Governance structures for social-ecological systems: Assessing institutional options against a social residual claimant

Abstract

Rural areas face increasing pressures to deliver both private and public goods from land management. Multiple stakeholders seek different outcomes; and there is substantial heterogeneity in values. Trade-offs, synergies and complementarities exist between different services and alternative bundles of goods. The resulting complex socialecological systems (SES) therefore require adaptive co-management. In a governance context, no single organisation has oversight across the variety of interests involved, but the challenge remains as to how these interests can best be balanced and negotiated, to deliver socially beneficial outcomes. This paper analyses how this might be achieved by considering the perspective of a 'social residual claimant' (SRC). The SRC, as an ideal type, represents the ultimate 'owner' or steward of an ecosystem which sets the criteria to assess alternative outcomes, identifying best approaches and promoting resilience through adaptive management. A SRC cannot be a static construct, but must interact with and influence private land-holders and other stakeholders, adjusting actions as circumstances change. We identify the criteria that would be required in order for an SRC to act in the best interests of society. We then make a comparison of these criteria against the conditions applying in three contrasting approaches currently operating in the UK: National Parks Landscape Partnerships and Nature Improvement Areas. This enables us to identify the differences between approaches and to suggest changes that could enhance capabilities, as well as ideas for further research. We suggest that the ideal of an SRC offers a simple method of benchmarking that has potential application across a wider range of different local contexts, beyond the UK.Response to Reviewers: Reviewer #1 1. … Thus, my major suggestion would be to clarify what they mean. And I think what they mean with the SRC is likely quite close to the idea of a bridging organization (or network administrative organizations, a policy platform, boundary organization, etc). Thus, either stick to one (or several) of these more established concepts, or more clearly explain how the SRC relate to these (and what makes it different). Response:We have substantially reworked the paper in order to explain more clearly the position of the SRC and why it is different from these other types of organisation.2. The really interesting research questions, as I see it, it to try to figure out if and how governance, as an inclusive approach to government, can succeed it that. To move beyond simple assertions of the value of governance to more critically examine how to make governance arrangement effective. That research agenda includes focusing on different 'venues' for co-management (or collaborations) -such as the studied three cases in this paper. Thus, I find the assessment of the seven criteria for these organization useful and interesting (although, again, I would not expect that any one actor would and should fulfill all of them). And worth publ...

Role of local communities in the social network of the protected area management

“…The popular actors in the QNP social network, and consequently those more integrated in the system, are the QNP managers, some NGOs, and the district government. The absence of a single authority figure in the network evidences decentralization and integration of the various stakeholder groups (Dwyer & Hodge, 2016), which is a positive feature. However, the very low average bidirectionality (5%) in this network demonstrates that greater efforts at integration are needed.…”

AES presidential address, 2021: Policy analysis for rural resilience—Expanding the toolkit

“…This analysis needs to incorporate institutional, behavioural and judicial theory as well as business understanding, to help support and facilitate a new land‐based, climate‐proof and sustainable policy agenda, and, importantly, a capacity for policy learning. Agricultural economics should be able to provide policy‐makers with evidence and ideas to give them the confidence to change formerly entrenched and overly centralised ways of working, in this arena (Dwyer & Hodge, 2016; Hodge, 2016; House of Commons EFRA Committee, 2021).…”

Focus rural land policies on ecosystem services, not agriculture

“…An example is provided by the case of Kristianstads Vattenrike, a river basin in Sweden of over 1,000 km 2 , which has been designated as a Biosphere Reserve. The area provides a broad range of ecosystem services and is managed by a municipal organisation that adopts an adaptive approach, working in collaboration with farmers, conservation organisations, local businesses and others 47 One possible model is that of National Park Authorities (NPAs) in Great Britain 54,55 where the land is privately owned and managed and where there are substantial local populations working and residing within park boundaries. NPA members are drawn from local communities but NPAs receive national funding and are required to follow national procedures and guidelines.…”