology and Bloomington school institutionalism. Then, we employ the typology to organize a review of environmental governance literature on power and institutions. This exercise demonstrates the utility of the typology not only for organizing the currently disjointed body of work on power and institutions but also for identifying new research questions. Furthermore, it facilitates discussions about deeper ontological, epistemological, and methodological challenges associated with bringing together different theoretical approaches. Ultimately, the typology defines pathways for integrating two important disciplines studying environmental governance, political ecology and institutionalism, and facilitates the accumulation of a coherent body of knowledge

Opening the black box of conservation philanthropy: A co-produced research agenda on private foundations in marine conservation

In the ‘new Gilded Age’ of mega-wealth and big philanthropy, academics are not paying enough attention to private foundations. Mirroring upward trends in philanthropy broadly, marine conservation philanthropy has more than doubled in recent years, reaching virtually every globally salient marine conservation issue in all corners of the planet. This paper argues that marine conservation philanthropy warrants a dedicated research agenda because private foundations are prominent, unique, and under-studied actors seeking to shape the future of a “frontier” space. We present a co-produced social science research agenda on marine conservation philanthropy that reflects the priorities of 106 marine conservation donors, practitioners, and stakeholders who participated in a research co-design process in 2018. These “research co-designers” raised 137 unique research questions, which we grouped into five thematic research priorities: outcomes, governance roles, exits, internal foundation governance, and funding landscape. We identify issues of legitimacy, justice, and applied best practice as cross-cutting research priorities that came up throughout the five themes. Participants from the NGO, foundation, and government sectors identified questions within all five themes and three cross-cutting issues, underscoring shared interest in this work from diverse groups. The research we call for herein can inform the practice of conservation philanthropy at a time when foundations are increasingly reckoning with their role as institutions of power in society. This paper is broadly relevant for social and natural scientists, practitioners, donors, and policy-makers interested in better understanding private philanthropy in any environmental context globally

Integrating social science into conservation planning

A growing body of literature has highlighted the value of social science for conservation, yet the diverse approaches of the social sciences are still inconsistently incorporated in conservation initiatives. Building greater capacity for social science integration in conservation requires frameworks and case studies that provide concrete guidance and specific examples. To address this need, we have developed a framework aimed at expanding the role for social science in formal conservation planning processes. Our framework illustrates multiple ways in which social science research can contribute to four stages of such processes: 1) defining the problem and project team; 2) defining goals; 3) identifying impact pathways and designing interventions; and 4) developing and evaluating indicators of success (or failure). We then present a timely case study of wolf reintroduction in Colorado, U.S.A., to demonstrate the opportunities, challenges, and complexities of applying our framework in practice

Co-productive agility and four collaborative pathways to sustainability transformations

Co-production, the collaborative weaving of research and practice by diverse societal actors, is argued to play an important role in sustainability transformations. Yet, there is still poor understanding of how to navigate the tensions that emerge in these processes. Through analyzing 32 initiatives worldwide that co-produced knowledge and action to foster sustainable social-ecological relations, we conceptualize ‘co-productive agility’ as an emergent feature vital for turning tensions into transformations. Co-productive agility refers to the willingness and ability of diverse actors to iteratively engage in reflexive dialogues to grow shared ideas and actions that would not have been possible from the outset. It relies on embedding knowledge production within processes of change to constantly recognize, reposition, and navigate tensions and opportunities. Co-productive agility opens up multiple pathways to transformation through: (1) elevating marginalized agendas in ways that maintain their integrity and broaden struggles for justice; (2) questioning dominant agendas by engaging with power in ways that challenge assumptions, (3) navigating conflicting agendas to actively transform interlinked paradigms, practices, and structures; (4) exploring diverse agendas to foster learning and mutual respect for a plurality of perspectives. We explore six process considerations that vary by these four pathways and provide a framework to enable agility in sustainability transformations. We argue that research and practice spend too much time closing down debate over different agendas for change – thereby avoiding, suppressing, or polarizing tensions, and call for more efforts to facilitate better interactions among different agendas

Co-productive agility and four collaborative pathways to sustainability transformations

Co-production, the collaborative weaving of research and practice by diverse societal actors, is argued to play an important role in sustainability transformations. Yet, there is still poor understanding of how to navigate the tensions that emerge in these processes. Through analyzing 32 initiatives worldwide that co-produced knowledge and action to foster sustainable social-ecological relations, we conceptualize ‘co-productive agility’ as an emergent feature vital for turning tensions into transformations. Co-productive agility refers to the willingness and ability of diverse actors to iteratively engage in reflexive dialogues to grow shared ideas and actions that would not have been possible from the outset. It relies on embedding knowledge production within processes of change to constantly recognize, reposition, and navigate tensions and opportunities. Co-productive agility opens up multiple pathways to transformation through: (1) elevating marginalized agendas in ways that maintain their integrity and broaden struggles for justice; (2) questioning dominant agendas by engaging with power in ways that challenge assumptions, (3) navigating conflicting agendas to actively transform interlinked paradigms, practices, and structures; (4) exploring diverse agendas to foster learning and mutual respect for a plurality of perspectives. We explore six process considerations that vary by these four pathways and provide a framework to enable agility in sustainability transformations. We argue that research and practice spend too much time closing down debate over different agendas for change – thereby avoiding, suppressing, or polarizing tensions, and call for more efforts to facilitate better interactions among different agendas

Configuring the field of global marine biodiversity conservation

The article describes and analyzes the emergence of the field of global marine biodiversity conservation over the past fifteen years. We draw on collaborative research at international meetings, which we position as 'field' sites, places where diverse actors come together to negotiate the meaning and terms of global environmental governance and where that work is accessible and visible to researchers. Based on Collaborative Event Ethnography (CEE), a method developed to facilitate study of large meetings, we mobilize research from seven meetings since 2008 to describe the field of global marine biodiversity conservation, but more importantly to specify how that field has been configured. We identify practices of orchestration, narrative, performance, alliance, social objects, devices, and technologies, formal outcomes, and formal procedures, and their use at three phases of field configuration: building, framing, and bounding. The results: 1) enhance our understanding of the role of international conferences in global environmental governance generally, and for marine biodiversity conservation specifically; 2) demonstrate the relevance of field and field configuration theory; 3) contribute to theory on institutional fields by specifying practices of field configuration

Does Polycentricity Fit? Linking Social Fit With Polycentric Governance In a Large-Scale Marine Protected Area

Scholars have theorized that polycentricity may produce benefits that promote effective, sustainable governance of complex social-ecological systems. Yet, little empirical research exists exploring whether and how these benefits emerge and what additional outcomes polycentric governance systems produce. This paper presents an empirical examination of Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (PMNM), one of the longest-standing and largest marine protected areas in the world. Monument governance is structured as a polycentric system, including semi-autonomous decision-making groups and governance actors that interact across jurisdiction, geography, and decision-making levels. Through analysis of qualitative empirical data, we explore whether and how PMNM functions as theory predicts, with a particular focus on social fit and how it has evolved over time. Findings indicate that PMNM largely exhibits social fit for governance actors, and they add empirical support and additional nuance to theoretical understandings of functional polycentricity. Specifically, the case suggests additional contextual features that might promote social fit, including sufficient time and resources, clear communication and shared understanding, and socially astute and strategically savvy governance actors holding key governance positions. The article demonstrates that social fit can increase or decrease over time, and that different actors may perceive its presence and extent differently. These findings suggest avenues for additional research into how the enabling conditions of polycentric governance systems and the contextual features that enliven those systems in practice may interact and affect functionality and other outcomes