Environmental governance theories: a review and application to coastal systems

This article synthesizes and compares environmental governance theories. For each theory we outline its main tenets, claims, origin, and supporting literature. We then group the theories into focused versus combinatory frameworks for comparison. The analysis resonates with many types of ecosystems; however, to make it more tangible, we focus on coastal systems. First, we characterize coastal governance challenges and then later link salient research questions arising from these challenges to the theories that may be useful in answering them. Our discussion emphasizes the usefulness of having a diverse theoretical toolbox, and we argue that if governance analysts are more broadly informed about the theories available, they may more easily engage in open-minded interdisciplinary collaboration. The eight theories examined are the following: polycentricity, network governance, multilevel governance, collective action, governmentality (power / knowledge), adaptive governance, interactive governance theory (IGT), and evolutionary governance theory (EGT). Polycentricity and network governance both help examine the links or connections in governance processes. Polycentricity emphasizes structural configurations at a broader level, and network governance highlights agency and information flow within and between individuals or organizations. Collective action theory is helpful for examining community level governance, and helps analyze variables hindering or enabling self-organization and shared resource outcomes. In contrast, multilevel governance helps understand governance integration processes between localities, regions, and states across administrative, policy, or legal dimensions. Governmentality is helpful for understanding the role of discourse, power, knowledge, and narratives in governance, such as who creates them and who becomes governed by them with what effect. Adaptive governance helps analyze the links between context, change, and resilience. IGT helps examine the interdependencies between the systems being governed and the governing systems. EGT is helpful for unpacking how coevolutionary processes shape governance and the options for change

Aquaculture governance: five engagement arenas for sustainability transformation

A greater focus on governance is needed to facilitate effective and substantive progress toward sustainability transformations in the aquaculture sector. Concerted governance efforts can help move the sector beyond fragmented technical questions associated with intensification and expansion, social and environmental impacts, and toward system-based approaches that address interconnected sustainability issues. Through a review and expert-elicitation process, we identify five engagement arenas to advance a governance agenda for aquaculture sustainability transformation: (1) setting sustainability transformation goals, (2) cross-sectoral linkages, (3) land–water–sea connectivity, (4) knowledge and innovation, and (5) value chains. We then outline the roles different actors and modes of governance can play in fostering sustainability transformations, and discuss action items for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to operationalize activities within their engagement arenas

Habitat management for birds of Alabama /

"Performed for Eastern Energy and Land Use Team, Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior."FWS/OBS-81/39.3.Includes bibliographical references (leaves 50-51).Mode of access: Internet

Habitat management for birds of Pennsylvania /

"Performed for Eastern Energy and Land Use Team, Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior."FWS/OBS-81/39.1.Includes bibliographical references (leaves 43-45).Mode of access: Internet

A review of urban ecosystem services: six key challenges for future research

Global urbanization creates opportunities and challenges for humanwell-being and transition towards sustainability. Urban areas are human-environment systems that depend fundamentally on ecosystems, and thus require an understanding of the management of urban ecosystem services to ensure sustainable urban planning. The purpose of this study is to provid easy stematic review of urban ecosystem sservices research, which addresses the combined domain of ecosystem services and urban development. We examined emerging trends and gaps in how urban ecosystem services are conceptualized in peer-reviewed case study literature, including the geographical distribution ofresearch,the development and use of the urban ecosystem services concept,and thei nvolvement of stakeholders. We highlight six challenges aimed at strengthening the concept's potential to facilitate meaningful inter-and transdis ciplinary work for ecosystem services research and planning. Achieving a cohesive conceptual approach in ther esearch field will address(i)the need for more extensive spatial and contextual coverage,(ii) continual clarification of definitions, (iii)recognition of limited datat ransferability,(iv)more comprehensive stakeholder involvement,(v)more integrated research efforts,and(vi)translation of scientific findings into actionable knowledge,feeding information back into planning and management.We conclude with recommendations for conducting further research while incorporating these challenges

Five social science intervention areas for ocean sustainability initiatives

Ocean sustainability initiatives – in research, policy, management and development – will be more effective in delivering comprehensive benefits when they proactively engage with, invest in and use social knowledge. We synthesize five intervention areas for social engagement and collaboration with marine social scientists, and in doing so we appeal to all ocean science disciplines and non-academics working in ocean initiatives in industry, government, funding agencies and civil society. The five social intervention areas are: (1) Using ethics to guide decision-making, (2) Improving governance, (3) Aligning human behavior with goals and values, (4) Addressing impacts on people, and (5) Building transdisciplinary partnerships and co-producing sustainability transformation pathways. These focal areas can guide the four phases of most ocean sustainability initiatives (Intention, Design, Implementation, Evaluation) to improve social benefits and avoid harm. Early integration of social knowledge from the five areas during intention setting and design phases offers the deepest potential for delivering benefits. Later stage collaborations can leverage opportunities in existing projects to reflect and learn while improving impact assessments, transparency and reporting for future activities