Trust, confidence, and equity affect the legitimacy of natural resource governance

Abstract

ABSTRACT. Social-ecological systems are often highly complex, making effective governance a considerable challenge. In large, heterogeneous systems, hierarchical institutional regimes may be efficient, but effective management outcomes are dependent on stakeholder support. This support is shaped by perceptions of legitimacy, which risks being undermined where resource users are not engaged in decision-making. Although legitimacy is demonstrably critical for effective governance, less is known about the factors contributing to stakeholders' perceptions of legitimacy or how these perceptions are socially differentiated. We quantitatively assessed stakeholder perceptions of legitimacy (indicated by support for rules) and their contributory factors among 307 commercial fishers and tourism operators in Australia's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Legitimacy was most strongly associated with trust in information from governing bodies, followed by confidence in institutional performance and the equity of management outcomes. Legitimacy differed both within and among resource user groups, which emphasizes the heterogeneous nature of commonly defined stakeholder groups. Overall, tourism operators perceived higher legitimacy than did commercial fishers, which was associated with higher trust in information from management agencies. For fishers, higher levels of trust were associated with: (1) engagement in fisheries that had high subsector cohesion and positive previous experiences of interactions with governing bodies; (2) location in areas with greater proximity to sources of knowledge, resources, and decision-making; and (3) engagement in a Reef Guardian program. These findings highlight the necessity of strategies and processes to build trust among all user groups in large social-ecological systems such as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Furthermore, the social differentiation of perceptions that were observed within user groups underscores the importance of targeted strategies to engage groups that may not be heard through traditional governance channels.

Environmental governance: A practical framework to guide design, evaluation, and analysis

“…We suggest that it is important to engage with all four objectives simultaneously as there can be interactions -both synergies and trade-offs -between them. For example, equity (in decision-making processes or outcomes) can support perceptions of legitimacy and thus the robustness of institutions (Bennett, 2016;Ostrom, 1999;Turner et al, 2016). Similarly, effectiveness relies on the responsiveness of institutions to changing environmental and social conditions (Weeks & Jupiter, 2013) and the flexibility of environmental governance models to fit or match diverse contexts (Epstein et al, 2015;Sarkki, Rantala, & Karjalainen, 2015).…”

Advances in monitoring the human dimension of natural resource systems: an example from the Great Barrier Reef

“…In sum, these measures describe the current social-cultural context within which behaviours are observed and decisions are made. As a (un-analysed) baseline record, the data presented provides opportunities for specific input into policy processes and day-to-day management decisions (Turner et al 2016). For example, in the development of the current Whitsunday Plan of Management (a key tourism area within the Reef), Reef managers can relatively accurately gauge the number of residents and recreational fishers, tourism operators and domestic and international tourists, and commercial fishers.…”

“…Through accessing publically available and longitudinal datasets, such as the SELTMP, local and global social scientists can provide new insights through re-interpreting the data in novel ways. For example, Turner et al (2016) have reinterpreted the data to assess how trust, confidence and equity affect legitimacy. Goldberg et al (2016) similarly reviewed the data to more fully describe the response of Australians to climate change.…”

Addressing equity in community forestry: lessons from 20 years of implementation in Cameroon

“…Although discussions about global environmental governance reflect the centrality of equity to just and sustainable outcomes, equity and its components are still not clearly defined (McDermott et al 2013). Equity in the context of resource management has been previously discussed by Mahanty et al (2006), McDermott (2009a, McDermott et al (2013), and Turner et al (2016). Equity is linked to a fair share among stakeholders of socioeconomic benefits derived from resource management.…”

“…Despite the latter support and efforts by the government to develop the concept, its impact on local democracy, equity, living standards, poverty alleviation, social vulnerability, and environmental sustainability remains weak (Oyono et al 2007). On the other hand, who gets what from community-based resources management as in community forestry is increasingly highlighted as a key issue in the international literature (Mahanty et al 2006, McDermott 2009a, Maryudi et al 2012, Turner et al 2016. Wong et al (2016) claimed that equity consideration in the design of policies regarding forest resource management can have a positive impact on the results of these policies.…”