Advancing understanding of natural resource governance: a post-Ostrom research agenda

Cumming, Graeme S.; Epstein, Graham; Anderies, John M.; Apetrei, Cristina I.; Baggio, Jacopo A.; Bodin, Örjan; Chawla, Sivee; Clements, Hayley S.; Cox, Michael; Egli, Lukas; Gurney, Georgina G.; Lubell, Mark; Magliocca, Nicholas R.; Morrison, Tiffany H.; Müller, Birgit; Seppelt, Ralf; Schlüter, Maja; Unnikrishnan, Hita; Villamayor-Tomás, Sergio; Weible, Christopher M.

doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2020.02.005

Cited by 88 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 75 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…processes directly affecting nature, land/sea‐use change, direct exploitation, climate change, pollution, invasive species, etc., Brondízio et al, 2019; Díaz et al., 2015). In particular, our focus must include indirect drivers (including formal and informal institutions, such as norms, values, rules and governance systems, demographic and sociocultural factors, and economic and technological factors, Brondízio et al, 2019; Cumming et al., 2020; Díaz et al., 2015), which structure economic activities and propel direct drivers. It is well known—for instance—that a safe climate and a healthy biosphere require profound changes to direct drivers, such as phasing out fossil fuels or halting deforestation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humanity is on a deeply unsustainable trajectory. We are exceeding planetary boundaries and unlikely to meet many international sustainable development goals and global environmental targets. Until recently, there was no broadly accepted framework of interventions that could ignite the transformations needed to achieve these desired targets and goals. As a component of the IPBES Global Assessment, we conducted an iterative expert deliberation process with an extensive review of scenarios and pathways to sustainability, including the broader literature on indirect drivers, social change and sustainability transformation. We asked, what are the most important elements of pathways to sustainability? Applying a social–ecological systems lens, we identified eight priority points for intervention (leverage points) and five overarching strategic actions and priority interventions (levers), which appear to be key to societal transformation. The eight leverage points are: (1) Visions of a good life, (2) Total consumption and waste, (3) Latent values of responsibility, (4) Inequalities, (5) Justice and inclusion in conservation, (6) Externalities from trade and other telecouplings, (7) Responsible technology, innovation and investment, and (8) Education and knowledge generation and sharing. The five intertwined levers can be applied across the eight leverage points and more broadly. These include: (A) Incentives and capacity building, (B) Coordination across sectors and jurisdictions, (C) Pre‐emptive action, (D) Adaptive decision‐making and (E) Environmental law and implementation. The levers and leverage points are all non‐substitutable, and each enables others, likely leading to synergistic benefits. Transformative change towards sustainable pathways requires more than a simple scaling‐up of sustainability initiatives—it entails addressing these levers and leverage points to change the fabric of legal, political, economic and other social systems. These levers and leverage points build upon those approved within the Global Assessment's Summary for Policymakers, with the aim of enabling leaders in government, business, civil society and academia to spark transformative changes towards a more just and sustainable world. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For developing mid-range theories (Meyfroidt et al 2018, Cumming et al 2020 for breeding SESs, further cases of different types of grains, legumes, fruit trees, and other crops would have to be analyzed and subsequently synthesized into a sectoral SESF for breeding systems. We propose further synthesis to produce such a sectoral SESF for the plant breeding sector; for the sake of brevity, we would call it "seed SESF".…”

Section: Mid-range Theories On Social-ecological Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward understanding the governance of varietal and genetic diversity

Gerullis¹,

Heckelei²,

Rasch³

2021

E&S

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Varietal and genetic diversity sustain modern agriculture and is provided by breeding systems. Failures in these systems may cause insufficient responses to plant diseases, which threatens food security. To avoid these failures, an understanding of the governance challenges in providing varietal and genetic diversity is required. Previous studies acknowledge the complexity of seed breeding, framing the discussion in terms of rivalry and excludability. We consider breeding systems as social-ecological systems that focus on activities that generate varietal and genetic diversity and their adaptive ability. We use an inductive approach based on qualitative methods combined with the social-ecological system framework (SESF) to depict how highly context-dependent German winter wheat breeding, multiplication, and farming activities are. Our results show that the challenges for governance lie in providing credible and symmetric information on variety performance to all actors. This is the means to steer actors into collective action by subcontracting, buying, or saving seed. Based on our application of the SESF to the German wheat breeding system, we propose to develop a more general, sectoral SESF for the sustainable governance of plant breeding by offering an adaptable template for analyses of seed systems in other contexts.

show abstract

“…Elinor Ostrom croyait dans les possibilités d'amélioration continue de la recherche sur les communs, à diverses échelles, à travers les échanges et enrichissements mutuels entre différents courants de pensée. Ainsi, certains auteurs proposent un agenda de recherche post-Ostrom : « rather than adding more variables, progress requires a cleaner, more consistent approach to selecting, defining and measuring institutional elements ; stronger links between theory and empirical research ; a greater focus on mechanisms and causality ; and the development and application of new methods, including quantitative approaches » (Cumming et al, 2020). par les différents ayants droit, (ii) des règles d'usage concordantes avec le contexte socio-écologique local, (iii) des espaces de choix collectifs coutumiers efficients, (iv) un système d'auto-surveillance, (v) un système de sanctions graduelles suffisamment dissuasives, (vi) des mécanismes de résolution des conflits.…”

Section: Méthodologie Et Cadre Conceptuel De L'étudeunclassified