A multi-level perspective on conserving with communities: Experiences from upper tributary watersheds in montane mainland Southeast Asia

Abstract

Many of the critical tensions around conservation with people in upper tributary watersheds involve challenges of scale. Ecosystem goods and services derived from these watersheds are frequently used and valued by people at several different spatial levels, making these resources difficult to manage effectively without taking cross-level interactions into account. A multi-level perspective allows a more nuanced understanding of the governance challenges in conservation. Rather than assuming that the correct and best levels are known, we look at how discourses and social practices privilege certain levels over others and help shape the way decisions are made.A multi-level perspective also helps explain why the expectations of different actors are hard to satisfy, and why projects are often perceived as failures by some but not all actors. Some of the differences are a result of looking at the system from different levels, others are the result of the failure to acknowledge important crosslevel interactions, and yet others arise from over-reliance on single-level theories. An improved understanding of scale-related politics in conservation creates opportunities for evolving more appropriate institutions to the challenges at hand.

Identifying the strengths and weaknesses of conservation planning at different scales: the Coral Triangle as a case study

“…Ecology and Society 24(4): 24 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol24/iss4/art24/ The greater scalar coverage achieved with higher level plans could be a reflection of the hierarchical scales that relate to management, social networks, and knowledge (Cash et al 2006), with higher levels inherently containing within them all entities at lower levels (e.g., Lebel et al 2008). Moreover, national institutions are supposed to be designed to include and affect factors relevant to lower levels (e.g., flows of capital, economic policies).…”

“…Effective governance is an essential constituent of successful conservation (characterized for example by institutional fit and scale, adaptiveness and learning, coproduction of diverse knowledge; see Armitage et al 2012), and it is likely that governance systems possessing different characteristics will inherently better address different SES levels (Termeer et al 2010). A more explicit understanding of governance systems operating at different levels could reveal Ecology and Society 24(4): 24 https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol24/iss4/art24/ insights into how the scalar coverage of conservation plans can be influenced from a multilevel perspective (e.g., Lebel et al 2008).…”

Actors and strategies in translating global conservation narratives to Vietnam: An agency perspective

“…Although there is a growing interest in multi-level governance in the nature management domain, surprisingly little research has been conducted on agency. The literature on protected areas (PA) management is mainly focussed on institutional prescriptions (Armitage, 2008 1 ; Barrett, Lee, & McPeak, 2005;Hayes, 2006;Ostrom, 1990) and dominated by the common property theory (Berkes, 2002;Ostrom, 1990), political ecology (Armitage, 2008;Lebel, Daniel, Badenoch, Garden, & Imamura, 2008), and social-ecological systems and resilience research (Folke, Hahn, Olsson, & Norberg, 2005;Treves, Holland, & Brandon, 2005). These approaches privilege structures and institutions over an explicit focus on individuals and their actions.…”

Towards integrated governance for water, health and social–ecological systems: The watershed governance prism

“…This includes the reciprocal relationships between the quality and quantity of water resources and human health and well-being, and the complex processes of social learning and geopolitical dynamics that characterize different levels of watershed management (Ison et al, 2007;Lebel et al, 2008). It is this reciprocity -that tends to play itself out on a watershed basis (via eutrophication, flooding) -that makes watershed governance so important.…”

“…Some watershed-based organisations have the authority to plan, promote and enforce their plans, while others operate on strictly an advisory capacity (MA, 2005). Where watersheds do not correspond to jurisdictional boundaries, they provide an explicit link between upstream and downstream activities within and between multiple jurisdictions and even countries, and highlight the need for transparent and ethical arrangements that reflect their multi-level and multi-scale nature (Falkenmark and Folke, 2002;Lebel et al, 2008).…”